Limits of Multiculturalism

borivilli:

Lala Rajpat Rai was an arya samaji.

masadi saheb:

"Now please list your sources for your "guru hate" related understanding of Jizya. "

I am sure you do not want me to cut-and-paste what is P.S. available through google. I have not studied jazia in a scholarly way and my understanding is based on what I have come across in the media and especially on chowk during the last several years where this topic comes up every now and then. Unfortunately, I do not maintain an archive of everything I have read. In any case, I said that I have never seen anywhere that some non-muslims are exempted from jazia; so how can I produce something that I have not seen?

You are telling us that jazia is, in fact, zakat by another name. Both are related to income. This is, quite frankly, radically different from what I have read. As I said before, my understanding has been that zakat is based on a concept of piety and the ability to pay whereas jazia is a kind of protection money based on one's relgion, in other words two very different concepts.

P.S. I am experiencing a bad eye and won't be back to the computer until it is cured.

Regards and thanks for engaging me.

dost mittar
u are right, i read that gandhi had managed to unite hindus and muslims in the khilafat movement because he supported the muslims in their demand for khalifa in turkey (he was like the pope for mulims) but right wing hindus were emotional , and people say muslims are emotional, they thought muslims supporting khalifa is extra loyalty so some of them in punjab arya samaji,mahasabha, started shudhi, they converted some poor muslim malkana rajput and , gujjars and jats number was not large but big publicity this made muslims who supported gandhi look like fools and then they started sangathan boycotting muslim laborers and shopkeepers driving them out of buiness in jalandhar, multan, lahore,amritsar so the muslims launched tabligh and tanzeem movement.

and i dont know if lala lajpat rai was arya samaj or not but he first time supported division of punjab and india into muslim india and non muslim india he wanted punjab upto rawalpindi in india and muslims kicked out. at thait time quaid azam was fighting for united india, he even gave the offer of removing seperate electorates to hindus twice, in exchange for acknowledging muslim majority in bengal and punjab, which muslims had anyway but motilal led congress rejected under hindu mahasabha influence rejected


even in 1946 cabinet mission plan was rejected by gandhi and nehru for a strong center though quaid accepted it. so hindus not blameless in partition drama

In #265 read " History of Muslim rulers and what they practices is no "source book" of Islam." as

History of Muslim rulers and what they practiced is no "source book" of Islam.

#240 dm writes "So, jazia is not to be imposed upon those who do not pick up arms against the Muslims?"

In that verse the context makes clear that it is talking about "compensation" Jizya, for war related damages. Compensation is required for services rendered and not where a debt is owed to the person by the state (as is the case with the categories of those that receive Zakat). That is the justice principle, regardless of faith that is emphasised in the Quran. Now please list your sources for your "guru hate" related understanding of Jizya. History of Muslim rulers and what they practices is no "source book" of Islam.

Kaal:

"n one sentence we are dismissing and denoucing all faith-based systems, all of Pakistan, all of Khalsa...."

Once again, I find it hard to decipher your chakra-view.

dm sahib, ab main kya kah sakta hoon, except that that is such a regrettable view!

In one sentence we are dismissing and denoucing all faith-based systems, all of Pakistan, all of Khalsa....

hey ram...can anything be more offensive to ANYONE than suich criticsm of the Shuddhi movement? Will this criticism win us friends and lovers, and should we, or anyone even want those sort of friends and lovers?

Kaal:

Here is my problem with the "shudhi" movement.

First, the word shudhi means that those who had become Muslims were somehow dirty and need to be cleansed of their malechha dirt. This is no way to win friend and influence people.

If they had just said that they are willing to accept any Muslim or Christian to join their fold, I would have no problem with it.

And the movement failed in its own objectives, as it was bound to be. But while it failed to win any converts or reverts, it did succeed in contributing to the communal tension in the country.

bori bhai, I completely and totally disagree with my respected dost-mittar sahib.

Never understood the problem with shuddhi. It is a great move, to be supported by all. Those who oppose it are either evil, hypocrites and plain-old Hindu nuts.

In the meanwhile, please join us in discouraging, banning, and severely sanctioning all Hindu-Muslim socializing across gender lines.

Don't worry about arya samajis. They just lie. Or, they are instructed lie to Muslims, specifically. They have to do shuddhi by any means possible, love, sex, violence, threat, or simple deceit.

(by the way, bori bhai, if your Muslim nationalism was caused by arya samajis, then you are not a Muslim. You may be the Muslim of Hindu-liberal dreams, but you are not a Muslim on your own.)

Ananth07:

Yes, that's the name. Thanks.

Dear borivilli:

Let me lay to rest your concerns about my being arya samaji. I do have a few arya samaji relatives and I also know a few ardent arya samajis here. I find them to be Hindu wahabis and they are responsible for the division of my beloved Punjab. I also think that their shudhi movement caused a backlash among the Muslims and was one of the contributors to the development of Muslim nationalism that led to the division of India. So, there is no question of my liking them.

As I said earlier, I do know about Nargis and her children. I also know about Mumtaz but not about her marriage, except that recently I read some report about her daughter marrying one of the Khan actors, whose name I don't recall at the present time. I know that Subhash Ghai is a big producer of films but don't know much about his personal life, though I have no reason to doubt your facts.

As echoboom likes to say, bollywood is full of kanjars and they have no religion. My statement was based on general observation where most of the marriages involve Muslim men. But let me concede one point to you - in India, the children generally do adopt the religion of their fathers. I also would agree that I have no scientific statistical surveys to back my general observation.

teshah#224:

Kaal seems to be more knowledgeable in this area. But even the exogamy of castes seems to be breaking down. At least in the film industry, I have been reading about Kapoor marrying Kapoor. But then the film world goes by its own rules.

even if u are arya smaji why lie? that is a bad thing in all religions.

dost mittar u said:
:" In almost all cases of Hindu-Muslim marriages in India, children are raised as Muslims, despite all the whining about the difficulties faced by them in India."

I showed u four marriages of hindus with muslim women were women converted to hinduism and children were brought up as hindus. now if you dont know Mumtaz who used tocome in bollywood movies that is not my fault or subhash ghai or Nargis and sunil dutt.

secondly i showed to you that because of pressure of 80% hindu majority even muslim father with hindu mother children end up doing budh parasti in India for exmple salman khan and children of sharukh khan still u keep repeating you lines above are u Arya samaji? due u want to ro convert/ do shuddhi of all 15% muslims in India?

