Pagans and Competitive Conversions

Re; Murad element #4 cont`d

As for mosques, Yes, the mosques at the time of the prophet and the early Khalifa`s were very simple. The Dome of the rock was the first attempt (I took Islamic architecture as an undergrad) by the new religion to assert itself in an area where it was competing with much older religions for followers. In Jerusalem there were many outstanding Churches etc, and the followers of Islam needed something to be proud of, hence the dome of the Rock was built. The Quranic verses inscribed into its walls are directed at the dhimmis (people of the book) specially, as an encouragement to join the faith. The Dome of the Rock also incorporates Persian royal symbols like Jewels and Crowns. There are also floral designs, i forget what their presence indicates, although in all, it was an attempt by Islam to appropriate from what existed before it. In Syria there are clear architectural examples (murals on walls from the around the 750s) of the attempt by the new masters of the land to equate themselves with the other rulers of the world, as their equals, even successors. I remember vividly one mural of a Khalifa pointing towards the other 3 main rulers of the world at the time, they appear to be the king of the Franks (Western Europe), and the Eastern Roman Empire`s Emperor, and a Chinese or perhaps Persian King. Furthermore, the Arabs did not by and large change the administrative structure of their newly conquered territories. Note : That they interfeared little with the daily lives of the Christian inhabitants.

Why do i bother to support part of what your thesis states (as part of what I have stated in my posts clearly does)? Because the Search for truth is not about being proven right and wrong personally. I still stand by in the main however by my criticism of element #3 and partially in my criticism of element #4.

OMAR MIRZA

Re: Shafqat

I must congratulate you on meeting nice Mullahs:) The ones I met, did not look at me straight in the face (because I am a woman), were extremely upset and shocked because a female friend of mine sat with her husband-to-be during her Nikah; also I remember an incident where a bride read her Nikahnama and asked for the right of divorce at par with the man, wherein the Mullah did not encourage it and just cut of the section where she could ask for such a right.

Mullahs go into exquisite contortions if a woman walks into a masjid; declare a namaz unqaboolabal(not done) by God if a woman stands in the same saf (line) or even behind or in front of a man. I think one can reasonably say--``Perverted``.

Mullahs also tell one the correct way to say prayers for women and men. Women adopt positions where their bodily parts are folded or hidden as much as possible; funny since women cannot pray with men. In all positions it seems that a woman is apologizing for having female organs/parts. One is tempted to ask ``Is god a -- man?``. One may again describe Mullah`s as say, ``perverted``. Words like quirky, come to mind if you want to be soft.

If the above is offensive, I apologize for my biases; (seriously I`d love to meet an open-minded spiritual leader) but I am afraid that the biases of the so-called pious (read male-centrics) are too much for me.

Re: Omar

I think you are missing the point. Even if Islam does not have `anointed priests`, it is still heavily dependent on interpretation and symbols of transference of the spiritual i.e, rituals.

Murad Ali Baig also makes a point in his reply for the harm that the free for all priests have made. Instead of democracy it has been twisted by self-proclaimed leaders who pose as spiritual leaders. At least in papacy, the state and the religion were separate institutions which could be separated into the modern state perhaps more easily because of this difference. Still there are strong elements of `priesthood` in Islam. The Mullah has been instrumental in defining and interpreting Islam`s message. From quranic transalation to manners/routines of namaz, it is the Mullah we have to be grateful to.

A small note is that we have ``pirs``, ``mazars``, ``chillas`, various religious days for special prayers. I have read books that tell you how many times to repeat `powerful` words to get what you want. Educated, sane people wear `tawiz` of `duas`. At a very small level, what is that little `allah` locket that is so indespensable to Muslims? These are a lot of things that were not done at the time of the Prophet; but interpreted afterwards by religious leaders. I think that is also what the writer is saying.

re: Murad

``I do not subscribe to the view, even if it might be in the Indian constitution, that any citizen of India who is not Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Parsi or Jew is a Hindu.``

