Pagans and Competitive Conversions

A very good analysis indeed. I specially like the

phrase ``There is usually rivalry when people love

together but unity when there is a common bond of

hatred.`` Very well put!

The article also made me think about how Hinduism

can actually be defined. I think Mr Baig makes a

very good point when he says people are not Hindus if ``they do not worship Shiv or Vishnu but their own deities, know nothing of the Vedas and have no Brahmins to direct their ceremonies or worship.`` I feel that the first point is not that important becoz hinduism shows a remarkable adaptability in incorporating local gods into their own pantheon and mythology. Hey, even Buddha became an avatar of Vishnu! The clincher is the aspect about Brahmanism: there can be no organized(?) religion till there are priests. Amazing observation!!

-narain

Re: Murad

Hinduism as you correctly point out is not a prophet centered religion. However Brahminism is only one facet of Hinduism. Viewed through your glasses, south indians who worship karthikeya need not be hindus since brahmins do not worship karthikeya in most parts of India. Viewed through the same perspective, most south indians (tamils in particular ) have nothing to do with Ram. The malayalis worship Ayyappa who is unheard off in Gujarat or Madhyapradesh. The Kannadigas worship yellamma who is not known anywhere else.

Most of the villages in India have their own local Hindu dieties who are worshipped along with the mainstream hindu dieties. These local dieties are not worshipped by the Brahmins. Then by your words all the villagers who have a local god need not be hindus.

However, it should be noted that hinduism does not denounce all these village and tribal gods as non hindus. Instead it acknowledges and embraces these gods into its fold whenever and wherever required. Which is why hinduism had gods which keep increasing in number. Hindus do not denounce the tribal worship practices as heathen or pagan as the muslims or the christians do. Instead they accept it as a part of Hinduism.

There in lies the difference my friend

Rishi

p.s: most tribals worship hanuman who is very popular even among the kshatriya and the brahminical folds of the Hinduism. And it is this hanuman (monkey faced god) worship which the christian missionaries call pagan and denounce it and pooh pooh the claim that hanuman flew to lanka as a stupid myth.

Well If Moses can part the red sea and Muhammed can move a mountain why can`t hanuman fly goes the hindu logic...........nothing makes sense, does it ?

Re: Murad

One technical pointer...

Jains , Buddhists (Indian) and Sikhs are also considered Hindus in India. Only Muslims and Chritians are not . Amazingly in parts where i used to live , even Christians are considered Hindus because of no significant difference in culture.

Rishi

Re: Murad

A friend does not worship Shiva or Vishnu, does not feel any relationship with these two gods, and does not have brahmins direct his ceremonies as he is against the brahminical elements of hinduism while he himself is a brahmin. However he worship Ganapati who is actually animist in orgin (elephant head and all). Does it make him a non-hindu ?

Rishi

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

re: Rishi, Murad

If I am not wrong, according to the constitution of India a ``hindu`` is defined as a citizen of India who does not identify himself/herself as a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Parsi or Jew. In these cases the respective personal laws apply. Everybody else is called Hindu (Sikhs, Jains, atheists included). I guess after Ambedkar`s conversion to buddhism the category of neo-buddhists was created and hence the separate personal laws for buddhists. I would appreciate if someone can verify these.

Another interesting fact is that till a few centuries back the orthodox christians of Kerala used to identify their church as the Hindu Orthodox Church. I guess the British census first started the current classification.

Ashish

(As for myself I am identified in the census as a christian.)

Murad : In your paradigm of 5 elements common to all religions, i am surprised you also managed to include Islam. Islam arguably does not meet element #3 as described herein, and quite possibly element #4 as well.

In case you have forgotten the practice of the religion of your birth, (for if YOU were a recent convert you would know this), there are NO HIGH ANOINTED PRIESTS IN ISLAM. In Sunni Islam it is the eldest person that leads the community in prayers. In Shii Islam perhaps you can argue that yes it is hierarchical in structure. But in Sunni Islam there is no Pope. Ayatollahs in Shii Islam are equivilent to Bishops in Christianity. But they are recognized as Ayatollahs by consensus of the community based on their religious learning and their following of students. It takes quite a while under the tutelage of more learned recognized Ayatollahs for them to become one. Sunni Islam does not have a universal organization like the Shias do. In practice, the Ayatollahs have a great deal more freedom of doctrine and teaching etc than Catholic Bishops enjoy from the Vatican. Sunni Islam does not require a man to pray in a mosque, he can just as easily pray at home although communal Friday prayers are of course encouraged.

As for element #4, it is debatable as to whether any of the mosques or Imambargahs were donated by Kings to a priestly class, or that they provided extensive ammounts of money to keep the so-called priests in fine accoutrements in Muslim states. (Have you forgotten too how Hazrat OMAR was questioned by the common people about his share of the spoils of war, a mere piece of cloth?) If you are talking about late 20th century history, maybe you can cite some examples, but during the much longer period prior to the mid-20th century, in case you have forgotten, the rationale for building mosques was so that Allah would build that person a palace in heaven in the hereafter as promised. As for ostentatious clothing, well, need i remind you that Islam enjoins its followers to dress modestly, and all of the prohibitions it imposes on men wearing either silk or gold?

The en masse conversions in N.Africa and the middle East after the initial wave of conquest by the Arabs were NOT the result as you imply of the efforts of PRIESTS, but rather voluntary conversions facilitated partly by the head tax on dhimmis (people of the book i.e Jews & Christians) from which Muslim citizens were excluded (but obliged to do military service in its stead which dhimmis were excused from). The Arabs were very surprised at the extent of the conversions and did not expect them in the least. Initially these converts were treated like 2nd class muslims. In addition, the Byzantine Empire persecuted Christian heretics in the Middle East and these people welcomed Muslim conquest as relief from Byzantine oppression. Muslims did not persecute or differentiate between Christians. As the Quran says (paraphrased here)in referring to the differences between Jews & Christians, Allah will judge between them on the last day. I.E their internal bickerings over orthodoxy were never a concern for muslims, until they threatened internal order within the Ottoman Empire (and i`m not going into THAT tangent although i easily could sally forth).

