The Gentle Power of the Sufi Tradition

Jang

I'd say cotton balls blowing in front of your house being a bad omen is what I would call an authentic cultural memory. No one benefited from keeping this memory alive.

Ayodhya, on the other hand, has been revived, amplified, colored by political ambitions, and as a result what may have been an authentic memory confined to a few people is now a part of the national memory. This new way of seeing of Ayodhya - as an assault by all Muslims on all Hindus may be what will be remembered a few decades from now.

Thanks, Mr. Baig
I agree that Mr. Muhammad is not the focus of this article but since you made a statement so I asked for substance. Since, you don't want interacts on this and want to concentrate only on Sufism, I will not get into discussion.
But one thing I will say that Guru Nanak Dev, Mahatma Buddha, Mahavir were in totally different league and so can't be bracketed with Mr. Muhammad. These three never used/propagated violence under any guise. They were totally and absolutely into Enlightenment. Transformation of Sikhism later after Guru Arjan Dev was for reasons well known to people who know history.
Thanks again.

Re: # 412
Hamsab, The Prophet Muhammad is not the focus of this article and I had wanted to avoid your question because I know that it will start a big stream of interacts that are not relevant to Sufism.

But here goes. I believe that the historic Muhammad (not the Muhammad of a thousand myths) was both an aggressive warrior as well as preaching essentially a message for universal peace and brotherhood. He was a product of savage and brutal times and necessarily had to conform to the Arab tribal customs of his times. Raiding and looting was a standard practice among the wandering Beduin Arab tribes where loot, with occassional violence and death, was considered as legitimite sources of income from which the tribes could keep the spectre of starvation at bay. But these had to be done according to established rules.

All religions carry a huge baggage of customs that are social rather than spiritual. Easter and Christmas were never part of the teachings of Christ while Eid and Ramzan were ancient Arab customs that long predated the advent of Islam. Revenge was also an old Arab custom that has unfortunately become a part of the Muslim tradition worldwide. Revenge had been a necessary survival custom in the precarious times when small tribes of Arab Bedouins had to protect themselves from bigger or more powerful tribes who, without the fear of revenge, could easily loot or molest them.

Life in the desert was always very tenuous and there was fierce competition over the very scarce sources of food or water. Individuals could not survive except with the protection of the bonds of blood within their tribes and through alliances with other tribes. This was expressed in the Arab ideology of Muruwah that not only meant manliness, pride and courage but endurance in suffering, protection of the weak, avenging each and every injustice and boldly defying stronger enemies regardless of the consequences. This philosophy also glorified the most generous hospitality to friends and equally intense hatred to enemies.

Oppressors had to therefore be very careful for this well established tribal code made it certain that any injustice would be avenged at some future date. Regardless of power and position no one, not even the Khalifs, could ever be absolutely safe from attack, and had to tolerate lesser tribes and be very careful not to incite any serious animosity.

Muhammad battled with swords and arrows for his survival and several verses of the Quran very clearly extoll the virtues of war and the anger of battle. His orders for the execution of a Jewish tribe in Madina who had joined and then abandoned his cause are unquestionably violent. On the other hand his `conquest' of Mecca was achieved with a year of principled patience and the victory was achieved without shedding a drop of blood.

But the Quran is not consistent on many issues. In his early years in Mecca his utterances on many issues were mild. They became more assertive while he was in exile in Madina and became very inflexible during his last years after his victory over the Meccans.

Overall, I believe that he was a genuine seeker of a system that could be more socially just to women, the poor and oppressed and sought to define rules to limit conflicts. On this basis I would consider that his message of peace was the most important.

Well, for now, let me just link you to a masterlist of such ginans, so you can check them out yourself, at your own leisure...and convince youserlf if I am making things up :)

http://www.ismaili.net/ginans/ginanlist.html

Just keep in mind that many of these ginans are quite old and I suspect have become more and more 'Islamized' over time in their translations. In english translations, we might also be missing the connections and allusions that their forms in original Indian languages might have made make. Yet they provide us with a good window into time.
--------------


Break time now!