Your definition (which forms the thrust of this article) is incorrect. Simply because it only covers one strand of modern day Hindus ie Sanatan Dharm believers.
THe term Hindu was given by Arab Muslims when they conquered SIndh to the people of this land. Hinduism is not a revealed religion and therefore does not have one text, one definition. It doesn`t really matter how you define Hindu. And as you can see this is/was always the case, hence the constituional definition.
The earlier Vedic religion was called Sanatan Dharm which was Brahmanical (resided over by Brahmans). Earlier Dravidian religion existed. Aryan/Dravidian fusion occured, which merged a lot of practices and customs along with new thinking, not necessarliy based on the Vedas (Upanishads, Purananas, etc). Then came Buddhism, Jainism, Shaivism, Vedanta, Bhakti, Sikhi. Hinduism today, as you correctly point out, is not just Sanatan Dharm (resided over by Brahmans) it is everybody who does not define themselves as something different. Note: Only revealed religions have clear cut definitions.

Statements like these are completely FALSE.
`` inspired by strident Hindutva ideals who consider all Indians who are not specifically Muslim, Jain, Christian, Buddhist or Sikh are automatically Hindu.``
Have you read any writings on Buddhism, Jainism writings which indicate this ? What is your basis for making this claim ?
Even with regards to Sikhism do you know about the Keshdharis and Sahajdharis ?
Since the term, Hinduism, itself referred to people of a region (and included every practise there) when exactly did this definition change as you suggest ?

Here is a brief history of the so called `Hindus`:

- 6500 (minus denotes BCE) Composition of the early Rig Vedic hymns (according to David Frawley, a Vedic scholar from the US). Current archeological evidence shows that Shiva worship existed in the Indus Valley Civilization in approximately 6000 BCE.1
- 5000
Beginning of the Indus Valley Civilization of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro, that climaxed in 3700 BCE and ended in 1500 BCE due to natural cau - 4700
Period of Lord Rãma and sage vãlmiki.
- 3138
The Mahãbhãrata war took place in 3138 BCE and the Bhagavad Gîtã was recorded during this war.2 The Vãyu Purãna (a Hindu scripture) states that Lord Krishna entered into mahãsamãdhi (yogi`s conscious exit from the body) 36 years after the war and Kaliyuga began on his mahasamãdhi
- 2609
Period of Sage Vishvãmitra, in whose reign a majority of the Vedic hymns were composed. The Yajur and Atharva Vedas were composed around 2400 BCE.
- 2393
King Bhãrata, an ancient king and sage (the 44th in the Purãnic list of kings and sages) was born. The original name of India is Bhãrat, after the name of this ancient king.
- 1450
End of narration of the Vedic Samhitãs. - 500 to 200 AD
The Bhagavad Gîtã was compiled between BCE 500-200.
Nyãya, Sãnkhya, and Brahma Sûtras were recorded, which later gave birth to six popular schools of Hindu philosophy.
Buddhism and Jainism also developed during this period.
200 to 750
Final versions of Purãnas, Tantras, and other sectarian literature were developed.
750 to 1000
Development of six popular schools of religious thought, establishment of Shankara`s Advaita Vedãnta, and decline of Buddhism are the main landmarks of this period.
1000 to 1800
This period saw the rise of devotional movements led by Rãmãnuja, Ramãnanda, Tukarãm, Guru Nãnak, Surdãs, Chaitanya, Mirãbai, Tulsî Dãs, and many other saints.

re: Murad

you say `` they (Hindus) fervently believe in their faith and cannot understand why many tribals are so half-hearted about becoming proper Hindus.``

Can you explain what is required to be a proper Hindu ? Is there such a thing ? What exactly are you talking about ?

Now again, don`t take this as a defense to what some zealots (with narrow minded definitions of Hinduism similar to yours !) do to CHristian missionaries in the name of protecting their faith. But what a lot of people have a problem with is being told by SOME that their pagan/heathen ancient indigenous/native ways are not proper. It`s about spiritual freedom.

re: Omar1974

I guess you ignored my earlier post.
In any case, so there is one pir who is a `low, slimy character` therefore all of them are.
Likewise, there may be one mullah who is a fraud, so they all are.
And there is one Osama, who calls himself a devout Muslim, so can we conclude all devout Muslims are terrorists !!