Now are you going to bring up Akbar? Or some other Mughals? Lets see what you come up with. It better be good.

I like the confident tone of your piece, but when we examine some of the fallacies you are spreading in the guise of broad generalizations, your thesis begins to fall apart and lacks coherence.

Can`t believe Chowk actually published this piece and plans a whole series! Some rather glaring errors in your thoughts.



OMAR

Re: Murad

Another would-be Samuel Huntington (Remember the Clash of Civilizations Paradigm published in Foreign Affairs in 1993) goes down in flames. The professor`s argument just as yours, was structurally very appealing outwardly, at first flance/read, but just like yours, had plenty of flaws upon closer examination. Now thoroughly discredited. Need i say more? Do you surrender? I warn you Murad, i don`t take prisoners. On guard!

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

Re: Saima Shah

Re: Omar

Murad Ali Baig did not use the term `anointed priest`. You did. `Priest` has been used as a term for a religious community leader. Islamic community has those in abundance. Leaders who on the surface are devoutly `MUSLIM` take on the challenge of uniting the community against a common heathen god.

Correct thus far Saima.

Baig is perfectly correct that it was the four caliphs who furthered the cause of Islam, as the religious leaders, opinion leaders and quranic interpretors.

I did not disagree with his analysis of elements 1 & 2, just 3 & 4. So this is irrelevant.

Recently we had Zia Ul Haq and Khomeini who taught the rest of Pakistan what Islam means. And what about Maulanas? the common mullah is a diseased mind who furthers his perversions in the guise of `spirituality`. In that way we have something worse than mere priests, we have self-proclaimed priests without an obvious charter or organization like the papacy or the pundits. No rules, hardly any training. Just a god for all the people, by the perverted people.

Agreed. You won`t find anyone who despises Mullahs as much as I do. Nonethless, you must in fairness admit that there is no concept of priest in Islam as i clearly indicated in my previous post, and this differentiates it from Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism significantly.

A man does not need a mullah or any priest to get married, he can if he wishes do the nikah himself. Find me another significant religion that dispense with the need of a formal priest on occasion such as birth, marriage, death, prayer. Please I`m waiting for Murad or anyone else who has a cogent intellectual argument in his defense to take up the gauntlet. As Saima herself confess HARDLY ANY TRAINING i.e no seperate caste of priests exists in Sunni Islam. I think its clear enough.

The only rulers who used Islam in the way Murad described were the Shahs of Persia from the 17th Century onwards, who forced/foisted Shii Islam upon the masses for political reasons (their conflict with the Ottomans played a signifcant role in this choice of theirs in order to unite the country against the Sunni Ottomans they needed to be different, and Persia has always been different from the Arabs, its culture preceeded any inkling of Arab culture by well over a millenium, in fact the Arabs to this day have little culture beyond date palms, hijab, the dessert, prayers and polygamy- reference to sheiks & kings etc). I am excluding ofcourse the Egyptians who are heirs to the ancient culture of the Nile.

Re: Omar

Murad Ali Baig did not use the term `anointed priest`. You did. `Priest` has been used as a term for a religious community leader. Islamic community has those in abundance. Leaders who on the surface are devoutly `MUSLIM` take on the challenge of uniting the community against a common heathen god. Baig is perfectly correct that it was the four caliphs who furthered the cause of Islam, as the religious leaders, opinion leaders and quranic interpretors. Recently we had Zia Ul Haq and Khomeini who taught the rest of Pakistan what Islam means. And what about Maulanas? the common mullah is a diseased mind who furthers his perversions in the guise of `spirituality`. In that way we have something worse than mere priests, we have self-proclaimed priests without an obvious charter or organization like the papacy or the pundits. No rules, hardly any training. Just a god for all the people, by the perverted people.

Saima Shah writes:

`` the common mullah is a diseased mind who furthers his perversions in the guise of `spirituality` ``

This is an unfair put-down, Saima. All the `common mullahs` I have had the good fortune to know have been kind, generous, thoughtful and sincere people. Every walk of life has its own share of twisted minds. Why sweepingly dismiss `the common mullah` as diseased and perverted ?

Saad

PS: Omar1974, you`re right of course. There is no organized clergy in orthodox Sunni Islam.

Murad Ali Baig forwarded the following response directly.



Gosh! What a quick and vigorous response to my first article on internet.

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. Some points can be answered:

 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. I have travelled to most of India`s districts, in my years with tractor marketing, and believe that India`s many tribals do not belong to any religion. They are and remain Animist or Pagan.

 Rishi asks who do I consider to be a Hindu? I believe that all those who subscribe to religious customs presided over by Brahmins are Hindu who have, over the years, incorporated many earlier, local and tribal deities and customs into rituals and myths managed by them.

 Hinduism is not just the religion of the Vedas as many Hindus believe, as the Vedas say nothing about reincarnation, dharma, karma, ahimsa that are the pillars of practiced Hinduism today. The `Aryan` tradition had incorporated many earlier, Buddhist and Jain traditions as it evolved.

 There was no Shiva and even Vishnu was a very minor god of the Vedas. Vishnu rose to eminence much later and acquired many of the attributes of the old Vedic god Varuna including his old epithet Narayana or the one who rests upon the waters. There is no Ram and the only Krishna is no deity but the leader of the Dasyus and Rakshashas. Their tradition evolved much later in the oft rewritten Ramayana and Mahabharata . There is just one goddess, Usha in the Vedas and the later worship of Durga, Kali, Lakshmi and assorted other Shaktis were also later additions.

 Snakes, monkeys, elephants and many other animals and birds were totems and later deities of anamist tribes in many lands. Hanuman and Ganesh were added from such tribal traditions as the tribes were conquered. The earliest reference to Ganesh is in the 8th century AD. Many tribal deities including those who presided at Madurai, Bhuvaneshwar and Tirupati were later incorporated into the evolving `Hindu` tradition and interpreted as incarnations of Shiv or Vishnu. Practiced Hinduism is mostly based on the Puranas that were written between the 4th and 10th centuries.