Unless I lose interest or Hindus give up on me between now and when I come back, I will upon my return take up some of the relevant issues, such as -

1. How do we really know? May be they really began to believe all this? [there is absolutely no chance - their Imam's knew what they were doing, and Imams the supreme authority neither ever changed their own views nor interfered in the works of these dais - except to occasionally make efforts to keep new converts from straying back into old beliefs. Also there is mention of old ginan books being found in persia where they were described as magical books for Hindus.]

2. Was this a unique case - even if was the case of Ismaili khojas who produced the Jinnah of Pakistan and TNT? Answer. No. some details varied (which imamas and what specific theological point), but the basic appraoch of appropriation and re-orietation and manufacturing 'faith' in Muhammad and Imama was common to all sufis (barring kabir types, may be).

3. What's the take away? Why do we need to know all this? Does knowing all this mean we have to all become mass murderers as some our friends seem to be very concerned. Answer: IMHO, not at all. But I will dicuss the rest when I return, if anyone is interested.

---------

Meanwhile, if anyone who has read this description feels it is is not objectively fair in any way whatsoever, please share your opinion. I would most humbly make any corrections that could be substantiated. Thanks in advance.

This 'gyan' business was an unkind cut. As we Indics know, even those Indians who might have had no gyan valued it highly. Acquring the "Brahma Gyan" was always a BIG thing with us, even when we had no clue what it meant.

So these fellows wrote 'ginans'. Prayers that preached that daswatar had come and his repersenative resided far away in persia, and for those who wanted to persue the 'True Path" was to be followed,. This was argued to be the path for the attainment of brahma gyan. In fact, Moksha itself!

EVERYTHING Indian became a target for such outright appropriation and re-orientation to serve the cause of Muhammad and Imam.

Harischandra? He worshipped Muhammad. Prahalad, he was a devotee of Muhammad. Ismaili "Bhaktas" sang vandanas as before, but at the end, those vandanas made sure to include total subservience to Imam and Muhmmad.

In fact, Brahmins were accused of knowing only three vedas, not the FOURTH one - the atharveda! For atharveda was the same as the Quran, according our of Ismaili Nizari friends.

Vishnu became ali. Sita the same as Fatima.

They were all the same, so long as people acknowledged Muhammad and the Imams in Persia.

As Yoginder Sikand proudly informs Hindus, our Ismaili friends were generous:

O Lord, the Hindus and the Muslims
all together are one being,
The Lord has simply given them
different forms and shapes,
But without real recognition of this
fact all is darkness
O Lord, You are the Eternal One

Sufism, at its finest. It did not matter what you believed it seems, so long as you ultimately paid obeissance to their Imam, and through the Imam to Muhammad and Islam.

Just for your reading pleasure, I will include excerpts from some of these ginans. :)

These gentlemen began by re-telling to Indians latter's own histories, their own mythologies, and their own philosophies (does that remind us of anyone here?).

Buddh became this violent, ferocious man who carried knives, and spears, and swords. And budh taught Indians to follow Muhammad. For, this Ismaili Budh taught that Muhammad was the new incarnation - the dasawatar.

Naturally, brahmins or any Hindus who actually knew anything would have eaten them alive (well, hope, not literally :)).

So they focused their efforts on those who had little understanding of their own traditions - not oppressed and downtrodden (they were hobnobbing with local kings and marrying their daughers!) as Yoginder Sikand claims. Actively, they seem to have sought out ignorance and filled it with their own "gyan."

Again, notice the twist Yoginder Sikand gives to the story.

"Satpanth, he laid particular stress on the poor, speaking out against oppression and for the rights of the marginalised."

There is NOTHING in much of the Ismaili Khoja literature I have seen that supports the view that these dais particuarly "spoke out against agression and for the rights of the marginalized." Not any more than any other guru in India who rejected caste. All Ismaili literature is concerned with, at best, attacking brahmins who were reading false vedas and promoting blind faith in the Ismaili Imam, in addition to laying out the kind of lives the Imam might want them to follow (pray so many times saying this and this, don't talk too much, control yourself, etc).

Oh, you gotta ignore those darn typos - Ismailis.

Correction: IF these dais could create 'faith' and total obediance in the hearts of these Indians, these Indians became good Islamilis. (Hint: "hidden meaning of Islam" that only the Imam REALLY knew).

