The Gentle Power of the Sufi Tradition

Re: # 472

Pl read Interact 467 about the reality of India's horrible caste system.

Re: # 469 ajeya

[Defend it to whom? And why? We don't have to apologize for the caste system to non-Hindus - IT DOES NOT AFFECT THEM! We Hindus can and should discuss it - but that has nothing to do with this forum or article.]

I was responding to your post #413. I do not agree with it and I have made my point clear.I see many Hindu having views similar to yours and this is 'deliberate ignorance' (#406, thanks eklavya).We don't have to apologize to anybody, definitely not to non-hindus.

If you think it has nothing to do with this forum or article, your are free to not respond.

[I don't know why you are ducking my question. I don't have any hidden agenda in asking you that question. Actually I would much rather not discuss caste here and give the muslims an opportunity to divert the issue. I asked you because you raised the issue.]

Does Hindu have to have a caste? Does your response differ based on persons caste?
I did not duck your questions, instead you have not provided ans to my questions in #463.
I have no intention of diverting this discussion. But 'deliberate ignorance' needs to be responded.

Re: # 470
Sorry im a bit confused by the many interactions

Pl repeat the questions precisely and I will be happy to answer any of them

#468 muradbaig

What is the reason, Murad, that muslims never want to address bullet-pointed questions? Why did you duck my bullet-points?

I, for one, am not going to be diverted.

I'll wait for your answers on those.

#466 satyan11

[1) If we do not know/accept weakness our culture, how can we defend it.]

Defend it to whom? And why? We don't have to apologize for the caste system to non-Hindus - IT DOES NOT AFFECT THEM! We Hindus can and should discuss it - but that has nothing to do with this forum or article.

[2) I am Hindu. So we agree caste system is wide spread.]

I don't know why you are ducking my question. I don't have any hidden agenda in asking you that question. Actually I would much rather not discuss caste here and give the muslims an opportunity to divert the issue. I asked you because you raised the issue.

Re: # 464
If you do not believe me please read Jadunath Sarkar's masterly four volumes on Aurangzeb and you will find as many examples as you desire.

The myths about Aurangzeb's destruction of Kashi Vishwanath temple are not supported by history. There are records showing that although Aurangzeb was a very devout Muslim, he had endowed at least 36 existing Hindu temples including the Someshwar temple at Benares as well as those at Mount Abu, Ujjain, Chitrakoot, Guwahati and Girnar. He did, however, order the destruction of the Kashi Vishwanath temple at Benares evidently as a punishment for the ravishing of one of his guests, the Maharani of Kutch who was kidnapped by some temple priests within the temple precincts. He seems to have considered it a just punishment for what he regarded as a grave insult to his Imperial authority. According to Dr. Pattabi Sitaramayah it was the outraged Rani herself who had insisted on the demolition of the temple after which Aurangzeb had declared... "such an offence could not be in a house of God" and ordered it to be destroyed forthwith.

Aurangzeb's royal Farman dated February 28, 1659 clearly shows that he was no anti Hindu fanatic. It clearly states:

"It has been decided according to our Shariat that long standing temples should not be abolished but no new temples be allowed to be built. The royal court has received information that some persons are troubling some Hindus and some Brahmins in and about Benares, who have been granted the right to worship in the old temples. Our royal command is that you should direct that in future no person shall, in unlawful ways, disturb the Brahmins and other Hindu residents in those places."

He was a puritan fanatic and banned the construction of any new temples and churches but was too wise a political fox to demolish existing places of worship. The destruction of the temple at Mathura by Jehangir was a political punishment for the rebellion of his son who was supported by the raja of Orcha and patron of the temple.

Let us seek the facts of history and not allow ourselves to get angry by malicious myths.

Many people would like to demolish the existing mosques and replace them with earlier temples. But what about the Buddhist and jain temples that some of them had earlier replaced? The clock of history cannot be set back and such empty moves will only rake up more ashes of anger and violence that will benefit no one.

Re: # 463

The Indian caste system has been justified on the basis of a division of labour but this is a simplistic explaination unsupported by historical evidence.