DM #223

Dude who supported hedonism was Charvaka

teshah ji, as far as I understand, the basic requirement is of gotra - one cannot marry within one's own gotra.

Gotra is one's genetic lineage (please don't ask me how they keep track of it :)). Subcaste etc were/are more cultural/ritutalistic in nature, a sort of common 'cultural/ritualistic' lineage (since every couple of people get together to make up their own cultural group).

So marriage was supposed to be outside of biological lineage but within the cultural one.

Don't know how effective both these concepts still are. The stranglehold of caste is surely breaking up, but people may still be keen to marry outside of their gotra.

Re: # 230

Masadi

What kind of Islam it is which you are pontifying? As far as I know, there is no concept of 'state', state services, military services, etc., in original Islam. Islam in practice today with police, taxation, professional careerist military service, all coercive apparatuses of the state has nothing to do with Islam as Quran says 'La hukmo Illa lillah' and 'La ikrah fiddin'.

Re: # 224

DM

"Yes, the Hindus looked down upon marrying even outside their sub castes, never mind caste or religion."

What is 'Got' then? I had learnt that Hindus were avers to marrying with near blood relations within their 'got' unlike Muslims who usually marry their cousins.

I was told by a friend that when he had asked a Hindu friend why their wives are so 'developed' when ours are so skinny he had said "Our wives are real wives, which are used well by us while yours (Muslim's) are your sisters".

Regards

Re: # 206

tahmed

"No doubt McCarthy would have had a heart attack if he had heard of Mazdakis. :-)"

I don't think so. What is 'group sex' after all? McCarthy must have been aware of it.

They say; one day when lights went on after a group-sex session a man cried out "Oh God! I have been fucking my own wife!"

Borivilli:

I know about Nargis and her children but none of the others you have mentioned. But I had already mentioned that there are exceptions. And some Muslim women marrying Hindu men without them first embracing Islam does not change the Islamic law.

lol, sanatani bhai, you are the limit. Hope no fellow Poonzabi takes offense. :)

dm, borivili_exp

That is why, let's save everyone a great deal of trouble, and totally stop Hindu-Muslim 'fraternizing' across gender lines. There isn't any good in it. Never was, never will be.

and u never heard of nargis dutt also whose chiildren are all mullahs?

dost mittar u have never heard of famous bolywood actress mumutaz who married Mayur, big bania from kenya and converted to hinduism,
u never heard of subhash ghai and wife the former rehana sultan of bollywood

what about famous producer rajiv rai and muslim wife sonam who also converted to hinduism

their children are all hindu and do puja

if you said that children take the religion of father then ok but if u say children of muslim hindu marriage are always muslim you are wrong and you are spreading lies like every other hindu here.

salman khan and sharukh khan's son are not muslim because they do puja, this is haram in islam. they may not be hindu but they are not by any definition muslim

Oye as a Panjabi,

I can say

UPites and Biharis like Dashameshwar (who is Bhagwanjee but for his own humility and the son of Bhgwanjee who in humility terms is even verse or worse) I am planning to sue them both are not Kuri maars like Poonzabis.

Maybe I will shoot pardesi (in Saradron ko Sikhi guru nehain samjha nahin payee to hum kya hai) Al Sardars are that only Sardars not Sikhs they would not understand Sikhi if it kicked them in their balls.

I think we need a repeat of 1984 to dissuade Sardars from Sikhi.

They can be ambassador, secretaries or Judges but not Sikhs.

They R incapable of being/handling what being a Sikh means and we should not tax their tiny brains amking them understand what Sikhi is.

Sardaron peeyon Sharaban te khao kukkad.

Warm Regards in the avtar u wish to live

Sanatani

Re: # 242

Dulle that is Y he is Bihari like Atal Bihar but Dashameshwar is Gobind Siha and not Gobind Singh.

Do not take the name the name/word of God in vain.

Jai Shree Sinha Gobind Sinha.

Sananatani

dulla, nothing wrong with Biharis and UPites (despite Beej's best attempts to convince himself and me otherwise), but somehow the (biased) image in my mind of the Last Guru was of a proud Punjabi!

Good to know that the the most gracious God is in His heaven, and we can maintain our biases. :)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#241
kaal, Guru Gobind singh was born in Patna but his father guru Tegh bahadur was a Punjabi (born in amritsar) and mother Gujjri (also Punjabi, daughter of Lal Chand of Kartarpur, Punjab). I believed he stayed in Patna for few years(?) before moving to Anandpur in Punjab along with his parents.

sanatani bhai, the most Punjabi or all Punjabis, the last Guru, was a Bihari?!! You are kidding us, right?

masadi sahib:


"it has one verse on Jizya and that is specifically talking about those that pick up arms against the Muslims and then are subdued"

So, jazia is not to be imposed upon those who do not pick up arms against the Muslims?

Masadi yaar, where I went to school they didn;t give out online diplomas in bullshit that you have framed on your wall. You dismiss the GGS as the source of someone's logic yet you bring in the quran. Both are idiotic..just like you are.

#227
Kal with ref.Previous posts
What debunk Kant rule is.Why should it be followed or met for the good
Kant is made out to be the best logic.
It means i dont deal with you and you dont deal with me.
Indeed Kant is a jungle rule where rich and powerfull rules

Re: # 147

O Genius,

Let us know what Dashameshwar borrowed from Isalm apart from an oppostion to Idol worship.

Maybe the Shivala or the Vichitra Natak or the Chandi Vrat.

Or maybe Sanskrit or Sava Lakh se ek laraun to Gobind Singh Naam kamaun.

Sanatani

P.S. If Gobind Sinha he is Sinha and not Singha as jee was born in Patna and is thus Bihari did oppose idol worship it was to make a mishtayk and appear Human otherwise he was god.

Of course and now, wait and see, even though the person has no evidence and I have provided ample both in source and reasoning, anything postive that comes out about Islam, pains these fools that is why they will try painfully to try all kinds of acrobatics (without source or knowledge) to impose their negative straw man on Islam. This is how bigotry works....

DM writes "As far as my understanding of the concept of Jaziya is concerned, it is mainly from the Islamic sources and chowk itself."