 Omar has a point that my sweeping account does not specifically consider details of many religions especially Islam. But Islam evolved out of earlier religious traditions that were clearly animist and the third and fourth elements of priests and patrons were certainly present. Every religion, unfortunately, deviated from the visions of their founders and had experienced periods of tyranny in which the priests and kings colluded. I don`t think that voluntary conversions of Persian, African or others would be easy to substantiate.

 I would be happy to discuss your thoughts but without bars or handcuffs. The only prisoners are the captives of the mind.

Re: Murad

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. Some points can be answered:

The author concedes the paradigm might not have universal application, when we examine the nitty gritty details, and I have not even really examined if from a Confusian/Chinese perspective or a Hindu perspective, I leave that to more knowledgeable readers in those areas. I choose to focus only of the religion, history and culture of over 1 billion muslims in the world today, a large enough area to handle. In order to refute a paradigm it is not necessary to refute everything. The author did made some good points.

 Omar has a point that my sweeping account does not specifically consider details of many religions especially Islam. But Islam evolved out of earlier religious traditions that were clearly animist and the third and fourth elements of priests and patrons were certainly present. Every religion, unfortunately, deviated from the visions of their founders and had experienced periods of tyranny in which the priests and kings colluded. I don`t think that voluntary conversions of Persian, African or others would be easy to substantiate.

Very rationalist perspective on the so-called ‘evolution’ of Islam Murad! Having heard all these arguments before I think I can safely say that in matters of religion the only real proof lies in a believer’s heart. I can no more ‘prove’ that Moses parted the Red Sea, than I can that the Quran is the revelation of G-D. As for details regarding the ‘voluntary’ nature of conversions during the spread of early Islam I really think that if you look at any number of serious scholarly works on early Islam’s spread, you will find this is a virtually universal opinion. Tell me then, on a side note, that When the Mughal Empire, The Ottoman Empire and the Safavid Empires existed together, at the height of their powers, why then did the Mughals (except for Aurangzeb whom Hindus hate to this day, and whose memory they have tried to efface from India Completely – Incidentally I find nothing more repulsive than Aurangzeb’s idea of penance, the decline of the Mughals can be traced back to his interpretation of Islam. The murdering scoundrel who had killed so many, including his own brothers/rivals at the time, spent his last days as an Emperor stitching prayer caps to pay for his own keep, in order not to be a drain on the public exchequer, instead of running the Empire and dealing aggressively with the British and encouraging both the expansion of trade and the development of an indigenous industrial base—may he rot in hell for his failure to do so.)

 I would be happy to discuss your thoughts but without bars or handcuffs. The only prisoners are the captives of the mind.

How cute! An oblique way of labeling me a Zealot! Well, I tell you this Murad, I am an intellectual Zealot when I am aroused, a religious Zealot I am not. So I am receptive to new ideas. I’ll not be labeled a “Pharissee”, who did not see the coming of Christ for he walked with his eyes closed. (Zealots, Essenes & Pharisees were all Jewish sects at the time of Jesus Christ)



Saima, Who appointed the Mullahs as the guardians of Islam? Who? As you stated yourself, they are the self proclaimed ‘guardians’ of morality and Islam. We don’t have to accept their authority in religion. When you get a chance, read my article on CHOWK, ‘The lack of rights for women in Pakistan.’ If CHOWK ever gets around to publishing ‘The Mullah Vs. Me’, you’ll find it interesting, I think. Ideologically, we are not opposed. It all goes back to a patriarchal conception of society. Why blame religion alone for the mullahs. Why cannot we ourselves assume control of our faith? If a mullah tells you something, confront him then and there, and use your knowledge of real Islam as power, like a Taweez against a Mullah, say boo and he will retreat. As for the right of divorce being cut off during the Nikah, speaking for myself, if a girl cannot stand up for her own rights and publicly humiliate the mullah in front of a few hundred wedding guests and create a scene, well she lacks the spirit that I admire. (This btw, is the ideal girl/woman entitled to my respect, and as it so happens, the Jewel I’m looking for). You will prevail. If you were my sister or for that matter any womyn with the absolute guts to stand up for herself, and we happened to be in a mosque together, (this would be a rare incident for me), and the mullah declared a Namaz Unqaboolabal in the circumstances you described below, you would witness the most exquisite confrontation between myself and the maulvi sahib in front of the entire crowd. I’m just looking for an opportunity. It has never happened when I was present. I would feel compelled to seize the microphone and give a khutba of my own against the entire class of devils. I need not go on into details regarding child abuse etc by mullahs here. I also well remember the scandals in Islamabad between a prominent mullah/politico, and his association with a prominent Madame as her client, years ago. In any event Murad’s 4th point of official patronage of the Clergy stands refuted if one looks across the hour glass of time through the history of Islam. Even the Khalifa’s of Baghdad were powerless during Abbasid times. The Sultans held the real temporal power, yes Murad, and the Khalifa’s were just an ornament, more like their captives. Were their courts ostentatious? Probably, yes. Baghdad earlier, in the 8th century was the first planned city. Perfectly concentric, with 4 doors facing the 4 corners of the World (N-S-E.W). With Zia, yes, there was official sanction of the ‘high priests’ of Islam in Pakistan. Also known as Jamaat Inc. But they were not enriched financially as a result, only accorded political legitimacy because they afforded Zia the same. It is the Kings of Saudi Arabia after the 70s oil boom that financed he construction of Gigantic mosques worldwide. Even in impovrished African nations, billion dollar mosques have been constructed by rulers to accord themselves political legitimacy, however, if you go back to my first post, i left the period after the mid 20th century as an exception to the rule of the entire period of Islam in general, Yes you can find exceptions in Spain. Also see my posts to the Nirmanli Fakirni article. Its is the uneducated classes that have bestowed the sanctity of ‘priesthood’ upon the mullahs, pirs etc, who have introduced Un-Islamic elements into sub-continental Islam. Incidentally, it was the mullahs who opposed the creation of Pakistan, and then took it upon themselves to make it ‘the laboratory of Islam.’ The Cheek, the absolute gall. M.A. Jinnah’s ideals completely disregarded.