Give Daughters and Be Defamed - Figurative Rape of Hindus By Liberals

(Was that too provocative for you? If so, please stop and do something else. With the rest, let me continue.)

------

Travel seemed to have opened up those days quite a bit.

Nooruddin Mian showed up in Sindh, and was welcomed. As Yoginder Sikand acknowledges, Nooruddin received hospitality and found welcome even at the king's palace in Patan. The man stayed in India, learnt what Indians believed, and began to teach "Satpanth - the True Path". The elements of this Ismailism I will describe in a bit. The Hindu king and his family became disciple of this dai.

The dai even later married the neighboring king's daugher!

And then the good man travelled around in India. We have no report of him having been assaulted or killed or hassled for whatever he was preaching.

Could Hindus/Indians have been more open and welcoming to this dai? Probably, but seems hard to imagine. But let's continue.

A few years down the line arrived in India another Ismaili Nizari Pir - a student of the very same Nooruddin. called sadruddin.

The same pattern followed. The man was welcomed. Stayed many months with some rich Indians. Busied himself further studying old Indian texts (over and above what his ustad might have taught him). Sadruddin took the innovations of Nooruddin, and really went to town with them, as I will describe.

And here is where the joint figurative rape of Hindus by Nooruddins and liberals starts. Let me explain.

Because these Ismaili were preaching Imamate ideas so absurd even to other normal Muslims, they actively hid their proselytizing and work from normal Muslims (call them sunnis, if you will). But there was additional historical twist between different sects of Islam. Not too long before nooruddins and sadruddins, from among these Ismailis had arisen the much dreaded and detested tradition of "Assassins" (Hashshashin).

These people killed the enemies of their Imams without ANY thought whatsoever. And they did so with complete disregard to their own safety. Without getting sidetracked into describing this fascinating group of Ismailis, suffice it to say that sunnis and other Muslims had much reason to not be too found of these good folks. Hence hiding from other Muslims - taqiyaa - became part and parcel of being a (Nirzari) Islamili. Sunnis did persecute them.

But what about Indians? Hindus who gave noorunddin and sadruddin welcome, food, shelter, facilities to study their own books, and marry their daughters - did NOT persecute them.

Yet, Yoginder Sikand goes out of his way to claim that Ismailis were hiding their true beliefs because they were "fearful of persecution by their more powerful Sunni Muslim AND Hindu neighbours."

Notice the deliberate same same. Based on NO evidence and contrary to all know facts! (not a believer though, who would naturally argue - may be there was, we just don't know. And since we don't know, we will assume there was.)

This to me, seems like Hindus meeting the sordid fate of 'give your daughters and be defamed by liberals.'

------------

But this was just the begining. Nooruddin and sadruddin created a Ismailism for Hindus that had nothing to do with what their Imams sitting hundreds of miles believed in. But as Pirs they had the freedom to do so. And also, remember, theologically, it did not matter what Indians really believed at first. IF these dais could create 'faith' and total obediance in the hears of these Indians, they became good Islamilis.

Let's take a look at what these dais created, and see if they really believed in any of that, given their own history of and experience in taqiyaa, as Mr Sikand himself acknowledges.

Chapter 2; Recap :)

So, folks, I had mentioned some people called (Ismaili Nizari) dai's. These were agents of (Ismaili Nirzari - will skip that description from here on) Imams.

And who were Imams and what did they want their dais to do?

Imams were simply fellows who mostly because they claimed some descent from Muhammad, set themselves up, or were set up by a few others, as supreme religious and political leaders. Veritable Quran made flesh! Representations on earth on Supreme Reality.

These 'faces of allah' were to be followed with an absoluteness that was not to be questioned. These folks issued 'firmans' (orders), and their dais helped carry out those firman, to the letter. Some of these dais would also be known as Pirs. Think of them as dais with a bit more leeway and freedom.

The believers would follow orders and pay regular monies to support the Imam and his peoples. (note: In India, they called this money dasaundh and regular paying of the dasaundh was a big part of their prayers sung every day).

And what was the intellectual basis of all this politico-religious arrangement that was nothing like India had ever seen before? [Someone correct me if I am wrong.]

