Prepare an AS/CR comparing and contrasting John Hick’s “Religious Pluralism and Ultimate Reality” and Alvin Plantinga’s “Pluralism: A Defense of Religious Exclusivism” (link to the Plantinga article is in your syllabus for Week 4)
In order to do this assignment, you need to summarize both arguments in the AS portion of the assignment in 100 words for Hick and 100 words for Plantinga (10% variance still applies).
Then, for the CR, you will need to say if you agree with either Hick or with Plantinga, or neither, and you must then provide thoughtful, logical, good reasons for your position (as discussed in the Grading Rubric), and you must do this in 100 words or less. So, you might start the CR portion of the assignment by making a clear statement such as,
“After comparing and contrasting Hick and Plantinga, I find that I agree or disagree with Hick/Plantinga/ or neither, for the following reasons.” Then, state your reasons as economically as possible in 1., 2., 3. order. So, your CR would look very similar to this format:
After comparing and contrasting Hick and Plantinga’s arguments, I agree/disagree with Hick/Plantinga for the following reasons:
Last reminder, for all AS/CR Assignments going forward, remember to include the word count for the AS & CE as follows:
At the core of this narration is the fact that the nature of enforcement of Islamic tenets in the length and breadth of the Empire kept shifting with time. Although Islam and the Ottoman Empire were inseparable, since the very foundation of the Empire was Islamic, the actual manner in which Islam was enforced in the Empire varied in relation to time and geographical space. The pattern in which Islam was enforced altered from that of a brutal version at the beginning of the Empire to one that moderated greatly as the decades and centuries progressed. In other words, the dispensation shifted from Jihad to Dhimma.  The nature and reasons for this metamorphosis forms the heart of the paper. Moreover, Islam in its unadulterated form could not be enforced in a monolithic, homogeneous fashion in all the centuries of Ottoman rule, because the territories they governed were vast and disparate. In view of this complex scenario, this paper, due to the severe constraint of space, takes up only two important aspects of Islam that were more or less a constant in the Empire as it grew –the treatment of non-Muslim subjects, and of women. In these, an overwhelmingly large part is devoted to the former, because administration enjoyed greater primacy, while the latter is referred to in passing. On account of this dearth of space, a unique element of the Ottoman Islamic military, the Janissaries, is left out. Part III: Discussion: The ascendancy to power of the Ottomans took place in the backdrop of the waning of authority of the Seljuk dynasty, the dominant power of Asia Minor until then. In the given situation, since the political situation was very volatile, and opportunity was afforded to building an empire to one who succeeded in this unstable milieu, what was needed was brute force to achieve these ends. The period saw a novelty –the formation of a band of savage and predatory men calling themselves the Ghazis. Fanatically dedicated to Islam, these warriors derived their authority from the Islamic notion of Jihad –Holy War. The earliest Ottomans were typical examples of Ghazis. This concept enabled the Ottomans, who till then had been an insignificant vassal of the Seljuk dynasty, to now establish their authority in the region. This is how the establishment of the Ottoman Empire was based entirely on a primitive interpretation of and resort to militant Islam. (Turnbull, 2003, p. 10) From these beginnings, over the years, the Ottomans displayed towards non-Muslim subjects a sense of tolerance that would put Europe to shame. During the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, when events such as the Inquisitions were becoming milestones in Europe’s history, the Jews found refuge in the Ottoman Empire. This was the predominant destination to which the persecuted Jews milled, and were able to practice their way of life without any hindrance. A Hapsburg ambassador in the court of Suleiman the Magnificent had this to say about the Ottoman Sultan’s attitude towards his empire’s non-Muslim subjects: It is by merit that men rise in the service, a system which insures that posts should be assigned to the competent . . . . They do not believe that high qualities are either natural or hereditary . . . , but that they are partly the gift of God, and partly the result of good training, great industry, and . . . zeal . . . . Honors, high posts and judgeships are the rewards of great ability and good service. This is the reason that they are successful in their undertakings. (Levy, 1992, p. 15) Reasons for the change in attitude: Some major reasons can be attributed for this benign treatment of these subjects. As inheritors of the pristine tenets of Islam, these rulers considered Christian and Jewish people their theological predecessors; on account of this, although the Koran was considered the final and purest revelation, the same Koran, the ultimate fountainhead of wisdom to the Muslims, also placed upon Muslim rulers an obligation to protect their non-Muslim subjects, under the covenant of the Dhimma. (Levy, 1992, pp. 15, 16) For this protection, these subjects had to pay a tax, and were required to live under some restrictions, such as acceptance of Muslim superiority, being banned from riding animals that Muslims rode, and being made to wear distinguishing dresses or badges. (Lewis, 1982, p. 5) Other restrictions included being obliged to build houses lower than those of Muslims, being proscribed from residing in the neighbourhood of a mosque, and allocation of the place of dispute resolution between minorities. (Göçek , 1996, p. 35) However, essentially, as pointed out by Lewis (1982), d>GET ANSWER