Which sources? Please reveal your "secret" sources. There is no "source" of Islam other than the Quran, it has one verse on Jizya and that is specifically talking about those that pick up arms against the Muslims and then are subdued, which makes it selective to begin with. Combine that with other verses of the Quran regarding the poor and the destitute to whom a "debt" is owed by the state, regardless of religion, and this tells you that the traditional generalization of Jizya is not only extra-Quranic it is illogical. Now to your sources.....I'm sure some "Guru hates" like the "pundit hates" will provide you with some. Regardless of your "neutral" posturing, your initial post, in which you were talking without any source or evidence, both in content and in presentation, would tell anyone that your claims to neutrality are mere BS.

masadi#228:
There is no need to bring the Gurus into this discussion. As far as I know, none of the Gurus talked about Jaziya, at least not in the holy scripture, although the latter Gurus did raise a revolt against the persecution of minorities.

As far as my understanding of the concept of Jaziya is concerned, it is mainly from the Islamic sources and chowk itself. As far as I can remember, I have not seen anything in the Quran or in the hadith, which says that the jaziya applies selectively to non-muslims. However, it is quite possible that I may not recall such ayat/hadith. Hence, the question to you.

chaltahai writes "oooh the circular logic of using the quran to prove the quran starts again..Kaal..now just wait and see.. :-) "

I don't think this fool has a clue about what we are discussing. When you have nothing smart to say, it is best to shut up rather than show us how dimwitted you are, not to mention how badly it reflects on the school that was of such low standards that it gave you admission and the company that was foolish enough to employ your kind

Chalta writes" Yeah, the soviet union tried this islamic system of wealth distribution. they found out that it is against the very nature of humans"

There is no such thing as "nature of humans", it is all shaped by a much variable and often relative social structure. On the hand what would a, to quote thinkingstorm, "red assed baboon" know about "human nature"?

Yeah, the soviet union tried this islamic system of wealth distribution. they found out that it is against the very nature of humans.

Of course what constitues the surplus and what is legitimate "need" beyond which is surplus, has to be defined by the state, as is done the world over these days by the various measures that define the poverty line, most are crude and unrealistic like the India food line,others try to compensate for it like food times three as in the US which is also unrealistic, but determining it can be done with a fair level of accuracy if ulterior motives don't dictate its calculation.

Kaal writes "As you research the topic of zakat, could you also see if you can find out who was made incharge of distributing it"

The state receives and distributes it, the system for the retrieval and distribution of it is paid for by the Zakat money, it is self-sustaining, its purpose is to achieve a redistribution of Income. There is no fixed percentage, the Quran suggests a midway between spending all of the surplus and spending nothing of it as the justest division, which would be 50% of the surplus not 2.5%. Jizya is compensation, it is compensation for state services since the non Muslim is exempt from Zakat, the Quranic ayat that deals with it talks about it in the context of certain people, men who are of military age and are strong enough to bear arms. Which exempts women and children and the invalids. Compensation is given to the destitute in the Islamic system (regardless of religion) and not demanded from them, which exempts all the categories of Zakat receivers from paying Jizya.

oooh the circular logic of using the quran to prove the quran starts again..Kaal..now just wait and see.. :-)

dm writes "Is there an ayat or a hadith that supports the "surplus" theory? "

Before I start pontificating from the Quran, regarding "surplus", and I assure you there is such a verse, let me ask you where YOUR ideas about the non exempt Jizya regardless of financial position, second-rate citizenry etc comes from. If you don't have a source and are relying on "Guru Sahib", then this debate can end here and now.

tolki bhai, here is the great dilemma that you will appreciate. People who lose because of the failure of the kant test want to, understandably, break out of it. But the same people when they benefit from the failure of the kant test will want to maintain and enforce it at all costs!

I think if one understands THAT one understands a great deal of natural urges of mankind.

#224
Fail to harp but lets me get to the bottom
B/c some hindu men/women due to failure of Kante test within there own comunity want out but cant b/c of Kant compling test of hindu.She /he is caught between a rock and hard place .Only universal law and constitutin gives release to lower caste and desiring men &women to break the shackles from this.

dm sahib, masadi bhai

As you research the topic of zakat, could you also see if you can find out who was made incharge of distributing it, among whom, and in what proportions, if any specified. Thanks.

Tolkinin:

I do agree with what you say. Yes, the Hindus looked down upon marrying even outside their subcastes, never mind caste or religion. But they did pass the Kant test; namely, they did not expect people of other religion to do any differently to them than they did to those of the other religion.

I think, however, that the Brahmins did not pass that test vis-a-vis other castes. A Brahmin was allowed to mate with a woman of lower caste but not the other way round.

kaalchakra#218:

I do agree about the non-confrontationist approach if you mean in a rebellious sort of way. However, from what I have read, there were vigorous debates on philosophical/metaphysical (I wouldn't call them religious) issues at the time of the Buddha. I believe these involved Buddha, Mahavir Jain, ajivikas and that dude who supported hedonism (the name escapes me as usual).

masadi#210:

"Wrong. Both are to be extracted from the "surplus"- regardless of income level"

Thanks. I would really like to know some more about this topic. From what I had read, zakat was to be 2.5% of one's income, with exemption for the destitute. Is there an ayat or a hadith that supports the "surplus" theory?

I would also appreciate it if you could refer me to an ayat or a hadith that says that poor non-muslims should be exempted from the payment of jaziya.

bulleya:

Here is a reality check on "enough is enough". Politicians are not leading, they are just following the opinion polls.

Most want limits on demands of immigrants
Only 18 per cent say minorities should be fully 'accommodated,' new poll shows
Chris Cobb, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Most Canadians want limits on accommodating the cultural demands of new immigrants and religious minorities, a poll to be released today suggests.

According to the poll, conducted last week by Ottawa-based SES research, only 18 per cent of Canadians say cultural and religious minorities should be totally accommodated in Canada, with 53 per cent saying immigrants should fully adapt to the Canadian way of life.

The remaining respondents fell somewhere in between.

Two out of three Canadians said that they have heard of the term "reasonable accommodation," which is at the centre of a debate that has raged in Quebec since the town of Hérouxville adopted a set of societal rules for immigrants who might want to settle there.

More than 90 per cent of Quebecers are aware of the term and are overwhelmingly opposed to accommodating minority cultures and religions. Only 5.4 per cent of respondents said reasonable accommodation reflected their views and 77 per cent said immigrants should adapt to Quebec and Canadian society.

Older Canadians tend to be less tolerant of reasonable accommodation of minorities. However, while they want limits, a significant number of Canadians of all ages hold more moderate views.