OMAR MIRZA

Re; Murad

Ooops !

I didn`t actualy finish part of what i meant to say below.

Continued from :

Tell me then, on a side note, that When the Mughal Empire, The Ottoman Empire and the Safavid Empires existed together, at the height of their powers, why then did the Mughals and the Otts who were superpowers in their own right not forcibly convert Hindus on the subcontinent and the Eastern Orthodox in E.Europe/ Middle east/ N.Africa? Why did the Ottomans devise the `millet system` and protect the religious rights of the minorities. Though it is certainly possible to argue that the patriarchate of Constantinople was a tool of the sultan to control the E.Orthodox under the Greek Church leadership. Now if you`ve read Bridge on the Drina by Ivo Andric you can comment that there was a levy of young christian boys for a time, whom the Ottomans took away from their families, converted to Islam, and used in their armies. (The Janissary system). These boys rose to the highest administrative posts in the Empire. But this is again an EXCEPTION to the generally honoured rule of no coercision in religion advocated by Islam !!!

OMAR MIRZA

Murad:

Your definition of Hindu is far too limiting in a political, social or even religious sense.

I do not believe in the caste system or the need for Brahmins to officiate in ceremonies. I consider myself a Hindu. Whether this violates ancient texts is of no interest to me. I am still a Hindu.

I think most Hindus use a loose label to apply to themselves. The fact that this label is used inconsistently by different Hindus is true. It doesnt matter. It is a contradiction or inconsistency that most Hindus are very comfortable living with. That it bothers cataloguers and census-takers is their problem.

I think this whole conversion debate is at the root of it all an anti-Sonia political game.

The intellectual background and epistemology of the word Hindu is not part of the debate. It is pure chauvinism and parochialism.

Regards.

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.

I repeat I am only against con artists who prey on the gullible poor people of Pakistan.

re: Aasif
``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.``
Ouch !! I am not attempting anything of the sort. Relax, yaar, whats yours is yours and whats mine is also yours . Too bad, even on the net, the name of the person has a bigger effect than what he/she is actually saying. (oooh! deep thought ..head hurts now)
Not sure why you are directing this post towards me (since I am trying to say the pretty much the same thing in my replies). Please read the replies under the Nirmanali Faqirni article by Maqbool Aliani to understand what Omar is saying. My replies are in context to the tete-a-tete we were having there. One reply got posted here by mistake and then subsequent threads continued.

re: Omar1974

A most welcome and interesting change of stance ;-)

There is a movie (Blood of Hussein)that raised an uproar in Pakistan a few years back, about how an America couple (wife infertile) get duped by a pir at some mazar (Pir Sahib first dopes her, then rapes & impregnates her, she had come to the shirne to pray to G-D for a child). The story gets even more interesting, the pir wants a green card. A good characterization of the low, slimy characters of pirs in general today in Pakistan. Required viewing for those who would defend them.

On Corrupted Pirs



I`m curious about what people have to say about Pir Pagara (Sindhi),reputedly a pohncha hua pir, though i have never met him. I thought that these mystics were suppose to be removed from earthly posessions, material things, yet not only (I believe) is he very wealthy, not exactly some half naked faqir wandering around living on charity, but he is also involved in power politics. And politics in Pakistan is a cesspool as we all know. So for a representative of a group of people who are supposed to be far removed from the eathly concerns of this world, he seems rather immersed in both the trappings of power and wealth, and strangely unable to shake off `life`s mortal coil.`

Comments?

Maliani, I stand corrected.

Re: OMAR1974

The movie is not ``Blood of Hussain`` which is a documentary movie about the dark days of Zia`s regime, rather it is ``Immaculate Conception``. And the movie is not really about false pirs. It has a political message. Besides the couple was not american but Anglo-American. And it is not the pir that is wanting green card but rather it is the poor kid who had impregnated the american woman.

And no body is supporting false pirs. Unfortunately, Sufism has been institutionalized which is totally opposite to Sufi teachings.

Parr Parr hazaar kitaban
Aalim howay saaray hoo
Hiko haraf ishk daa naa parr day
Bholay phiran wichaaray hoo

Having read a thousand books they feel they know;
But as they have not read the one essential word, Love,
They wander astray, and the poor ones are lost.

--Sultan Bahu

Murad Ali Baig forwarded the following response directly.



Dear Omar, RanaRansher, maliani, Aasif, Saima, etc.,

I`m overwhelmed. I`ve just got back from a trip to Poona and Ahmednagar and am off to Madras tomorrow in my other `avtar` as a motoring journalist. The 22 pages are most interesting and I will reply to some key points on return. However, I think we have all drifted a bit from Pagans. Animism is not bad in my view and continues to be a factor in many present forms of worship. Sufi dervishes are little different from the Shamans of Pagans.

Incidentally Omar, my full name is Mirza Murad Ali Baig. So we can both claim descent from Timur I guess. But Please call me Murad.

Regards

Murad states:

Sufi dervishes are little different from the Shamans of Pagans.

I`m glad one can acknoweledge this without being called a bigot! Like i said, these people`s spiritual msg has respectful place of its own. I do not want to be seen as denigrating it. I was a little angry earlier on because the illiterate masses of Pakistan are misled by their gullibility into thinking spirituality and religion are always one and the same. They are not always the same. Just as long as everyone is clear on this point of mine. Yes, passing one off as exactly the same as the other and pretending there is no difference at all, now that it what i referred to earlier as the `perverse synthesis.` See my earlier posts carefully, R.R. I don`t think you can say I`ve changed my stance at all, you merely misinterpreted it, perhaps i was to blame for my failure to state it claerly enough early on. But you guyz assumed i was totally anti-sufi ... i`m not at all anti-Sufi, as should be clear from my posts. I`m just anti-Charlatan, and i certainly concede there are a few uncorrupted pirs or fakirs today that may be called true sufis.

Murad states:

Sufi dervishes are little different from the Shamans of Pagans.