The period between the Harshavardhan (7th century) and the advent of the Afghans and Turks (11th century) was a time that India’s caste system became clearly defined and socially oppressive. There is just one reference to Varnas in the Rigveda and no evidence of any immutable caste barriers in early Indian religious literature. The concept was to develop and gain strength with the Puranas composed between the 4th to the 10th century AD. Manu (who has been dated to a period between 227 and 320 AD) had written the original Manusmriti but it was the later elaborate commentary by Kulluka in the 7th century that was to make it so oppressive.
No great antiquity or religious sanctity can, therefore, be claimed for India's deeply rooted caste system but it suited the higher castes to exploit it to the hilt. There soon developed elaborate lists of over 3,000 castes and sub castes. New concepts about pure and impure customs, food, marriage rites including the duties to Brahmins were defined with precisely detailed punishments for defying any of them.
One of Manu’s injunctions states: “No collection of wealth should be allowed by a Shudra for it would give pain to a Brahmin and make him (the Shudra) arrogant and disrespectful.� This oft-repeated passage gave moral sanction for the continuous persecution of the lower classes and the enrichment of the Brahmins for untold generations. The upper castes believed that their better destiny was their just reward for good deeds in earlier lives and they persuaded the unfortunate lower castes to believe that they deserved their miserable lives as the well merited punishments for sins in previous incarnations.
The caste system was held together by strong interlocking concepts of pollution and the new religiously endorsed idea that a lower caste person was dirty and disgusting. These proved far stronger than any logic or evolutionary reality. The carefree noble savages of the forests were not only considered inferior but were made to believe that they were stupid, dirty and unevolved and could only progress by obedience and loyal service to the higher castes.
The terrible thing about the caste system was not that it compelled men to work against their will, because people always have to work against their will. The horror of the caste system lay in the fact that the human spirit was imprisoned within an unyielding cage of ritual and custom that persuaded them to work without reward or hope of reward for lifetime after lifetime and for generation after generation.
Part of the appeal of Buddhism, Islam and Christianity to the lesser castes was the opportunity to gain new status in religions that allowed repentance and rehabilitation.
The Brahmins and Kshatriyas as the upper castes were separated by a virtual sanitary curtain from the lower caste Vaishyas and Shudras. Beyond these was another sanitary curtain was erected separating them from the even more numerous outcastes of the untouchable sweepers, leather workers, butchers and other menials. Because all things emanating from the human body were considered unclean midwives and barbers were also listed in this last category.
All work done with the hands was considered unclean so agricultural labourers, carpenters, stone masons, artisans and infantrymen were relegated to the lower castes. Thus the creators of India’s industry and commerce were scorned and India’s economic growth faltered while economically useless temples and palaces with their assorted artifacts were wastefully constructed. Paradoxically the British use of untouchable castes like the Pariahs of the Madras infantry and the Mahars of the Bombay army were a major factor in their conquest of India.
It is very significant that slavery never took root in India. Even though Islam condoned slavery (even if it regulated its worst abuses), the Muslim noblemen found that the chains of caste in India were less demanding than the bonds of slavery. Slaves, like horses, cattle and dogs were personal possessions and thus objects of affection and concern that needed to be looked after and could not be thoughtlessly discarded. No such commitment or consideration was required for unclean low caste menials. Those who claim that the caste system was just a division of labour are thus guilty of a grave over simplification.

Re: # 465
1) If we do not know/accept weakness our culture, how can we defend it. Statement like this - 'those who link this with "discrimination" are generaly muslas bluffers, christian missionaries and some stupid dalit activists' does not help.
We should not dismissed this as a minor issue when it affect lives of so many Indian. Instead face it boldly and have guts to reject caste system.

2) I am Hindu. So we agree caste system is wide spread.

fyi, i find Eklavaya's view on sufi trickery convincing.

#463 satyan11

[nkg& ajeya, I hope you read and reply to this post
Re: # 411 & # 413

[What was the 1000 years period when caste system was quite successful? What is it based on birth or karma?

There is no way one can justify caste system, and still there are many block heads who do not find caste system discriminatory. Unless we accept caste system as evil and discriminatory we cannot set it right. Till then do not expect unity among Hindus and do expect muradbaigs defining Hinduism for Hindus.

Check election results this month, you will get an idea of how wide spread caste system is. People vote based on how close candidates caste is to their caste. ]

There are two points here.

1) Why are we discussing the caste system here? Whatever negative effects the caste system may have had in Hindu society, IS A PROBLEM OF HINDUS ALONE. IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE MUSLIMS. So why do you, as a Hindu, rise to their bait when at every opportunity, they use the caste system to divert the discussion away from talking about Islam. After all, THE ONLY REASON WE TALK ABOUT THE EVILS OF ISLAM IS BECAUSE THEY AFFECT US, THE HINDUS. Otherwise we would not talk about it.

2) Let me ask you - are you a SC/ST or a Dalit individual? Let me know, and we can set a proper reference point for this discussion (which by the way has no relevance to the Sufi "trickery" we are discussing here). The votebank politics you refer to is present in every country. Including the USA. And every middle eastern country.

#462 muradbaig

[It is a fact that many mosques were built over temples.
.....
The process should not be reversed. What purpose can be served by stirring up old ashes? Why reconvert a fairly recent mosque at Ayodhya or old Buddhist and Jain temples. The local people really don't care a damn and it only provides political ammunition for the rabid that we can well do without. ]

Two points. A comment and a question.