"A sizable portion of Canadians have a relatively fixed view of Canada and what it is," said SES president Nik Nanos yesterday.

"Part of that fixed view is a willingness to accommodate new Canadians, but not at the price of compromising what Canada really is.

"In Quebec, the message is loud and clear. They see Canada through the lens of two founding peoples, two founding language communities -- and anyone who comes to Canada should fit into that framework. They see this vision of two founding peoples being eroded."

Reasonable accommodation was a major issue in the Quebec election earlier this year, and the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, created by Premier Jean Charest to examine the issue, is receiving extensive media coverage in the province.

Ontario's election wrangling over public funding of faith-based schools is a variation of the debate in Quebec, Mr. Nanos said.

The majority of Quebecers, he added, have reached their limit of tolerance, but the poll results, and the faith-based school debate in Ontario, suggest the issue is going to spread to other provinces.

"In Quebec," he said, "people are saying, 'We want to accommodate new Canadians and minorities, but hold on a minute.' What we are seeing in the province is a build up of accommodation after accommodation after accommodation. It's reached a tipping point in Quebec and our leaders outside Quebec should be watching because it is coming to their neighbourhood."

The online poll was conducted among 1,083 Canadians (295 in Quebec) for the Quebec-based public policy magazine Policy Options. SES says the results are accurate to within three percentage points 19 times out of 20.

Roughly half of respondents say religious and cultural minorities should be accommodated "some of the time." About 22 per cent said they should be accommodated "most of the time." About 14 per cent said they shouldn't be accommodated at all, and 5.6 per cent said they should be accommodated all the time. The rest are unsure.
When respondents were asked whether prayer spaces should be provided free of charge in public places to accommodate religious minorities, 58.6 per cent of Canadians were "to greater or lesser degrees" opposed, with around 31 per cent in favour. In Quebec, more than 80 per cent were opposed to some degree.

SES asked respondents three separate questions to determine in what public venues Canadians might find accommodation of religious and cultural minorities acceptable.

In Canada as a whole, just 36.7 per cent said there should be no accommodation in places "like schools, hospitals and public buildings." Around six per cent said there should be full accommodation, and the rest were between those extremes. Nearly two out of three Quebec respondents said there should be zero accommodation, with just 1.7 per cent in favour of full accommodation.


About 45 per cent of Canadians were opposed to religious accommodation in the workplace (65 per cent of Quebecers were opposed), and the opposition was more intense when respondents were asked whether similar accommodation should be part of amateur sport and leisure activities.

Among Canadians as a whole, 48 per cent opposed that option; among Quebecers, 72 per cent were opposed. Only 1.7 per cent of Quebecers and 3.3 per cent of Canadians overall were totally in favour.

The issue first hit the headlines in late February when Nepean's Asmahan "Azzy" Mansour, 11 at the time, was ordered to remove her hijab or leave the field during a soccer tournament in Laval, Que.

Canadians in regions with fewer cultural and religious minorities were more inclined to favour accommodation than those in larger urban centres.

"It's because they're not dealing with the issue on a personal basis," Mr. Nanos said.

"(The poll) should be a bit of notice to Canadians that we're going to deal again with the vision of Canada as two founding peoples, or whether we have become a multicultural country where the two founding peoples are subsumed within that."

Re: # 216

Inter rascial marriages are rare considering percentage wise.A hindu is not suposed to marry out side the cast,Exception do happen.In both cases if marriage is forbidden for women to marry out side the caste e.g. Brahmin girl to Sudra and neither a sudra brahmin boy to sudra girl.Both muslims and Hindu marriages are protectd by indian constitution,
Nikah or Mandap is irrelivent for those who cross the border .
India is not Shariat based country so what koran says is only butt of joke
over played only in the media for the same reason
when there is 'fatwa' against crossing the caste line also but in both cases you can break the law and in both cases its an exception not the norm.And as any law there is excetions in both communities of breaking the law.

What I am suggesting is that we may be expecting Indian sages (including the greatest ones, such as the Buddha, Mahavira, Guru Nanak, Shankara, and others) to behave in un-Indian ways. They would NEVER have accepted that (clearly confrontrationist) approach, and would have called it fundamentally misguided in ultimately creating a dharmic society.

jang, dost-mittar sahib,

In India, within ourselves, and in recorded history, we have never had much of a (or significant) "confrontationist" religious approach, or religio-politics (the way you two have used the term here), until quite recently.

Would that be a fair assessment?

bhakti movement did not confront brahmins whatsoever and there were many brahmin-upper caste bhakti poets (e.g eknath). infact brahmins who were otherwise out of jobs due to the loss of royal patronage became gainfully employed performing ekadashi and satya narayan puja etc.

borivilli#214:

I chose my words carefully. Are you denying that Islam permits the marriage of Muslim men with Non-Muslim women (of the Book) but not the other way? The fact that some Muslims do not follow the rules does not change the rules themselves.

As for India, what I said only applies to Nikahs; the Maulvis would perform a nikah of Muslim men with Hindus but not the other way round; but anyone is free to go to the courts and apply for a marriage with anyone (so far of the opposite sex!).

As far Salman Khan, he is a Muslim despite his going to the temple. As for the others you mention, I do not know about the wife and children of the others you are referring to. And I did say "in almost all cases of Hindu-Muslim marriages", which means that exceptions are there.

anil#209:

"What I have never been able to understand did caste hierarchy - brahmin's - never challenged it, or how Bhakti movement was reconciled with caste hierarchy."

A good question!

My answer is that I don't think that the Bhakti movement challenged the brahmin hierarchy in a meaningful way and all this talk of their fighting the caste system is, to a large extent, give them retroactive credit for something that has now come to be regarded as an evil. This is true of Buddha, Nanak, Kabir and even Sufis. The occasional "pravachan" about rising above zaat-paat did not hurt the brahmins.

Talking of the Sikh Gurus, Nanak appointed a man of his own caste to be his successor who chose a man of the same caste to succeed him, and so on. None of them married outside their caste, which is what they would have done if they wanted to provide an example of breaking endogamy, the root of the caste system. Sikhs until the last century, including Maharaja Ranjit Singh, continued to use Brahmins for their janam-patris, picking auspicious occasions and performing various rituals. The real challenge to the caste hierarchy was mounted in the last century by people like Periyar and Ambedkar, and a secular state led by a Brahmin.