I`m glad one can acknoweledge this without being called a bigot! Like i said, these people`s spiritual msg has a respectful place of its own. I do not want to be seen as denigrating it. I was a little angry earlier on because the illiterate masses of Pakistan are misled by their gullibility into thinking spirituality and religion are always one and the same. They are not always the same. Just as long as everyone is clear on this point of mine. Yes, passing one off as exactly the same as the other and pretending there is no difference at all, now that it what i referred to earlier as the `perverse synthesis.` See my earlier posts carefully, RanaRansher. I don`t think you can say I`ve changed my stance at all, you merely misinterpreted it, perhaps i was to blame for my failure to state it clearly enough early on. But you guyz assumed i was TOTALLY anti-sufi from the get-go the moment i opened my mouth ... i`m not at all anti-Sufi, as should be clear from my posts. I`m just anti-Charlatan, and i certainly concede there are a few uncorrupted pirs or fakirs today that may be called true sufis.

Meeting them would be interesting.

Mirza Murad Ali Baig wrote...

``Incidentally Omar, my full name is Mirza Murad Ali Baig. So we can both claim descent from Timur I guess. But Please call me Murad.``

I am simply curious to know why you would request Omar to call you only Murad and not by your full name... which may indicate your ``descent`` from Timur. Is it that the acts committed by Timur make your head bow in shame... or you don`t want to appear pompous in public by showing a blatant association with ``the great Timur Lang``?? After all every Muslim in Indian subcontinent is a

descendent of either:

1. Prophet Muhammad

2. Mughals

3. Timur Lang

4. Changhez Khan

5. Arabs

6. Abdali or Ghazni

7. Nadirshah

8.... the list can go on...

Isn`t that right. In fact a preponderance of them are ``direct`` descendent with not a single drop of polluting Indian (or Hindu) blood in them. And all of them are exceedingly proud of the fact. So why aren`t you.

I wonder why anybody would like to hide one`s ``glorious`` identity!!!

Purrh Purrh ilm kaza paye karan mufti
Bagh ishk dey rahan majhool mian
Parrian ilm naa rubb dee tam hondee
Iko ishk daa haraf makool mian

``Believing they are well read muftis feel they can give judgement;
But without love they have remained ignorant.
Mere studying gives no knowledge of God.
For that there is only one apt word: Love.

Waris Shah

re: maliani

waaah ji waaaah !!!!! I just swirled a couple times in ecstacy :-) beautiful stuff

re: Murad
WHo cares ? Why do you feel that every religion needs to meet the definition and NORMS of `revealed religions`. In revealed religions, terms like pagans, conversion, believer, disbeliever have relevance. In Hinduism (and a lot of other eastern religions) there is no relevance of these. As Rishi pointed out earlier it is the revealed religions who seek to define other religions in their own image and hence require similar defining boundaries. You are falling into the same orientalist trap !!

re: TO whom it may concern

Terms like pagans, believer, disbeliever, kafir, kulfi, faalooda are meaningless to a lot of us, and have always been political terms.
Think love, think INCLUSIVE (as opposed to exclusive)

your condescendingly
RanaRansher

Man does not live by bread alone.

I UNDERSTAND, MALIANI, without your using a hammer to make sure i get it, okay!

Re: Murad,

What a fascist statement from you ``claiming descent to Timur ``. ? And that too just by your name ... Do you have any material evidence or genetic proof let alone a family tree.

There are millions of Muhammeds in the world. Can they all claim descendants to the Prophet ( i don`t mean spiritual origin here, by which ofcourse every muslim is the holy Prophet`s descendant). For all practical purposes it is your kind of Muslims (probably converts from upper caste Hinduism, due to avarice and monetary benefits of being a Muslim during the Mughal period) who claim such lineages and are bringing in a Hinduism kind of casteist structure within Islam.

So you are a descendant of Timur... and I am a descendant of a poor Hindu laborer . So what, who gives a damn ? your one reply , stinks of snobbery which has caused poorer muslims in India more trouble than you can imagine.

Iconoclast

To all the dim-witted Indians getting agitated by the reference to Timur:

Murad never said he was proud of it. Its just a point he was making from his name. He is not responsible for what Timur did either. Not every Muslim of India is a convert. For your info, as per historical records, three quarters of Akbar`s civil sevice was foreign-born.

Get a life, dim-wits!

Re: Truth

`` To all the dim-witted Indians getting agitated by the reference to Timur: ``

Leave alone references to Timur. Any such reference to someone in the historic past based on name alone smacks of stupidity or false pride. And Murad`s statement implies just that.

If ``Truth`` or someone else thinks that getting agitated by such a reference is being dim-witted so be it. But then, Truth need not degrade his high calibre and outstanding wit by replying to the dim-wits in this section.

By Murad`s statement, then Azharuddin can claim descent from the holy prophet and i can claim descent from Ali. C`mon there is a limit to which someone can paraphrase idiocy and there is also a limit to which another dim-wit can support such a statement.

``Get a life, dim-wits!``

-- I don`t have one . Wonder if you have one though. Why take time to answer such postings if you think that is being dim-wit ? Anyways taking a long look into the mirror my friend.

Iconoclast

Murad Ali Baig `Lane`,

I once came accross a person called Allah Rakha,

he believed himself to be a direct descendant of

Allah, the G_d. Pun intended!

Iconoclast:

Murad`s statement of ``we can both claim descent from Timur I GUESS`` is as tentative and non-judgemental a statement as one can make.

Where do you read fascism etc? The fact of the matter is that Muslim demographics of SOuth Asia stems from a mixture of immigration from West Asia plus indigenous conversions.

There are some rules of thumb that can one can apply. If you met a Malhotra in Madras, its a fair bet that he can trace back his heritage to Punjab. Similarly, a Bhattacharya in Bombay probably had his roots at some point in Bengal.

I am no expert on Muslim family names but it is possible that there is some rule of thumb for certain last names. Why dont you find out about it before passing judgement on Murad?

While you are reflecting on this matter, play around with these names, will you, and make some guesses (just like Murad was doing) about where they`re from?

Wadekar, Gaekwad, Scindia, Gowda, Venkataraman.