To recap, it was: the Imam was Allah's face on earth. The BEST (most enlightened) people were those who completely loved and followoed the Imam. This was because the Imam always knew what Muhammd REALLY preached and what Allah REALLY wanted (this was the "hidden or esoteric meaning of Islam"). Second best people, were the ordinary believers/subjects of Imams, who followed orders, read their quran, and paid dues regularly. These ordinary people supposedly could only hope to acquire the 'exterior' meaning (not hidden meaning) of the Quran/Islam. Those who neither loved Imams nor paid dues were the "people of opposition."

With this in philosophical view in mind, we will follow the footsteps of the two greatest Ismaili-Nizari dais/agents to India - Nuruddin and Sadruddin. Khojas were the Indian disciples of thse Ismaili Nizari dais.

Interesting observation, jang :)

----------------

Well, chowk gods have been toying with us most the day today, and early tomorrow morning I have to leave for out of town, so will only be able to tell you part of the story further. Yet you should hear that part...:)

As usual, if you are a Muslim of ANY strain, please skip this story. Or, be reaady to see ALL figures treated as simple mortals just like you and I, and all ideologies treated just like any other ideologies. Also if you are morally offended by objective (as much as humanly possible) descriptions of events, even by provocative words, please do excuse us. Now, let me start!

what omp says is correct. discovery of annals, passing of information gossip etc over time and geographical boundaries etc solidifies or creates a resultant vector if you will. thsi vector would be nothing if shreds of information are all over the place..noise.

e.g. some bhakti poets rue loss of dharma due to insolence of the "turk". some other may havethought that the siddi was a tyrant. some other resented a specific timurid.

i.e. there was no real feeling of systematic imperialism until pieces were collected, collated and gossiped and a resultant vector indicated a theme for collective memory.

other way (likely to be more palatable to omp) is the shyte seemed incoherent until looked thru polarising chashma and then it all made (logical) sense!

"whether forcible conversions and temple destructions and disrespect were a systemic feature of Indian life, pre-Islam, we would know only after those who make such arguments present us with some evidence to back up their claims."

That is entirely true, kaal , but remember om so far has not made that claim.( that it was a systematic feature of Hindu/Indian history pre Islam).

Again, based on historical memeory, logic of Indian thought, and present reality, we have to reject Ombhai's view of Indian history.

He may be right, but the following is far more likely.

In India we have always had kul devatas, gram devtas, or even gods and goddesses, millions of them in every place and kingdom. People would make temples for them that had mostly significance for that particular little group only.

When political fights broke out between kingdoms, chieftains, tribes or whatever, one tribe, king, chief might go and destroy the enemy's objects of worship. I have no evidence to support that but that seems perfectly reasonable.

What's unlikely is that the likelihood of attack INCREASED because others worshipped a god/God different from one's own. Nor that the attacked party would be forced to abandon its own gods and accept the gods of the aggresive party. May have happened but far less likely, at least in any period of which we have some reasonable understanding beyond pure speculation.

----------------

The view that Hindu kings/tribes/shankarachray systematically went around forcibly converting people who did not worship like them seems much harder to support, both theoretically and based on any current understanding of history and tradition.

There may have been some cases of Buddhists and Jains, like everyone else, being harassed by powerful local groups (say powerful brahmins at a place or in some kingdom), but whether forcible conversions and temple destructions and disrespect were a systemic feature of Indian life, pre-Islam, we would know only after those who make such arguments present us with some evidence to back up their claims.

Re: # 425

Maybe, I don't think that I rejected that possibility.

"one can also take recourse to the value system of the parties involved"

Absolutely right dost_mittar. I have trying to point out to om , especially, that an exclusivist view of religion is more likely to lead to violence in the name of a superior god than otherwise.

"certainly been Hindu kings who have demolished temples."

Of course there have been . Indian history is long enough to contain examples like that. The question is of broad pattern. Is religious violence i.e violence conducted in the name of and justified by religion the norm in Hindu/Indic history or is it the exception.

Is broad tolerance and intermingling of indic tradtions with each other the norm or is violent conflict between them the norm ?

That is the question to ask. And then ask the same question w.r.t non indic religions, especially Islam.