The Gentle Power of the Sufi Tradition

dost_mittar

I think you have a Disney-esque view of Indian history. There have certainly been Hindu kings who have demolished temples.

Publius:

In addition to collective memory, contemporary chronicles and available evidence, such as the lack of Buddhist/Hindu artifacts in Afghanistan, one can also take recourse to the value system of the parties involved. As far as I know, there is nothing in the Hindu/Jain/Buddhist/Sikh religious books which would support violence of demolition of religious structures; on the other hand, Ghazani or Aurangzeb could very well site the example of the holy prophet who personally broke the idols of pagan Meccans when he entered Mecca as a victor. And one needs not go back into distant history; the foreign minister of the Taleban govt. used his faith to justify the destruction of the Bamyan Buddhas; only yesterday, Pak Talebans have promised to destroy Mohenjodaro and Taxila.

Re #421, howsoever we may account for the existence of cultural memory the fact is that if it exists in one case and not in the other, it prima facie strengthens the case of one side( everything else remaining equal).

Secondly one aspect of the explanation of cultural memory has to be human nature. We believe and continue to believe things that are believable, that make sense, that fit into a pattern that is visible to us.

The historically continuous existence of muslim atrocities thrroughout the muslim rule in India would make such cultural memories stronger and persistent and the absence weaker.

So the mere rediscovery of some old writings, even if that was a trigger, if it did not fit a pattern would probably not have the same impact which it would in the other situation.

Kaal and All

I have been working on a very important topic regarding the "apologetic approach" in the context of "Real islam" debate.

It will take a few more days to complete those articles but before that i want u chowkies(especially kaal) serious view on the methodology of "apologetic approach".

1) what is apologetic approach?

2)On what technical "grounds" a certain version of a doctrine(in this case islam) would be called "apologetic"?

3)what is IT that makes a certain version "apologetic"?

4)why is an alleged "apologetic" version always "invalid"?

5)what would be the criterion of "validity" in this regard?

6)what is the most RELIABLE unapologetic methodology to interpret Islam?

7)what is it that would make that "unapologetic" methodology an absolutly certain criterion to judge any text?

8)would that so called absolutly certain and unapologetic methodology be relevent to judge other religions as well? If yes than how?if no, why?


9)what is your own methodology to judge Islam and on what intellectual grounds would u justify that?

10)why is a certain unapologetic methodology and version "NECESSARY" to interpret islamic text???

11)Can there be different methodologies to interpret any text?if yes how, if no why? How would we determine that Islam MUST be interpreted with that specific methodology ALONE???

Being a student of Philosophy i have always been intrested in methodolgies coz everybody applies one or the other, so won't it be better if we first determine what we are going to discuss?

My question is regarding the intellectual grounds only.like,philosophy of language, liguistic analysis, structural epistemology, Hermenutics, logical structure etc.
for more detail read my post here.
http://www.chowk.com/unplugged/t/67630

Publius

About this cultural memory business, there may be a continuing oral history of what did transpire but there may also be a memory that is rekindled by the discovery of new writing.

How much of the Hindu memory is unbroken and how much of it is learned from new scholarship would be hard to say, IMO.
If there can be a sort of reconciliation between Sikhs and Hindus within two decades from the assault on Golden Temple and the Delhi massacre, it could well be that all would have been forgotten about the atrocities of Ghaznavi in a few hundred years were it nor for the existence of written history and continuing scholarship.

I don't think that murad in #410 is saying that Somnath atrocities did not happen. He is suggesting that the absence of record in the Hindu side is simply because " poor worshippers forgot their scars and bruises ". And he is suggesting that atrocities on Jains were similarly forgotten.

This of course is not a good response to dost_mittar who pointed out that the cultural memory of the atrocities does persist among Hindus about somnath and not among jains about alleged Hindu atrocities.

So murad's response it does not explain that disparity.

I like jang's hypothesis about cultural memory i.e if there is a pattern in history, cultural memory retains that, but singular, aberrations may not be retained.

"Let's get back of faith and spirituality"

I would like an explanation of # 407 in that context.

UNIQUE-UNIQUE, SAME-SAME

Hope to continue with the story of Mr. Jinnah's roots later today, and complete it by this afternoon.

Meanwhile, we need to understand and accept the basic Islamic strategy behind ALL discussion. It is this strategy that makes most discussions between Muslims and non-Muslims futile.

The strategy is best described as UNIQUE-UNINQUE, SAME-SAME. It may be implemented by single individuals, in its entirety, or in parts by different Muslims and by non-Muslims working with Muslims.

The aim of this strategy to establish, by any rhetorical means possible, that

(1) Islam has many unique 'good' things. Muslims did many uniquely 'good' and brave and brilliant things.

(2) Islam has nothing uniquely 'bad' in it. And/or Muslims did nothing uniuqely 'bad' things, howsoever you define bad.

Some Muslims and their friends may push both those elements, others may be less ambitious and focus only on one of those two parts.

The resultants of those two vectors is that Islam is a uniquely good and beneficial force.

And unless one first totally abandons commitment to Islam, nothing will shake a person's faith in these two parts of Islam's and Muslim's unique goodness.

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

Again, this is perfectly fine for a believer, but non-believers must be under no obligation to accept it.

Murad Baig

There is an interesting parallel between what you say and what has been going on in some Jain circles. Apparently, the atrocities against the Jains in South India were recorded in Shaivite literature but are not mentioned in Jain writings.