And dont be fascist about it!

I posted a different question on `Ashamed of India` article but here`s the same post with a different question:

If Hinduism is such a good and inclusive religion, how can it tolerate, rather perpetuate, such a horrible system that considers every low-caste Hindu and all non-Hindus as untouchables and worse than animals?

CBS had a great piece on the victims of the caste system in India. Here`s what they say on the intro on their website: http://www.cbs.com/prd1/now/display?p_who=network&p_section=3400

The Untouchables

India may be the world’s largest democracy but it’s anything but that to the 200 million people there called ``untouchables,`` people so shunned that the upper classes literally won’t touch them or even share the same water source with them. Christiane Amanpour reports. Andrew Tkach is the producer.

More info on the untouchables in India:

The so-called Dalits (Untouchables) are the most pitiable victims of the obnoxious and pernicious caste system. Manu has little to say about them. He affirms that the members of three castes, the Brahman (white Aryan), the Kshatriya, and the Vashya, are twice-born; the fourth, the Sudra, once-born; there is no fifth.` All others are outcastes. The common name Dasyas (slaves) is applied to them all.[ 1 ]

The treatment accorded to the Dalit is simply inhuman. According to Manu Smriti, `Outcasted persons have no share in inheritance.`[ 2 ] The orthodox Brahmans still believe, if the shadow of a Dalit falls on them, they are polluted and will have to purify them by sprinkling over themse1ves water from the holy river, the Ganges [ 3 ]. `You may breed cows and dogs in your house,` wrote Mr. M.C. Raja. `You may drink the urine of cows and swallow cowdung to expiate your sins, but you shall not approach an Adi Dravida [ 4 ]. These people are still denied the use of public wells and tanks and at the same time stigmatized as unclean. They are still kept out of schools and colleges maintained by public funds and at the same time despised as ignorant and illiterate. They are still Shut out from temples, and yet branded as ungodly and unfit to associate with. For access to public roads and even for spaces to bury the dead, they have to depend much on the capricious benevolence of their caste-Hindu neighbours.[ 5]

References

[1] Wilkins: Modern Hinduism, London: 1975, p. 263.

[2] John C. Oman, The Brahmans, Theists, and Muslims of India, Delhi, 1973, p. 47.

[3] F.M. Sandeela, Islam, Christianity and Hinduism, Delhi, 1990, pp. 69-70.

[4] i.e., original Indians: Dalits, Sudras, tribal people.

[5] Swami Dharma Theertha, History of Hindu Imperialism, (Madras: 1992), pp. 184-85, quoted from P. Chidambaram Pillai`s Right of Temple Entry, p. 150.

Truth wrote

``To all the dim-witted Indians getting agitated by the reference to Timur:...``

How typical is the response from Truth. His ``boukhlahat`` at the questioning of the origin of Muslims in Indian subcontinent would be amusing had it not been so pathetic. His response is somewhat I have gotten used to and it doesn`t help a bit in enlightening this ``dim-wit``.

Truth says…

``Murad never said he was proud of it. Its just a point he was making from his name. ``

That`s absolutely right that Murad never said he was proud of it but it is clear to even a ``dim-wit`` that he sounds proud of his Timurish descent. The fact that Mirza sahib dropped his ``Timur descent`` totally out of context further corroborates the pride theory. If the discussion were on genealogy, history of India or famous people of central Asia, I would have understood the ``name-dropping``. But we were having discussion about religions, pagans, sufism… I fail to see what point one may want to make by bringing ``Timur`` in this context.

My Muslim friends and acquaintances range from Pakistan to southern India. One curious thing that keeps propping up in our conversation is the origin of Muslims in India. And the reason it keeps propping up is not because generally we are trying to unearth this ``secret`` but because of the ``name-dropping`` habit of these friends. We may be discussing future of Euro and its impact on US dollar, and suddenly one such gentleman will remind us of direct descent from Babar in an attempt to strengthen his argument. Not to be outdone by this claim another gentleman will quickly point to his Timurish legacy. And by now the digression would be complete. It is quite possible that a third gentleman may try to outsmart all other a spinning a totally ``bs`` story… A ``real-life`` example follows:

``You know sometime back we got an old well in the backyard of our ancestrol Lahore house cleaned up. In that cleaning process one laborer brought out a brick like rock with some kind of Arabic engraving on it. We got it cleaned and had it analyzed by an Arabic expert. The expert told us that it had the name of an Arabian clan leader.`` And then this fellow will continue to claim his Arab ancestry with a ``proof``. Not like the others without a proof.

A south Indian Muslim friend whose name has word ``Syed`` in it has repeatedly told me that he is a direct descendent of Prophet Muhammad family. Another friend with the last name of Siddiqui keeps harping about his Arabian blood. If in US, I had not had a chance to see Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Indians and Pakistani`s face-to-face and observed their facial features, I might have accepted that. But in view of conflicting physical evidence, it takes an effort to keep a straight face.

Another curious aspect of this picture is that in private, each of them try to undermine the claim of other guys ancestry while legitimizing his own claim.

I must say that Bangladeshi Muslim do not indulge in this ``name-dropping`` farce to that extent. They come out pretty proud of their Bangla culture and values.

Truth writes…

``Not every Muslim of India is a convert. For your info, as per historical records, three quarters of Akbar`s civil sevice was foreign-born. ``

By no means I am trying to say that ``every`` Muslim of India is a convert. There are people who might have no ancestry in Hindu India. Probably more so in Pakistan than India. And its quite possible that one person from that venerated civil service of Akbar has managed to retain his racial purity. But then he may be the only one. An exception… and exceptions do not define the countries and nations.

I understand that these claims to distinct ancestry are critical to the Pakistanis in particular. Without which the two-nation theory doesn`t look too viable. And that is the reason why the history books in Pakistan were re-written (by fiction writers and not historians). The fear of ``Akhand Bharat`` forces Pakistani Muslims to keep reveling in imaginary lineage. But for an Indian Muslim like Mirza Murad Ali Baig , this kind of name dropping is simply an expression of caste-system or elitism.

