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.

DM gujjus do this kinda thing..e.g. nagar brahmins formally change caste to vania (bania) so that they can cross ocean for trading which was a nono for brahmins.

eklavya yar, you have presented a plausible methodology. as we have seen from current financial crisis, several ducks need to get lined-up. during this period of imami spread, there was also gain of temporal power of incoming muslim armed men. the military rout was imo very fantastic! indians were simply an incompetent military power.

when such a rout happens, and the new emperor imposes a khutba to caliph (or shia equivaelent) every friday, it would be a surprise if many dependent would not convert.

anyways, coming back to ducks-lining..you have not established any connection between the temporal imperialist and the sufi. imam of persia to who sent these sufis did not spread his empire in india. so what is the connection!

kaal bhai, after accusing murad of using faith to interpret history, you have gone on to do the same.
... and therein lies the irony :)

Eklavya:

I don't think it advances dialogue or discussion to dismiss Sattarbhai's questions. We are all nicks here, would it be okay if sattar bhai posed his questions as om_prakash?

The point is that while what you say would explain some activities, it does not necessarily follow that all psosleytising activities were a result of trickery. One could argue that some of it could be because of various other push and pull factors. Taking two extremes, a community, such as rajputs deciding to change sides because they found some tangible advantages in doing so or when a Hindu biradri banished one of their own for not following the caste rules. Since you are talking about Jinnah, I read somewhere that his grandfather faced excommunication because he was forced under economic circumstances to trade in a commodity not acceptable to his caste community, and was therefore forced to switch to Islam.

sattar bhai, again, nothing in that recounting of events was addressed to any Muslim of any brand. We are wasting each others' time now. Best.

kaal bhai, neither faith nor cynicism - just musings.
But then again, I am not as paranoid as you are.

Your story is very convincing - to those who already believe it. And that's not a bad start after all!

Although I have not written as much yet as I would like to about Mr Jinnah's religious background, the main part of the story has been told.

If ANY Indic person here has any doubt about this being a story of crafty Muslims actively manipulating ignorant Hindus into the fold of Islam, please ask, and I will do my best to explain why I hold the view I do.

(One cannot hope to convince EVERYONE, but if we are reasonable, most of us should broadly agree.)

Sattar bhai, there is nothing to think about. None of that was meant for a believer at all. I am glad you combine faith with cyncism. :)

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

If ANY non-believer has a question, I would gladly answer to the best of my ability.

kaal,

Having read your scathing criticism of murad, I was expecting something more concrete. So far you seem to have connected a few dots on whims and offered some half-baked ideas.

Your view, if and when presented in full, would be one of many possible views. There may be some truth to what you say, but perhaps not enough to explain what you are trying to explain … unless all other competing views are rejected … on basis of your faith.

Now, there is nothing wrong with faith and interpreting history on its basis. So tell me again - what is your issue with murad … ?!

Enough sophistry - it has been a futile effort so far. Time to move on …

+++

Here’s another way of looking at things …

I suspect that like a romantic faithful, your are guarding a value system that has outlived its usefulness. A system not designed to meet its adherents’ basic needs is bound to run into a dead end. Yours has. You have. But take heart, you are not alone. The world is full of miserable bastards …

… Urstruly here is another one, trapped in the same web, bound to go out with a thud. He, also being a hopeless romantic, too is chasing a system that has outlived its usefulness. Like you, he too is facing a brick wall. His last option now is to storm the city and force the people on the blade of the sword.

’Good going, little genius, this is working like a charm’ - I muse cynically.

The resulting backlash, eventually there would be one, would deal Urstruly’s agenda a series of setbacks, each more severe, more lasting, than the one before.

Soon it would be your turn to scream “death or victory�, grab a dagger, and charge up the hill (don’t forget the dhoti, or it would be more funny than tragic). Thud. Your end would be the same as Urstruly’s - not pretty. It’s over, baby. At a distance somewhere someone is tolling a bell.

When all is said and done, don’t be surprised if from the battlefield littered with rubble, smoke, and pile of shit and dead bodies, yours and Urstruly’s, rises a swarm of sufis … smiling madmen, whirling darveshes, chanting hymns to bhagwan, allah, and an assortment of pagan deities no one has heard of.

… an ecstatic murad baig, high on hashish, dressed in colorful clothes, tolling a bell … that may be the last sight you’ll see as you slip into permanent oblivion …

… just a little something to think about …

#447 muradbaig

[I dont believe in omens. I believe that one should TRY to stick to the facts one can observe and measure.]