Mullah (Omar1974) te mashalchi duhaan iko chit
lokaan kar de chaandna, aap andhere wich
------- Jiye Bhullaaaaah

regards

oops !! apologies....
the last post for OMAR1974 was meant for the Nirmanali Faqirni article. Not quite sure what happened here.

regards

I read your reply before RANARANSHER, and I just went back to it and read it again. As for the websites, later, i`ll check them out, kinda busy right now.

I don`t see how/why your if one of them is bad ... all of them must be bad charcterization of what i said comes into the equation. I`ve met a few. They exploit the illiterate masses with superstitious nonsense. I completely agree that they (Sufis) have indeed incorporated Hindu ritual, hardly surprising given theitr mission of converting the local-yokels spiritually (the entire point of Sufisim/mysticism) w/o any emphasis on what you dismiss as ritual. However, they seem to have in the process ignored something very basic to Islam. That there are no intermediaries between G-D & man, and no is no need of any. Approach the Almightly for assistence directly. Pray to him. You don`t need a mullah or a Sufi as an intermediary. Its a perverse synthesis of Hinduism & Islam.

OMAR MIRZA

RanaRansher:

Since the pirs are now your favorite fellows, i`ll tell u what i plan to do next.

The next time i am in Pakistan (it might be a few years), i will actually go and hang out with several of these guys, individually, and take some bhang/Charas/hashish and a bottle of Jack Daniels with me to keep us all in good company.

Then i will prompt their babble, and i promise to be neither too stoned nor too drunk to recollect what happens and what they say and do. It (the experiences) will make for an interesting piece for CHOWK don`t you think? :)

Perhaps I can even convince them that I want to be a true MUREED. Still some of them are reputed to be quite `pohnchay-way loog` so we shall see whether they see thru me, for i am only a little devil afterall. They are the professionals who do it for a living!

OMAR

My definition of pirs below also includes the wandering Fakir variety.

Re: Omar (reply 11)

``Find me another significant religion that dispense with the need of a formal priest on occasion such as birth, marriage, death, prayer.``

-- Hinduism does not require priest for birth, marrige or death and even prayer. There are temples in India where there are no priests. Do`nt confuse one form of Hinduism --- brahminism for the entire superset of Hinduism.. My parents got married without a priest and do not worship shiva or vishnu. My grandfather was an atheist but still they all called themselves hindus. The common mistake that most of the non-hindus and some hindus make is to equate brahminism to hinduism. Brahminism is only a subset of hinduism like shaivism or vaishnavism.

Re. Murad.

Agreed that no one can force someone else to be called a hindu. Likewise no one can force someone else not be called a hindu. And by labelling hindus under one sweeping defenition you are guilty of the same crime that the brahminic zealots are guilty of.

Suffice it to say that a hindu is one who considers himself a hindu,,,regardless of the god he worships, the priests he uses for officiating his ceremonies or such ......

Re: all

In my opinion, religions come into existence only by differentiating with other existing religions and not by accomodating them. Hinduism in practise does not call other gods of other religion as false god. There is no one way for salvation in hinduism. One can attain salvation through any god. A muslim is needed to categories someone a hindu and vise-versa. Almost all practicing hindus, consider the sikh gurus, the jain gurus and buddha as their own gods or holy people. Hence they do not differentiate people from these sects as non-hindus. A hindu would willingly worship in a gurudwara or a buddhist temple or a jain temple (check out saravanabelagola, the golden temple or the bodh gaya for tangible evidence). A hindu would even worship in a mosque (vabar mosque near sabarimala, erwadi dargah,,, etc,,, etc or the velanganni church.). One would have to be a hindu to understand how hinduism functions. As a hindu i can acknowledge that Allah is indeed the god. Like wise i would also acknowledge that Shiva or Jesus is a god too. The plurality that comes into play with Hinduism would be very confusing to someone who is brought up a monotheistic religion.