I can`t agree more with ``iconoclast`` statement

``So you are a descendant of Timur... and I am a descendant of a poor Hindu laborer . So what, who gives a damn ? ``

The elitist attitude may have a sanction in Hinduism, but Islam characteristically differs in that respect. Even the greatest detractor of Islam are impressed by its emphasis on ``equality of all``. Its really saddening when scholarly ``sounding`` people like Murad jump to any opportunity to offer their ``kadambosi`` of Timurs. One expects better from them.

After 50 years of partition people in both country have reconciled to two-country (if not two-nation) theory. Maybe its time Pakistanis Muslims accept the truth and Indian Muslims (the likes of Mirza Murad Ali Baig) stop acting ``better-than-you``.

I have never seen a black Afro-American, who may be having more German blood than African, (more German blood than a Pakistani can ever have from Changez Khan) claiming his descent from Hitler .

Folks …You are what you are. What you do in your life determines your identity. What your parent or their parents did has very little meaning, especially, in this age of information. Falling to the temptation of using the crutches of ``names`` to make one look bigger than one is, only makes one look smaller.

Peace…

a dim wit… maybe, but proud of what he is…and who doesn`t need the fancy names like ``Truth`` to embellish his words.

Black Zero wrote

``For access to public roads and even for spaces to BURY the dead, they have to depend much on the capricious benevolence of their caste-Hindu neighbors``

``BURY`` the dead??? Since when Hindus started burying their dead??

Though most of the stuff Black Zero has written is true OR to be precise it WAS true. Not any more. Maybe Zero should visit India now. He will find things have changed radically. Fruits of democracy are ripening. In most of the states and even at the central government level it`s the Dalits and Backwards who hold the power. Massacre at Bihar, where Dalits managed to kill more non-dalits`` (probably for the first time) shows which way the wind is blowing.

To equate religion with society is nonsensical. Was slavery ever sanctioned by Christianity or Islam. But even till 19th century slavery existed in Christian USA. Will it be correct to castigate the Christian religion as the cause of slavery.

Re: ``Truth``

`` Murad`s statement of ``we can both claim descent from Timur I GUESS`` is as tentative and non-judgemental a statement as one can make. ``

-- C`mon , give me another line. Going by the same logic, Ram vilas paswan can be the descendant of Ram and Advani is the descendant of Krishna. Let alone mythological figures, every shivaji rao in Maharastra can be the descendant of Shivaji. I can go on and on, but if you refuse to give credence where it is due and want to first label everyone who felt the remark was undue as being dim-wits and subsequently tone down your rhetoric to reason out a baseless crass statement,,, i am not game for it..... go tell your story to someone else...

`` Where do you read fascism etc? The fact of the matter is that Muslim demographics of SOuth Asia stems from a mixture of immigration from West Asia plus indigenous conversions. ``

-- i know that more than you do (I guess),,, me being muslim. But claiming descent....that too merely on name makes it ridiculous.

``There are some rules of thumb that can one can apply. If you met a Malhotra in Madras, its a fair bet that he can trace back his heritage to Punjab. Similarly, a Bhattacharya in Bombay probably had his roots at some point in Bengal. ``

-- Another idiotic statement. The Malhotras and the Bhattacharyas are sects of people who intermarry among themselves and do not allow conversions into their respective sects... Islam is not such a sect or a religion. The Principles of Islam are based on universality and conversions towards the true and only god. And in this process,, to reduce these discriminations, people are encouraged to choose islamic names ...

`` I am no expert on Muslim family names but it is possible that there is some rule of thumb for certain last names. Why dont you find out about it before passing judgement on Murad? ``

-- When you are not an expert,,, the least you can do is shut up and not label others who know a little bit as dim-wits.... Get that DW.

--Murad is his first name here, not his family name. Baig is his family name,,, which is also a Hindu family name in northern india.

-- I am not going to reply to your mails in this section anymore.. so save yourself some trouble in not replying to this one...

--A word of advice... get down from your intellectual high plane when you start labelling others as dim-wits ... .I am sorry to say that Your wit stands exposed in your reply.

Iconoclast

RE RV:

Was slavery ever sanctioned by Christianity or Islam.

The short answer is that Islam encouraged the manumission of slaves (Hazrat Bilal was freed from slavery by the Prophet-pbuh). But Islam tolerated the continued existence of this evil. There are places where slavery still exists today.

Black slaves in Arabia not that long ago came from the horn of Africa. W.African slaves went to the Americas, the much older East African slave

trade run by the Arabs, continued well into this century in Arab `dhows.` (sailing ships)

Christianity was used by the Slave owning South in the U.S and through until the 1980s by the Racist pro-Apartheid Boers in South Africa to justify the `inherent inequality of man`.

Comments?

re: all

A very apt discussion, given the title of this piece being ``Pagans and competitive conversions``.

And by no means is this a new debate. This debate has gone on for over 1000 years and yet we still find ourselves caught in the vice like grip of what I call the Muslim right (concept of Ummah) and Savarkars 19th century Hindutva (reconciliation of Aryan and Dravidian origins into one Hindutva). However, the one thing it keeps oscillating around is CASTE. THe aparthied of India. And it is all in the importance we give to our name. THe caste system absorbed everybody into it. Everybody, except the English. (One could argue that they got the highest caste of them all !!)

The problem is that while caste can be and is abused to oppress others and maintain ones position in the pecking order, it also forms an integral part of our culture and ethnic identity, which we all claim to be PROUD of. Today we practice the caste system in various mixtures of nepotism, feudalism, tradition, culture, heritage.
Time and time again social reforms and various religious/spiritual movements (Buddhism, Islam, Bhakti, Shaivism, Sufism, Sikhism, Arya Samaaj, and most importantly the Indian CONSTITUTION, etc.) have tried to eradicate the negative effects of it, yet, it keeps rearing its ugly head. Entire communities would change their last names in an effort to drop their CASTE, yet over time their adopted names themselves became their new caste.