Murad Baig,

So you like to stick to facts? That's wonderful.

Okay, it is a FACT that Muslims built mosques in Hindu holy places like Benaras and Kashi and Vrindavan, sometimes right next to the holiest of holy Hindu sites, to the utter misery and despair of the Hindu population.

Do you think these mosques should be destroyed?

And another question. Do you think Mecca and Medina should be off limits to non-Muslims? Should there be temples , churches etc. in Mecca and Medina?

Re: # 441
I dont believe in omens. I believe that one should TRY to stick to the facts one can observe and measure. I don't also believe in myths except that the core ideas may have been based on historic events that were elaborated and enlarged by village storytellers, bards and others over time.

Ayodyya IS a myth. What is the evidence that the events of the Ramayana took place within the confines of British India? It could have been in central Asia if Kaikeya was the daughter of the king of the Caucasus.

The Ayodhya near Faizabad in UP where Tulsidas wrote the lyrical Ramacharitramanas did not exist in the time of Buddha and was called Saketa and then Awadh.

Publius
I was not being dismissive. In fact I pass no value judgement whatsoever about this. What is curious though is that long after the East India Company departed and the fear of punishment by a temporal power is no longer there, the superstition continues. Tells you how powerful the fear was to begin with that it lingers even when there has been no reason for it to do so.

Re #441 I don't think that we should dismiss a cultural memory as inauthentic on the mere possibility that a particular political conflict could have strengthened it, at least in part because the political conflict could itself be a result of or be influenced by that memory.

Ayodhya can be seen less a memory creating event and more as an expression of a pre existing memory. Certainly the memory of muslim destruction of Hindu temples precedes Ayodhya movement.

----------

Secondly the way jang described the creation of a memory is not an amplification but a discovery of a pattern that was present but not visible earlier.

But it isn't even necessary that that was how it came about. We know that there was Hindu slavery , destruction of Hindu temples etc during muslim times and these events were public enough to think that memory was created in an organic and widespread way right then.

I remember , for instance, an explanation offered by Konraad Est about why Hindu marriage became a night time affair( apparently to avoid marauding muslim noblemen who liked to kidnap and rape brides when marriages happened during the day).

If that explanation is true and if such a thing forced a change in the very way a Hindu marriage was conducted, it would be easy to see how it could create memories.

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

As long as a cultural memory fulfills two criterion i.e it is widespread and has some level of congruence with known historical facts it should be patiently investigated as a clue to history.

It can be deemed in authentic ,if and only if , it can be shown through historical proof that it was created at a given time in history without any reasonable basis or underlying facts.

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

muradbaig's # 439 does not explicitly answer whether he considers muhammad to be a pacifist or not but the facts he provided ( which are commonly available) are of course proof that he was not.

That he allegedly was seeking social justice, emancipation of women is completely irrelevant. Pacifism pertains to the use of violence not (allegedly)having a good moral philosophy. Muhammad frequently used violence and was an aggressive warrior, that is enough to declare him a non pacificst. It is an insult to real pacifists like Gandhi and Mahavir to call him such.

As to the assertion of universal brotherhood about Muhammad's message, the quran so clearly has hatred for unbelievers, that murad's assertions can only be termed as a shameful lie.

-------

I am still waiting for an explanation of # 407 from murad baig.

omp ayodhya was indeed politically brilliant.

From a tactical point of view the most deadly strategy would be:

(1) To construct, celebrate, progapagate one's own 'collective memory.' Such as Muhammad was a pacifist. Islamic rulers were gentle, nice, and all inclusive.

(2) To distort other people's collective memory. Sharacharya was a non-pacifist/even violent intolerant man who promoted case. Non-Jains and non-Buddhists in India went around massacring Jains and Buddhists.

(3) To construct memories for them that they may not have: Authentic Indic cultural memory is cotton balls blowing in front of your house being a bad omen, and as such has no value.

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

Again, we must reject this approach, and replce it with an objective study of past, including investigating wherever possible our own and even other people's collective cultural memories.

Humsab ji, I will put it all together and post it to my ilog probably later tonight. Am travelling right now. Best.

=====

"I'd say cotton balls blowing in front of your house being a bad omen is what I would call an authentic cultural memory."

As far as I know that is not authentic Indic cultural memory.

Nobody knows the art and science of "reviving, amplifing, coloring by political ambitions" cultural memory better than do Muslims. Any half serious study of their normal day-to-day collective discourse would estalish that.