Those who take the view that the Jains were badly persecuted argue that since the Shaivites themselves describe the horrors that THEY perpetrated, it must have been true and, if anything, the atrocites would be understated.

Those who take the opposite view argue that the persecuted would have recorded the atrocities and the Shaivites had a political reason to take 'credit' for the decline of Jainism in the South.

And on it goes..

Re: # 410

- When it comes to Indian history, esp where it pertains to Hindu-Muslim topic, I put more credence to what British historians had to say than what agenda-driven historians, whether their agenda was Marxist ideology of Thapars/Habibs or Hindutva ideology of Oak types.

- It is possible that chroniclers exaggerated atrocities/loot/rape, etc. to please their masters, but they could only do so if the Master liked those atrocities/loot/rape.

- I do not know what Hindu/Jain historians said about Somnath? But here, one has to remember the following points:

- I believe that ancient Indics were not good at written history. Did any contemporary Hindu write anything at all about Ghazani, good or bad?
- Even if they wrote history, they would have been too terrified of the tyrant to write anything to displease him. As far as I know, Hindu contemporaries of Aurangzeb also did not write anything about his atrocities;
- The absence of written history does not mean that people did not have any historical memories, even though those memories may have gotten distorted over time.

Re: # 410

Baig sahib:

"...book on Somanatha very clearly shows that the stories/ myths about Mahmud Ghazni almost entirely came from the fowery pens of Muslim flatterers many centuries after the alleged atrocities..."

If Muslim flatterers had to write what they wrote about Mahmum Ghazni, can you not imagine what may be the reality.

Also, while at it, please do not forget to count number of years after Muhammad's death did Quran was written?

I am certain in the latter case your argument will be just the opposite to mean that it is unimportant when it was written, it is atill God's words as spoke to Muhammad. Even though several others penned them down many centuries later. Or you think that they were not Arab flatterers (your word)?

I understand from reading what you have written about yourself, that you have studied history. I am certain therefore, you cannot be ignorant of the fact that the history is written many years later. Or you denounce history of Moghuls written by other historians later as mere allegations.

It seems you need to get real, while Masadi mian need to get over it. Both of you will do good to your religion of birth and faith, as only then you can see your religion of birth as a religion capable of doing ugly things that have been done in its name. Calling them as "allegations" written by flatterers many years later does not make them allegations, outside your mind. Therefore, people see your thoughts in very different light than you see.

It is completely understandable that you write these thoughts for the person you see each morning in the mirror. In that case only that person believes, then take it from me, that image your see of yourself in the mirror is imaginary and not real. You may not recall from your high school physics.

#410 muradbaig

[Re point 4. Romila Thapar's book on Somanatha very clearly shows that the stories/ myths about Mahmud Ghazni almost entirely came from the fowery pens of Muslim flatterers many centuries after the alleged atrocities ]

Also, Romila Thapar has always avoided answering about the "Muslim flatterers" CONTEMPORARY TO the alleged atrocities. Whenever challenged by historians, she refused to show up.

Now why is that?

#410 muradbaig

[Re point 4. Romila Thapar's book on Somanatha very clearly shows that the stories/ myths about Mahmud Ghazni almost entirely came from the fowery pens of Muslim flatterers many centuries after the alleged atrocities ]

Loot, mass murder and temple destruction are considered "flowery" and "flattering" - what does this tell us about Islam as it was practiced in India, and everywhere else for that matter?

#411 nkg

[publ...
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....]

That's exactly right. In urban India caste is irrelevant mostly. The only exception to this is what goes on from time to time in the rural provinces of Bihar and UP, although there it is mostly between Yadavs and other castes. And even this will die out with time.

#282
Baig Sahib
Will you please condescend to explain how Mr. Muhammad was a pacificst? Forget what bad hindus think about him and the manner in which he expanded his imperialism (like any other imperialists and not like one with divine sanction), you just need to look around for supported statements of Chowk scholars like Mr. Zeemax, Mr. Urstruly etc. And here I am not saying anything about the letters Mr. Muhammad wrote to all other rulers about either submit to his message and accept him as prophet or be ready to fight. Since you claim to be an accomplished historian, I am sure you must be having some evidence to substantiate your claim on this.
I know you avoid replying to inconvenient questions but still there may not be anything wrong with asking.
Regards

Re: # 406
publ...
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....

so, here we get the gem from murad beg...
Muhammed was pacifist with his inuumerable looting, killing expeditions and sexual adventures....and Sankaracharya, who was thoroughly scholar and never used bluffs ( like revealition from God, 72 virgins, splitting of moon etc.) was evangelist....

phrrrrr...
I have got another gem from bulleye...he claimed Kashmiri and Pelu jihadis are most peaceful protesters and Tibetian monks are violent people....

Here is what pacifist Mo was and how his life is used as rolemode for pirates....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124054446854951883.html

Re: # 365

Re point 4. Romila Thapar's book on Somanatha very clearly shows that the stories/ myths about Mahmud Ghazni almost entirely came from the fowery pens of Muslim flatterers many centuries after the alleged atrocities and that there is not a single Hindu, Jain or other local contemporary account of them. So it seems that the poor worshippers forgot their scars and bruises as did the poor Buddhists and Jains a few centuries earlier. Life just went on at all these places in the tolerant tradition of most Indian cults.