Re: OMAR1974

``Never really understood how ANYONE could be proud of being called a JAT. To me the term signifies an uncouth person, a ganwar, nothing more.``

-- Yeah and to the entire non-muslim world, the term muslim might mean fundamentalist, wife-beating, uneducated, unrefined mediavial religious bigots. Aren`t you proud of being a Muslim.? Guess, just like how you feel, a JAT feels too. To me, neither the term muslim means fundamentalist, wife-beating, uneducated bigots, nor does a JAT means an uncouth person, a ganwar, etc., It is just that some/many people within these sects/religions are guilty of the criterias we specify.... see where i am coming from ? I am not defending someone`s pride in being a JAT here. And in this day and age, pride is not a valuable commodity

-- For a person who consistently propagates , women liberation, anti-mullah and anti-fundamentalist sentiments, you appear to be on the verge of becoming a fundamentalistic with your beliefs. ? While you appear to be intolerant of abuse of women in the muslim world, you also appear to be intolerant of all other groups (as your comment above specifies ), and you also end up denouncing probably harmless fakirs and pirs whom many follow just because they do not follow your brand of islam. You inevitably end up with the ``I am the only one who is right `` and ``my version of Islam is the best``, attitude with your views ? And with these views you so galantly espouse you are increasingly becoming as intolerant of differing views as a local fundamentalistic mullah ? If you are right in denouncing pirs and labelling JATs as uncouth, can you theoretically defend yourself from being labelled by a fundamentalist Mullah as a heretic culpable of blasphemy for espousing an anti-hijab, anti-mullah stand. ?

This does not mean you cannot denounce anyone at all . There however exists a thin grey line between these various shades of grey. Try to find that out first before you move on your Quixotic adventures.

Rishi

RE:``The article was written for Indian, predominantly Hindu, audiences in the context of the present attack on Christians and the Islamic aspects were only lightly touched upon. Generalisations were inevitable in compressing a vast subject into 1000 words.``

1. I didn`t know that a ``Hindu mind`` has to be addressed separately. Maybe, I ought to do something about this affliction called Hinduism that renders me incapable of understanding what others regularly understand. Perhaps, I should apologise for all criminals or whatever bad`s happening in India -- for 80% of criminals in India (Since 80% of people in India are Hindus, 80% of criminals in India will be Hindus) are my co-religists and hence I must answer their crimes.

2. Or maybe you are just confused between Hinduism and Hindutva. First term is religion and Second term -- perhaps you ought to define it.

Benumbed by your Superior Logic

A-Wretched-Hindu-Soul

Harish

Re RanaRansher #28

It seems to me that you have taken the task of educating the ``ignorant`` muslims of the sub-continent of their Sufi past. May I humbly suggest that we are very much aware and proud of our sufi ancestors/teachers. And we proudly continue to practice their teachings.

What omar (I think) was trying to denounce was the majority of pirs and fakirs of this day and age (and the past) where they abuse the unassuming masses. I have heard/seen countless first hand accounts of how these quacks do their miracles. Like the one in rural punjab known as the ``nanga pir`` who would ``bless`` infertile women by making them walk around himself.

The real Sufis are reverred in all parts of Pakistan. Millions participate in the annual URS of these mystics. It is ridiculous to equate the quacks of today with the spiritual luminaries of the past. I too am a big admirer and student of their insightful poetry. If one has heard of the terms ``ramziyat`` and ``tareeqat`` then most of their poetry does not sound like blasphemy. Like when listening to Aziz mian say,

Hai Kum-bukht tu nay pee hee nahee



doesnot amount to a scorn for not drinking!

regards

Aasif

re: OMAR1974

Regarding Sufi practices, egalitaranism, secularism, humanism, separating ritual from spiritual, Al-Hallaj, Anal-Haq, preaching ones message in the local languages, using local customs and imagery, etc.
YOu did not understand what I said. As far as your response to it is concerned `what the ....` ? What are you trying to say ?

Like I said before you have missed the whole point of the Sufi. A
BTW the relationship of Sufism to societies in India and Pakistan is the key to long term peace in the area. That is just my opinion, maybe someday I will elaborate in an article.