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.

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.

Re: # 360
This subject is not about evangalism. Evangalism was mostly practiced by the apostles of of religion. Buddha was no evangalist but Ashoka was as also Paul who actively promoted the faith of Jesus. Ashok was a gentle evangalist who believed in conviction and not force. But many Christian and Islamic priests were very violent and intolerant.

Let's try to get back to the gentler issues of faith and spirituality.

Re: # 333
Dear Eklavya.

Sorry I was out of town for a Suzuki Ritz (Splash)test drive in Vizag. But Please let me have the best book or other source on the historical Shankara who I greatly admire even if so much myth has been beilt around him.

It is interesting to note that murad claims to love "“the human soul was an emanation of this cosmic essence and like a lighted taper is waiting passionately for its disengagement from earthly trammels to return to its only beloved."

but it was Shankara who provided the most systematic and sophisticated philosophical defence of that idea that any philosopher in the history of the world has.

And yet murad prefers Muhammad, whose view of God was quite different.( Monotheistic rather than monistic)

Humsab ji, one of the reasons why caste will, one day, not survive in its hideous discriminatory form among Hindus is because of shankaracharya's advaitvic message that informs the intellect of most Hindus.

Adi Shankara is by no means our only great leader. But because of his prominence in the development of Indian thought, and because of the power his teachings can have in any era, to attack him and to blatantly distort his teachings is central to promoting the cause of Muhammad in India.

We can have no issues with Muslims who do that. But if Hindus or people who claim to be agnostics and atheists join in, they must be challenged.

This also includes speaking out against some of our own 'shankaracharyas' who have not given up on casteism. At some point, educated Hindus must get interested in their own religion. Enough of this deliberate ignorance. It's no virtue. Never was.

thanks satyan..

Kaalchakra Zindabad!!!
Anyway, Yesterday, I was re-reading a book 'Swami Chinmayananda Reader' by Anita Raina and I specifically read something from Shankracharya source which showed his views against any kind of casteism. Don't have the book right now otherwise would have posted it.
Great job, KC Sir.
Keep it up!

Re: # 369
jang, here are some vids I found on youtube,
1. Adi Shankara - wins debate (1st of the FACTS in #368)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUNoJWkGH5U&feature=channel_page
2. Adi Guru Shankaracharya confronts Chandala
(2nd of the FACTS in #368)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ewta7YJCmyw

There are other clips from this movie as well.

Alright, I just lost a post! :)

Please hold the thought here. I will recap and continue, perhaps tomrrow. It should be fairly easy to wrap this up now. You will learn a lot more about things you almost thought you knew but didn't (like the buddha carrying knives and spears), that were custom-made for a bunch of Indians and were never spread outside (of even those spcific communities) despite the fact that these dais who came from outside kept regular contact with their foreign Imams and those Imams in turn kept track of their growing number of Indian subjects....and many other interesting things, hopefully :)

And all this leading to Mr. Jinnah, and to Hindus and Muslims being two completely different people, to TNT, and bloodshed; and the rest, as we are all too familiar.

So one doesn't need gullibility, as ombhai argued earlier. Just openness and ignorance.

Well, satyan, that will be an easy one. That is the standard and old technique used everywhere - to fill in a divine slot that a society considers open. As Mirza ji tried to do with Christ with Muslims.
-------

And actually caste need not come into the picture at all. All my study of Islam has convinced me that caste was never a (signficant) factor in conversions (as it became with Christian missionaries later).

All you need are/were two things:

(1) Openness - willingness to welcome and listen to you.
(2) Ignorance

Both were plentiful among Hindus - as remains the case today. So you could peach to them with merely verisimilitude - Buddha, carrying knives and spears, said - follow Muhammad, the last avatar!

sattarbhai:

I defer to your scholarship in this area.

I am just an onlooker here and find this discussion very interesting.
My answer to Ekalavya's (#397) question, I would say Mohamad is the 10th and last avatar of Vishu, as being done by Dr. Zakir Naik here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpVWSH8f4f0

If he is low caste Hindu, whom Brahmins of old did not permit to enter in temple, I will have good chance of taking him to Majid.

Before I describe that, here is a bit of an assignment to any Indic who has followed part of the fascination journey of many Hindus into Islam.

IF what I have described below about the Imam and his being the Face of Allah is what YOU believed, and it was YOUR job to bring Hindus to the political and religoius kingdom of the Imam, how would YOU go about it?