Everybody in the world has a name. However, I rarely meet Europeans and North Americans who give a lot of importance to it. At least I don`t see them descriminating on the basis of it. One could argue that they have reconciled their ethnic identities along their present day national identities. But there is some special importance South Asians give to their last names. And it is because of this that CONVERSION is such a bad word. There is afterall a very fine line between being proud of ones ancestory and being fascist !

All this is a complete disgrace to the 1000 years of inter-marriages, the Sufi Bhakti legacy and is ludicrous when studied through the eyes of anthropology, genetics, linguistics, etc.

I remember a while ago when a college room mate of mine asked me my race and I said Indian. He then asked how Indians all looked so different (just like Arabs, South Americans, Jews) and I had some research to do !! The question came back to haunt me again and again on every application form.
But at the end of it all it didn`t really matter. As Faqar Zaman (eminent Pakistani Punjabi author) says, ``All my life I searched for my roots. I ended up at Mohen-jo-daro and Harappa. but what of it, what matters is what I am today. And a look in the mirror scares me !!``

Maybe I will change my chowk name to be Amar Akbar Anthony X :-). But we know that even changing names doesn`t really work. There was this freedom fighter called Udham Singh, who for the same reasons, became Ram Mohammed Singh Azad (Jalianwalla Bagh massacre, Dyer, O`Dwyer, Bhagat Singh). But I bet a lot of us have not even heard of this guy !!!!

re: RV, iconoclast, Truth
Some very valid points. I just feel you guys are not necessarily talking TO each other, you seem to be talking PAST each other. Truth, in particular, seems to be addressing the so-called right wingers who subscribe whole heartedly to Hindutva.

regards

re: RV, iconiclast
I completely see your points. I have some Pakistani friends who even claim that some Khatri, Jat, Rajput last names (which Hindus also have) are Arabic in origin.
Ludicrous is ludicrous is ludicrous. Whatever happened to genetics, anthropology and linguistics ?

re: Murad
RanaTunga is almost as good a batsman as me !! :-) Maybe you can explain why ?

Re: Omar1974 # 58

You have raised an interesting point.....

The insititution of slavery, as a historic concept, pre-dates both Christanity and Islam. Realistically speaking both Christianity and Islam, though against the idea in principle, allowed slavery to exist purely out of economic intrests. It was only in the last two hundred years that there was a moral objection to the idea of slavery and before that, slavery was never looked upon in a religious light, but merely as an annex to economic consideration.

Hence, to suggest or seek to unravel the truth behind who sanctioned the idea of slavery is an opaque realization itself, because the fact is that both exploited the insititution of slavery. Whether it was sanctioned or not is a moot point. A more valid point is why was it tolerated by all the said religions in question, despite their religious pretenses against its evil, and what were the mitigating factors which contributed to its offical legitimacy within the organizing principles of the religion, be it Christanity or Islam, itself?

re: Black Zero
Here are a few question to test your knowledge of the CASTE system in South Asia.
- Do you know why skin colour broadly equates with socio-ecnomic status within regions ?
- Do you know why there are so may different looking (colour and feature wise) people sometimes within the same families ?
- Have you heard of words like Bhangi, chamaar, churaa, etc. ?

You have barely scratched the surface. I tried explaining caste in my earlier posts.
Here is another shot. Popular theories of India talk of Dravidians (Tamil based languages Sudroid race www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1335/Anthro/sud_afr.html, Tamil is the oldest language) inhabiting it before Aryans came and Aryanised the land. THere are anthropoligical records, linguistiuc studies done to support this (plenty of material on the net if you are interested). The Aryans (Sanatan Dharm Sanskrit speaking) had their own society divided up into 3 uppers castes, while others (outsiders) fell into the 4th caste. When they came in contact with Sudroids there own system came to be called Varn (means colour in Sanskrit) and they took them as slaves (dasyus)
Over time there was a lot of intermixing. And as various interactors have pointed out throughout that the religion kept EVOLVING to INCLUDE everybody else. The texts some scholars refer to sanction the caste system are older than all the other texts that discard it and more importantly provide ways for Shudras to climb the social ladder and become `Aryans`. This is what some scholars call the Aryanisation or Aryan imperialism in India. So while earlier these people were enslaved as Dasyus, later, they were institutionally and religiously included. There are plenty of religious texts proving this and plenty of sects formed that abide by this and practice it.

Almost all scholars of revealed religions make this mistake. Hinduism is not based on ONE TEXT in ONE PARTICULAR TIMEFRAME. Afterall it was a name given by `outsiders` to the people living in this land who were very diverse. So to quote `outdated` material does not really do justice to studying Hinduism. Most people who discriminate on caste do so inadvertently and are not even aware of these texts, let alone read them !! In fact, modern day Hinduism has reached the other extreme, where people deny all this Aryan/Dravidian nonsense and say everybody is indigenous to India. That is nothing but a political ploy to put these issues to bed.

Has it gone away ? NO. Like I said earlier, it is inherently linked to what we practice in the form of feudalism, nepotism, culture, heritage and tradition. This includes Muslims of South Asia. Well the Indian Muslim example has been illustrated here already.
As far as Pakistanis are concerned even though the majority may have Arabic, Persian, Turkic names, society is by no means egalatarian. Sects retain a lot of their last names while still more sects are created with other names. Pakistan is very feudal (Maliks, Waderas, etc.) Waderas are Rajput chieftans. Bonded labour exists. Sectarian violence is everywhere. There are formal religious groups that indulge in Shia and Sunni violence. Surely this is not santioned or perpetrated by Islam. Understanding your past can only help explain your present and possibly help make a better future.
And what about the Bhangi Sardars who were routed by Maharaja Ranjit Singh from Lahore, much to the so-called Aryan populations delight. Sikhism, yet again, broke the shackles of caste, empowering the Bhangis (Sudroid), only to have Jat (Aryan) sikhs rout them.

FOrget Hinduism. I am not trying to sell you anything. But look around in Pakistan and see for yourself, has caste gone away ? You must have heard of the infamous Riffat Afridi and Kunwar Ahsan case. For Pakistanis I believe the PC words are TRIBES and FEUDALISM as opposed to cast