As for my ancestors, I do not think that they were very spiritual although my father was a devout Sikh; people showed them respect and made some offerings because one of them was perhaps close to a Sikh Guru.

Dost mittar says"Islam permits Muslims men marrying non-muslim women but not the other way round, because, when the parents die, the children and the succeeding generations would grow up as Muslims in the former case."

and then contradicts himself:" In almost all cases of Hindu-Muslim marriages in India, children are raised as Muslims, despite all the whining about the difficulties faced by them in India."

if islam disowns women who marry non muslims than how can their children be muslim.

and then provides a blanket statement whit his extensive empirical research. how about sonam converting to hinduism and Mumtaz and subhash ghais wife each of whom converted and their children raised as hindus even salman khan whose father was a muslim raised his son as a hindu who worships ganpati as did shahrukh whose house a hindu iols whose puja is haram in islam

but this dost mitter is full of gao muttar or chuttar:

tahmed32#

LOL! Next time I come to chowk, I will imbibe some spirits to make my presence spiritual.:)

DM, nb

The concept is very simple really - there is nothing "promiscous" about it... there is only one god (paramatma) but many manifestations of the god. you many worship one or more of the manifestations - but ultimately you are worshipping that one god...

The confusion among arahmic faith-based fools comes from the fact that there is no one "founder" of hindu faith...

Re: # 209

Anil,

Ramadass (Ramdas) was not part of Bhakit
movement. You can say Tukaram and Namdev
were, may be, but Swami samarth Ramdas
was not.

dm writes "It is my understanding (and correct me if I am wrong) that zakat is based on the ability to pay, while jazia is to be paid by all non-muslims regardless of their income levels."

Wrong. Both are to be extracted from the "surplus"- regardless of income level, and historically Jizya percent was lower than the Zakat percent.

Re: # 201

Dost-Mitter Sahib:

Bhakti movement period produced many such "spiritualist" hindus, all over, especially in Punjab (like your anscestors for example), U.P. (Kabir), Bengal (Chaitanya), Maharastra (Ramdass - Shivaji's Guru) to name few.

What I have never been able to understand did caste hierarchy - brahmin's - never challenged it, or how Bhakti movement was reconciled with caste hierarchy. It seems to me that caste system must have been defeated during this period.

dost mittar #201 I am really disappointed at Naqshbandi being so preoccupied with lesser saints that he fails to recognize your spiritual presence, of a much higher spiritual order than Naqshaband, right here on chowk.

Re: # 197
Tokinin, I meant unfortunately for the premise of the writers.

teshah #204 Thanks for completing the translation. So "mawaakhaat" means brotherhood. As I mentioned, I had asked this persian gentleman to translate the verse, and while he was able to translate the rest, for some reason he was clueless on the meaning of "mawaakhaat". So your your knowledge of farsi is I think more than "a little".

Mazdak seems to have called for not just communal property but communal wives too, and thus was a step ahead of Marxist communists who stop with communal property. No doubt McCarthy would have had a heart attack if he had heard of Mazdakis. :-)

Re: # 186

arjun3

"From Him we come & to Him shall we all return."

Does it not nullify the concept of accountability or retribution to strike out the very bottom from under the dogmatism of Islam?

Re: # 189

tahmed

"In egalitarianism, in mawakhaat, he is an ajmi"

Though I know little of Persian language I will translate the above stanza as under:

"This concept of egalitarianism and brotherhood is an Ajmi one (alien to Arab culture)"

Abujehl (For whom the prophet had prayed to God to make him his follower along with Umar Farooq) is accusing prophet of propagating foreign concepts (Persian communism of Mazdak) among Arabs under the influence of Salman Farsi. Was it not repeated in America in modern times in the shape of Mccarthyism.

Regards

Tolkinin#197:

In almost all cases of Hindu-Muslim marriages in India, children are raised as Muslims, despite all the whining about the difficulties faced by them in India.

nb#195:

"I think the Hindu concept I know is one god, but I also know many who see it as many gods."

Hindus seem to be wonderfully promiscuous about this. Most Hindus I know would do the Hanuman Chalisa, do the Ganesh Pooja and pujas of other gods, while maintaining that they believe in only one Parmatma, without a trace of any confusion in their minds.

As of interreligious couples, I am with you, even more so. I believe that Islam treats marriages as a means of expanding the faith and not merely as a matter of the heart.Islam permits Muslims men marrying non-muslim women but not the other way round, because, when the parents die, the children and the succeeding generations would grow up as Muslims in the former case. In this, as in many other aspects, Islam does not believe Kant's dictum of "doing unto others what you want them to do unto you". And since no one has the power to change what is in the Quran, Non-Muslims have every right to oppose Muslim men marrying non-muslim women.

tahmed32:

"t is probably true not just for sikhism, but for all religions that they did not start off as a separate religion."

You may be right here. But as far as I know, Prophet Mohammad did declare himself to be a Muslim (although maintaining that he was not starting a new religion). Neither Jesus nor Nanak made any such claim.

"n your ancestor receiving the title of "bhai" from the second guru - do you actually have a shajra-e-nasab going back that far (i.e. into the 1500s')."

I have only been able to go back to about 250 years, that too thanks to the meticulously updated records kept by the pandas of Haridwar. As for the Bhai part, it has to be true as it was heridetary and used just like the caste by the family. BTW, the family folklore about the "karamaat" of some of my ancestors compare favourably with those of naqshbandi's sheikhs.

bulleya#185:

"......you have far too much free time on your hands.....you need to start doing something productive....."

Guilty as charged, except for some voluntary work here and there. But I have come to like this vellapan. However, I am always willing to lend a hand when approached for some worthy cause.

masadi#184:

"the Muslim is required to give Zakat to the state for redistribution, the non-Muslims since they don't pay Zakat give Jizya for state service- so there is no difference here as well."

It is my understanding (and correct me if I am wrong) that zakat is based on the ability to pay, while jazia is to be paid by all non-muslims regardless of their income levels.

"When commenting about Islam, make sure you have read and understood the Quran, merely quoting "pundit hates" and Fox News Channel wont do..."

I have never watched Fox. Most of my knowledge is based on an Urdu translation of the Quran and discussions on chowk, where you, Urstruly, tahmed, bulleya, all have different interpretations of your religion.

echoboom#182:

" Disowning one's past will NEVER make one modern."
while claiming to be hindus(wink wink)"

Are you willing to accept the difference between disowning and being proud of something? If not, I do not see any difference between a westoxicated person not seeing anything wrong in the west and a Hindu or a Muslim not seeing anything wrong in their religious practices. Brainwashing is brainwashing, no matter whether it is religious or cultural.