re: Intermediary between GOD and man

Again you have no clue. As this article points out the Kings and clergy have collaborated time and again to become this middle man. Extending that further in to a world view of religion, you can see that every saint, prophet, messiah as acted as a catalyst of change in a society where their `sect` challenged the prevailing `Church` and sought to reform it. SO when the Catholic clergy got too powerful, protestants denounced the need for clergy in `protest`. When the Hindu clergy abused their power the Buddhas and Mahaviras denounced it (happened again with Sikhism, Arya Samaj, Vedanta, Bhakti, etc.). Arabs were in a similar situation when Mohammad came by and reformed the man/God relationship whcih had become far too ritualistic and corrupt under the Meccans.
THe Sufi pirs (only the individuals I have deep regard for) were also trying to eliminate the middle man from religion. In fact, divine love is between the human and the object of love (God, pir, saint, spouse, etc.)
You obviously have no idea what they read/write/preach otherwise you would not make such ignorant statements. I could start quoting but then you would accuse me of trying to be your middle man between God.

re: Jats being considered blah blah by you

Very understandable given the ideological stand Jat communities had taken historically to bigots and zealots who threatened their identity. Given your views, in general, this one seems quite natural. Have you ever wondered what Jats think about your `types` ? WOuld require teaching you too much Indian history. Out of scope for this article.

Here is what some long-dead-corrupted-by-Hinduism 15th century Sufi tried (in vain obviously!) to teach your types.

chal we Bulleyaa oththe chaliye
jitthe saare anne
naa koi saadi zaat pehchaane
te naa koi saanu manne
------Jiye Bhullaah

Re: RanaRansher, Omar

I am not sure why Sufism is being discussed on this platform, but in anyway i suggest Omar to first read the Sufi message, read their Kafis and their poetry and then make your judgements. Basically, you have no clue about sufi message which is message of peace, love, egalitaranism, secularism and humanism and sprituality.

Throught history Sufis have raised their voice against the tyrants of that time. Sarmad raised voice against extermist tyrannt Aurangzeb and was murdered for that. Shah Inayat had built a commune for the fakirs and Haris as a cradle of security from the tyranny of landlords. It was a perfect egalitarian society. In the end he was executed by Azam Khan, Sindh governer of the Mughals.

On the day of execution, the ever generous mystic is said to have told his executioner:

``You have saved me from the fetters of Being --
May God grant you good recompense in both worlds!

Here`s a Sufi response to religion:

``I believe not in manifest religion,
I live ever in love.
Say Amen! when love comes to you.
Love is neither with the infidel
nor with the believer.
Love obliterates all religions..
Thy first duty is to
give up faith, unfaith, Islam and all religions.
The lover ought never to
entangle himself in religions.
As long as these towers, temples and mosques
are not deserted --
So long the path of the Beloved
can never be attained.``

--Sachal Sarmast, revered Sindhi mystic

Malinai states (addressing me) clearly the point that Rishi and RanaRansher are ready to pillory me for.

Basically, you have no clue about sufi message which is message of peace, love, egalitaranism, secularism and humanism and sprituality.

I have nothing against Sachal Sarmast and people of his ilk, even the Whirling dervishes (the Bektashi) in Turkey. In fact, I actually deeply admire some of these sufi mystics. But NOT in an Islamic context. They have an interesting way of approaching G-D. There may well be merit in it. Their msg I have nothing against as long as it is not preached as ISLAM. Rabbia of Basra (8th century) was a great Islamic Scholar & Mystic. I most certainly would never utter a single syllable against this woman who refused to marry, for she gave her life/love to G-D. Not that I would encourage that sort of thing as a widespread practice. Catholic monasticism is not to be encouraged, i.e the unnatural state of celibacy.

Thankfully Aasif (see his post) put his finger on my point regarding the vast majority of so-called Sufis & Wandering Fakirs + false Pirs in Pakistan today. They are nothing more than a bunch of Charlatans who dupe and mislead the illiterate masses. And one needs at some point to draw the line between Mysticism and their method of approaching G-D, and orthodox Sunni Islam. That is all I am saying.

I manage to do it (draw the line) by compartmentalizing things. Each has its place. I don’t mistake the one for the other, as the illiterate uneducated superstitious masses do in Pakistan. It is these Charlatans (who prey on the superstitious masses) whom I wish to expose ruthlessly. They are no better than the average mullah.

As to JATS; What I said was tongue in cheek. The word means precisely what I said it means in salees Urdu. (Uncouth, Ganwar)

As for my being an intolerant bigot, well while we all have our faults, i certainly have no wish or desire to be part of that group of people.

Nor am I.