1) I am a Hindu. I belong to the Hindu society, and I hear what other Hindus say. EVERY Hindu in Benaras, Mathura and Vrindavan resent it deeply that Muslims built their temples on their holy ground by force. Some of them may have resigned themselves to it, but nobody likes it. The overwhelming majority would be VERY happy to see them gone. I have a cousin who studied at IT-BHU. He used to tell me how deeply divided that city was between Hindus and Muslims. He used to tell me stories about the times he "ventured" into a Muslim area, and how he almost got lynched. So that is the first point. That the locals DO NOT like it. They are resigned to it, BUT THEY DO NOT LIKE IT ANY MORE THAN THEY DID WHEN THEY FIRST BUILT THE MOSQUES BY FORCE.

2) Also, are you saying that IF the locals DID NOT like the mosques being there TODAY, THEN you would support removal of the mosques?

I shall be waiting for your response.


[Aurangzeb was also very riled when it was reported to him that several mosques in Maharashtra had been converted into temples.]

Give me references where you got this information. Then we can talk about it. As of now, it appears you are just making things up. It is not in the nature of Hindus to behave like muslims. So I would be very surprised.

[Many Jain temples were converted to temples and Buddhist shrines including Badrinath, Kedarnath and Jaganath were converted into temples during the period of Brahminical revivalism. The same happened all over Europe.]

Are you sure you are not lying again? Let's see some actual historical references, not Romila Thapar and company's personal opinions.

nkg& ajeya, I hope you read and reply to this post
Re: # 411 & # 413
[caste system was one of earliest method of social management..it was quite successful for more than 1000 years...caste system has not changed with time and have become obsolete now...those who link this with "discrimination" are generaly muslas bluffers, christian missionaries and some stupid dalit activists....]

What was the 1000 years period when caste system was quite successful? What is it based on birth or karma?

There is no way one can justify caste system, and still there are many block heads who do not find caste system discriminatory. Unless we accept caste system as evil and discriminatory we cannot set it right. Till then do not expect unity among Hindus and do expect muradbaigs defining Hinduism for Hindus.

Check election results this month, you will get an idea of how wide spread caste system is. People vote based on how close candidates caste is to their caste.

Re: # 448

It is a fact that many mosques were built over temples. Aurangzeb was also very riled when it was reported to him that several mosques in Maharashtra had been converted into temples. Many Jain temples were converted to temples and Buddhist shrines including Badrinath, Kedarnath and Jaganath were converted into temples during the period of Brahminical revivalism. The same happened all over Europe.

All rulers proclaimed their places of worship as proof of their divine mandate to rule and most rulers were quick to demolish the places of worship of earlier rulers. These are well recorded facts that should cause no surprise or shock.

The process should not be reversed. What purpose can be served by stirring up old ashes? Why reconvert a fairly recent mosque at Ayodhya or old Buddhist and Jain temples. The local people really don't care a damn and it only provides political ammunition for the rabid that we can well do without.

kaal I will reserve my comments/questions for later( when you are officially through your presentation)

Interesting...I didn't expect something like this right at the beginning of one of those articles:

http://www.ismaili.net/Source/0910.html

"The names of the Isma'ili hidden Imams have been subject to much research and speculation. This is because of the secrecy with which these names were always surrounded. This secrecy was due, at first, to the fear of these Imams from the'Abbasid government. The Ismaili Imams of that period were too cautious to disclose their true names; instead "they assumed names, other than their own, and used for themselves esoterically names denoting the rank of proofs (Hujjats) (2) ."(3) They "went into hiding," as al-Mu'izz says in a letter to one of his da'is in Sind, "and the da'is to protect them, called them by nicknames, choosing ones which would fit them."(4)

:)

Jang, if you are intrigued, you can read a bit more about the concept of "hidden Imams" among Nizari Ismailis'

http://www.ismaili.net/Source/0910.html

Further, nizaris naturally mixed that up with a wider concept of 'hidden imam' among shias (their broader group)

http://wsu.edu/~dee/SHIA/HIDDEN.HTM

-----------

As I said, this is a fascinating history of 600 years of developing an entirely different way of thinking the religious thought than we had anything present in India.

Dost-Mittar ji and jang, points well taken.

DM ji, true, as I mentioned at the beginning itself, this is the story of but one set of Islamic evangelists and their operations in India.
------------

Jang, these khojas regularly (1) paid dues to the Imam and (2) followed orders issued by Imams and conveyed/enforced by dai's.

The next question would be: then why did the Imam not explicitly announce his political empire with these (ex) Hindu kings and khojas as his subjects?

There are a number of possible speculations. But those would be merely speculations (such as, the nature of Nizari Imamate had changed after Monghols destroyed their military/religious fort in Amalut/iran, Imam's went underground - becoming 'hidden Imams.' Or it would have made no sense to announce a political empire that could not be defended so long as Sunnis and Hindus dominated other parts of India, etc)

If one has to use the language of 'empire', I would think of it as these people establishing a 'low-cost empire, or proto-empire. My focus, however, was merely on describing a methodology for pulling some Hindus into Islam.