I would also make a difference between criticism and loyalty. To give an extreme example, hamidm finds almost nothing good in his religion and yet thinks that anyone leaving it should be regarded as traitor.

#196 nb
"Unfortunately, all four cases had a Muslim husband and a Hindu or in one cas-Louise Fernandes-a Christian...

Is it fortunate for muslim to get Hindu husband.?Dominant culture and religion will take care of religion.It wiil be Islam inPakistan and nonmuslim in India .Children hate to stand out as sore thumb outcast against the current if they have the excuse of one parent giving them that option

#195
Still its hard for intercommunity marriage in Inda if the boy is Muslim and not as rich and famous as pataudi or Shahrukh.
There is this case of Muslim boy married to 23 yrs d priyanka who ultimately got murdered or driven to suicide by her father who was 200 crore worth business man



Biman says sorry to kin Mandarins on damage control
OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT

CPM state secretary Biman Bose on Monday met the family members of Rizwanur Rahman and apologised for his comment that police and the Todis were not aware that Priyanka and Rizwanur had got their marriage registered.

“Bimanbabu told us he was sorry for his comments, based on what he was briefed earlier,” said Rizwanur’s elder brother Rukbanur.

The meeting at Alimuddin Street was arranged by minority leaders of the CPM as a desperate damage-control measure. The state minority affairs minister Abdus Sattar and former CPM legislator Rabin Deb were also present.

Bose offered sympathy but but gave no assurance of action against the police officers who had allegedly pressured Rizwanur to send Priyanka back to the Todi home days before the youth was found dead.

With the police force on the back foot, Trinamul Congress chief Mamata Banerjee met Governor Gopalkrishna Gandhi on Monday to press for a CBI inquiry.

According to CPM insiders, some senior leaders were unhappy over comments made by Bose and police commissioner Prasun Mukherjee. MP Mohammed Salim, who is also convener of the party’s central sub-committee on minority affairs, is said to have spoken to politburo members in Delhi on the matter.

“It will send out a wrong signal if we fail to condemn the police’s role in interfering in an inter-community marriage,” said a CPM leader, on condition of anonymity.

Land and land reforms minister Abdur Rezzak Mollah was less guarded during a visit to the Rahman home in Tiljala. “The police are always vulnerable to pressures from the rich. If the Rahmans want to take legal action against the police, I will try my best to help them as a citizen.’’

The party, meanwhile, pledged to “take care of the needs of the Rahman family”. Minority affairs minister Abdus Sattar said: “Since Rizwanur was the principal breadwinner, we must look after the bereaved family.”

With the CPM politburo meeting slated for September 28 in town, some party leaders chalked out plans to take politburo member Brinda Karat to the Rahman home.

The only silver lining for the CPM leadership seemed to be local Trinamul MLA Javed Ahmed Khan’s name being dragged into the controversy.

The Rahmans had alleged that Khan had urged the family to send Priyanka back to her parents.

Khan played down the matter on Monday, saying he had been approached as the local MLA to intervene in a matter involving a Muslim family. “I had merely asked the girl whether she knew that her father was unwell and whether she wanted to visit him.”

Re: # 180
Dostmittar, you are not the only one talking of the Hindu one god, etc. I think the Hindu concept I know is one god, but I also know many who see it as many gods. I am willing to see that my concept of god may have been affected by my ethnicity and several generations of Catholic schooling, but my grandmother also thought there was one god and she had never had the same schooling. And Dvaita and Advaita isn't that hard-it can be as complicated as you like, but the basics are simple.
Anwyawy, talking of multiculturalism the way you describe it, I am reminded of an article many years ago in the TOI which described four 'exemplary' interreligious couples. Unfortunately, all four cases had a Muslim husband and a Hindu or in one cas-Louise Fernandes-a Christian-wife, and all had had a nikaah, all had Muslim children allegedly because it was 'easier'. I have to question this kind of secularism and multiculturalism.

HAHA...prophetboy can't spin the pakislamofascism..

hey prophetboy...I heard a bunch of your brothers were busted in maryland..anybody you know? any relatives?

arjun: quit posting the whole damned internet on chowk. if you are incapable of writing a coherent sentence yourself, just provide the damned link to whatever irrelevant bs you want to use to support your half-assed views!!

dost mittar #173 It is probably true not just for sikhism, but for all religions that they did not start off as a separate religion. In the Quran, the distinction between "muslim and non-muslim" is virtually insignificant, with individual responsibility before God based on their deeds (not beliefs) on the Judgement Day being true for all individuals (not just muslims). So, it is obvious that this was true for early Islam as well. Only over time, as priests carve out their "turf" and as individuals seek the safety of the herd, does the original universal message become more narrowly defined to become a religion.

While I will grant you that I am a virtual ignoramus relative to you on matters related to sikhism - sometimes ignoramus's can provide a new perspective too. Thus, you may genuinely feel that sikhism did not carryover some key concepts (monotheism, egalitarianism) from Islam, like I said earlier the bitterness created by mughal oppression may well have caused sikhs to abandon their islamic heritage centuries before you were born.

On your ancestor receiving the title of "bhai" from the second guru - do you actually have a shajra-e-nasab going back that far (i.e. into the 1500s'). The best that I can accomplish is the early 1900's, when it seems like there was this Chaudhry Baga (wolf) who was a great-great-great-grandfather, after which the trail becomes cold. :-)

DM: still in denial? still being disingenuous?

Bishop warns that Muslims who convert risk being killed


Jamie Doward, home affairs editor
Sunday September 16, 2007
The Observer

One of the Church of England's most senior bishops is warning that people will die unless Muslim leaders in Britain speak out in defence of the right to change faith.

Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, whose father converted from Islam to Christianity in Pakistan, says he is looking to Muslim leaders in Britain to 'uphold basic civil liberties, including the right for people to believe what they wish to believe and to even change their beliefs if they wish to do so'.

Article continues
Some Islamic texts brand Muslims who convert to other faiths as 'apostates' and call for them to be punished. Seven of the world's 57 Islamic states - including Iran - impose the death penalty for conversion.

Now Ali, who some see as a potential Archbishop of Canterbury, has told Channel 4's Dispatches programme of his fears about the safety of the estimated 3,000 Muslims who have converted to other faiths in Britain.

'It is very common in the world today, including in this country, for people who have changed their faith, particularly from being Muslim to being Christian, to be ostracised, to lose their job, for their marriages to be dissolved, for children to be taken away,' Ali said. 'And this is why some leadership is necessary from Muslim leaders themselves to say that this is not what Islam teaches.'

The bishop warns that Muslims who switch faiths in Britain could be killed if the current climate continues. 'We have seen honour killings have happened, and there is no reason why this kind of thing cannot happen.'

In 2004, Prince Charles asked British Muslim leaders to renounce laws of apostasy and the death sentence for converts in Islamic countries, but no public statement was ever made.

Dispatches obtained Islamic texts sold in Britain that say the punishment for apostasy is death - according to all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence. One text called for Muslims to cut off the head of those who reject Islam.

The radical Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which some in Britain want to see banned, states in its constitution that in countries that practise Sharia law, apostates are to be executed. Its message is disseminated on university campuses across Britain and has found a following among a minority of young Muslims.

A poll of more than 1,000 British Muslims, conducted by the Policy Exchange think-tank this year, found that 36 per cent of Muslims aged between 16 and 24 believe those who convert to another faith should be punished by death.

Sheikh Mogra, a senior member of the Muslim Council for Britain, told Dispatches: 'We live in a country where we respect people's choices. It is not right for any British Muslim to harm in any way whatsoever; to bully them, to intimidate them, to threaten them, is all against Muslim law.'

One convert interviewed for the programme told how his local Muslim community in Bradford closed ranks against him after he switched to Christianity. 'They told me categorically had I been in an Islamic country - Pakistan, Middle East - that they would actually be the first to chop off my head,' he said.

further to #189: that last verse from Iqbal is particularly interesting to me because this is the exact (and refreshing) feeling I would have when saying friday and/or eid prayers in Rawalpindi or Islamabad - for a few, brief, shining moments, the rich and their servants and other poor people actually do stand shoulder in shoulder as equals before God in prayer. Although even here, the maulvi sometimes seek to become unequal when delivering the mullah political line to the audience in the khutba without being burdened by having his views questioned by the "Mahmud o Ayaz"...

teshah #177 One could of course argue that since Salman al-farsi was already of an egalitarian bent of mind, that aspect of Islam is what attracted him to become one of the early muslims in the first place. In other words, reverse the cause and affect as per abu jahl, as beautifully put into words by Iqbal.

btw, I had a bit of trouble translating this beautiful farsi verse from Iqbal that you provided (there is no internet support available), and this is the best I could do with a little help from a farsi-speaking friend:

In egalitarianism, in mawakhaat, he is an ajmi
I know very well that Salman is a follower of Mazdak

If you have the chance, I would very much appreciate the meaning of the word "mawaakhaat" above.

This central message of Islam (i.e. individual responsibility before God, which provides the foundation for egalitarianism) is no doubt alive and well, despite the superstructure of autocracies/dictatorships that has plagued muslims societies for centuries and to this day, not to mention the "spritual hierarchies" and priesthoods seeking to defy this basic message of the Quran with their calls for muslims to toe their political lines rather than to exercise their individual conscience. At least it exists at time of prayer, as (to quote Iqbal again:

Aik He Sif Mein Kharay Ho Ga'ay Mehmood O Ayaaz
No Koi Banda Raha Na Koi Banda Nawaaz

tr:
The master and the servant in one line
And the difference between the ruler and the ruled was forgotten.

SC writes in his ilog “I am amazed by the quality of our leaders, past and present. They are never wrong and always have solid rationales for their actions - not to mention 4th and 5th level contingency planning.”

Not too different from the US talking the "democracy" talk and walking with the dictators and the mullahs...this merely reflects that our "leaders" have been socialized well into their status position by the US elite...

#176 Posted by dost_mittar on September 23, 2007 8:12:37 pm


the audience was mostly Punjabi Hindus and Sikhs, but also some Pakistani Muslims (and at least one Mohajir, actually a well-known Urdu poet). The organizers were mostly Sikhs and some Hindus and the same was true of the speakers and singers.


see a theme here in your multi-cultural nirvana example?

#179 Posted by echoboom on September 24, 2007 5:46:27 am


From Him we come & to Him shall we all return.


It's been a while but that sounds like it was plagiarized from the bible..

dost-mittar #176: "I had the pleasure of attending two multicultural events this weekend........ Yesterday, I went to the "Shahan da durbar.......Today, I went to a function organized by the South Indian Cultural Association."

........you have far too much free time on your hands.....you need to start doing something productive.....

"You have added to my knowledge......"

......if i had a dime for everytime someone said this to me, i would be a millionaire......

" I had presumed that Chaudhris of Gujarat were feudals. In any case, neither of them is either hari or muzaira"

......you had obviously presumed incorrectly......chaudhries of gujarat and from the family of a police constable.....they have made a financial fortune though, due to their massive corruption.....this is how musharraf keeps the whole pml(q) on a leash....he has corruption cases agaisnt all of them, sitting in a cupboard......after nawaz sharif, one could argue chaudhries are the second most corrupt group of politicians (benazir being less corrupt than nawaz sharif, though still quite corrupt).....

as for being a hari, nawaz sharif's father, "abbaji" was a brick kiln worker...perhaps as bad, if not worse than being a hari or mazara (though i have been neither of the three)........abbaji ,later, went on to run pakistan, via his two sons, and built the largest corporate empire in pakistan; albeit through corruption........

"...As for recognizing chamar or bhangi in Pakistan, it is easy; any shoe repairer you see on the street corner is a chamar and any sweeper you see on the street is a bhangi....."

...don't know of too many mouchis and sweepers making it big in pakistani politics.......it is too dominated by feudals.......mqm could nominate one, and he would get elected.......mma probably has the lowest economic level of individuals as its elected officials.......ppp and pml are all represented by rich and famous; most of whom don't work for a living.........

Dost M writes "Islam might have been egalitarian in the context of the seventh century Arabia but I wonder if it can still be called so, considering that it permits slavery, treats non-muslims as second class citizens and allows men to have four wives and unlimited kaneezes while the poor woman has to contend with only one husband and the inequality continues in the heaven. :) "


These are cheap shots based on stereotype that you level against the most egalitarian system, religious or otherwise that the world sees at the Hajj and as it exists in its only source book, the Quran

Regarding slavery, which was widespread at the time, in fact the political economy was deeply vested in slavery, abolishing it "cold turkey" would be more disastrous than beneficial, therefore the Quran establishes a gradual transition to an alternative system by i) making obligatory the freeing of slaves as expiation of even the most minor transgressions ii) stating that freeing the slave is one of the greates good that anyone can do iii) by encouraging the use of Zakat funds by the state to free slaves iv) by encouraging the master to intermarry the slaves v) by encouraging the "master" to convert the slave into a contract worker by giving the emancipation term limits to pay the debt owed.

Regarding treating non-Muslims as second rate citizens, where did you get that from? Some Guru sahib? There is no second rate citizenry, in fact in most all arguments in the Quran, the non-believer is considered socially equal not inferior to he believer, only those non-believers are condemned who attack Muslims because of their faith, the Muslim is required to give Zakat to the state for redistribution, the non-Muslims since they don't pay Zakat give Jizya for state service- so there is no difference here as well.

Regarding women, in a political economy based on male labore renumeration, as in the US even to this day, where the woman's status and wealth is determined through marriage while the man's through his paticipation in the labor force, encouraging women to marry more than one man would be economic injustice, not to mention that since women's life expectancy is higher than mens, more women would be left single and at older ages. Therefore the Quran while suggesing monogamy as the only "normal" option encourages polygyny ONLY when it is done among the oppressed or 'Yatama' class of women. Saying that this is reproduced in heaven is BS, the verses talk about 'companions', and most every discription of heaven in the Quran is presented as an example, it is allegorical.

When commenting about Islam, make sure you have read and understood the Quran, merely quoting "pundit hates" and Fox News Channel wont do...

Pakis choke again!!!!

Go India!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shipsha:181

Nice try!
BUT...
No one denies or disowns their hindu past..the converted ones regret that past, they are ashamed of that past and they want to make sure that future generations do not rapeat that past. It is remembered well, etched in memory..as a lesson.

But again:
"Isn't it a shame Hindus do not know their own stuff. Disowning one's past will NEVER make one modern."
while claiming to be hindus(wink wink)

Saith Dollar damrRee laal, Ghaanslatevalaa has achieved nirvana bliss because of IT, and Pundit Chattowpaddhaay is now busy collecting bhikshaa on his website.

Re: # 179

"Isn't it a shame Hindus do not know their own stuff. Disowning one's past will NEVER make one modern."

How about those Muslims who deny and disown their
Hindu past?

nb#178:

"People are acting as if they have personally met the One True god and taken them to tea. It is just as possible that there are five gods as five hundred as one.
However, dost-mittar, you of all people should know the advaita theory goes back far before there had ver been contact with islam."

Being an agnostic, I have taken no stand on one God, three Gods, several gods or no gods. I am, of course, aware that the Hindu scriptures do talk of One God with several manifestations. But as you know, Hindus have no ban on "shirk" and they also talk and worship several gods and goddesses.

I do understand the Sikh Japji Saheb and it defines God in the same term as echo quotes in his #179. Indeed, a prominent Arya Samaji (whose name escapes me now) once said that in the Japji Saheb, Guru Nanak has encapsulated the message of the Vedas.

As far as duvaita, advaita, my simple mind is unable to fathom the mysteries of these concepts.

thank you nb for, hopefully, drilling some sense into these heads.

"Geeta meiN hai Quraan, toa Quraan meiN Geeta"
..........................................ALLAMA IQBAL

Isn't it a shame Hindus do not know their own stuff. Disowning one's past will NEVER make one modern. It would simply turn you into a wandering phantom devoid of Soul.
Innah Lillah hay va Inna ilahay RajiooN.
From Him we come & to Him shall we all return.

Denying this will always keep one restless & in anguish whenever their is a quiet moment. The busy bodies ( "successful" types) keep on humming the lullabies of achievements to try put this wailing infant inside them to sleep....but its keeps echoing & haunting them even in their dreams. Peace or serenity, Silm or shaant , Salaam or Shaanti, Islam or Suukh will ALWAYS elude them.

" Raat bhur jaaGtay rehtay haiN duukanoaN kaycharaaGH
dil voh suunsaan jazeera kay bujhha rehta hai
Lekin iss bUnd jazeeray kay kisi goashay meiN
zaat kaa baab-i talismaat khuulaa rehtaa hai
Upnee hee zaat meiN pUstee kay khanDar miltay haiN
Upnee hee zaatmeiN ikk Koh-i-Nida rehtaa hai
Sirf iss KOH kay daaman meiN mayyasar hai nijaat
Aadmee varnaa anaasir meiN ghiraa rehtaa hai

......Aur phir Uun sey bhhee ghabraa kay UuThhata hai nazar
Apnay Allah kee aur apnay Khuudaa kee Jaanib


************************************************************
The following verses from the Upanishads refer to the Concept of God:

1.

"Ekam evadvitiyam"
"He is One only without a second."
[Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1]1
2.

"Na casya kascij janita na cadhipah."
"Of Him there are neither parents nor lord."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 6:9]2
3.

"Na tasya pratima asti"
"There is no likeness of Him."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]3
4.

The following verses from the Upanishad allude to the inability of man to imagine God in a particular form:

"Na samdrse tisthati rupam asya, na caksusa pasyati kas canainam."

"His form is not to be seen; no one sees Him with the eye."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20]4

============================================================
and here is the same in Quraan:


"Qul Huwal-Laahu Ahad.
Allaa-hus Samad
LUm Yalid
WalUm Yoolad
WalUm Yakul Lahoo
Kufuwan Ahad."

tr:

Say, He is Allah, the One.
Allah is All Independent.
Neither He begot anyone nor He was begotten.
And none is equal to Him in any way.

People are acting as if they have personally met the One True god and taken them to tea. It is just as possible that there are five gods as five hundred as one.
However, dost-mittar, you of all people should know the advaita theory goes back far before there had ver been contact with islam.

Re: # 163

tahmed

Thanks for your informative and thought provoking comments on egalitarianism in Arabs. I would like here to quote a couplet from Iqbal attributing a statement by Ummar-bin-Hishsham, alia, Abujehl, which I think is very much relevant to the topic:

"Ein massaawaat, ein mawaakhaat, Ajmi ast
Man khoob mi daanam Salman Mazdaki ast"