Can you think of a way? :)

So essentially, the 'philosophy' divided the world into enemies of sorts, into subjects who followed rules and orders, and into lovers of the Imam. The more you loved the Imam, the higher up you were in realizing the "Ultimate Truth" as represented on earth by our man the Imam.

And this was not some airy fairy following that our poor gurus had in India. You were a proper subject! You followed firmans. Most importantly, paid hard cash every year.

Aga Khan anyone? The man lives a luxurious life even today because his luxury is paid for by sundry Jinnahs every day.

He is the Imam, the face of Allah, according to this "Philosophy".

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

Next, after a real break, we will see how Hindus were led to this path.

Oh heck, a little more for now.

PART V: OF IMAMS, THEIR DEIS, AND SHIA PHILOSOPHY!!

So I told you about the pattern. Every now and then, another fellow would claim to belong to Muhammad's family in some way, and would claim total political and religious authority. He would be the Imam. And as the Imam, the fellow would have a bunch of deis whose job it was to bring people to the Imam, as subjects and believers.

But why would any human being subject himself to this sort of stuff. Therein developed a whole "Philosophy!!"

What was this philosophy?

Well, the Imam claimed to be God's veritable representative on earth. Allah's face, no less.

Beyond that each Imam would create his own little shade of philosphy. But basically

Human beings were divided in three cateories, in their relation to the Imam:

People of opposition: who exist only in the real of appearancs and are spiritually non-existent.

People of gradation: ordinary followers of the Nizari Imaam (who are busy following the sharia rules as understood by approved by the Imam)

People of Union - Super elite ( ahass -i-khass): who perceive the imam in his true spiritual reality as the epiphany (Mazhar) of the Word (Kalima) of God. Only they arrive at the realm of haquiqa, where they find the full truth, and as such enjoy salvation in the paradisal state actualized for them in this state.'

So this was it. Serving the Imam to know the real ULTIMATE TRUTH because the Imam has the truth, heck he is pretty much the truth to these deies.

Ismaili literature: a bibliography of sources and studies
By Farhad Daftary, Institute of Ismaili Studies

This is the Ismaili belief (actually, I have described the nizari version since they are most relevant to us in the story I am telling you - of Khojas and of Mr Jinnah)

ok, a break needed. When I return later, I will tell a little about these dais and what they believed before they spread out in the world, from africa, to egypt to India.

By the way, that descripion of dais as religio-poplitical propagandists is not mine. It is from "Medieval Islamic Civilization" By Josef W. Meri, Jere L Bacharach Routledge, 2005

But the concept of dais as evangelists to the cause of Imams who claimed all religious and political authority, in fact, a LOT more, as we shall see is well understood.

[In general, I will not worry about too many references at this point in time. I am just typing things in a draft form.]

Sorry, that wasn't a question, but an inviolable truth over which people fought, killed, and died.

In THAT person must reside all temporal and religious authority.

PART IV: NOW GOING REALLY TO THE BEGINNING!!

To begin at the begining would require us to go to the very earliest days of Islam. But, if you are a Muslim, did I warn you to skip this? This is the view of non-believer. If you insist on reading further, please do so at your own risk. We shall treat everyone as simply humans like you and I. You are forewarned.

The HISTORY is breath-takingly complex. But if you are a non-believer it can be mindnumbingly simple.

Interneicine fighting is continuous. It's always about the same thing, repeatedly. Who is the True inheritor of Muhammad? What did he REALLY preach? In THAT person must reside all temporal and religious authority? What he preached must the sole truth. Beyond any one individual or his group, warfare must, most often, be the deciding factor.

So first, there were Shias and Sunnis. For this case, we will focus on shias now. Given Murad Baig bhai's efforts, that may be more immediate for us o understand that anyway.

From among shias there were the Twelvers and Ismailies.

Then there were Nizaris.

Then Bohras, Khojas, Tayyabs etc etc.

Each of these folks, at all times, had their own Imams. Within the physical person of the Imam lay all political and religious power and wisdom and authority.

These Imams established their own Dawah - evangelism. Again, Is that a dirty word? Hopefully not. This evangelism was carried out by what were known as Dais - politico-religious propagandist whose job was to create commitment to and total belief in the Imam as Allah's Face on earth. More on this later.

It is these dais who are our heroes in this story.

One more thing that this is not. Think of these as rough notes that I am typing in real time. We wouldn't worry about exact dates and precise spelling of arabic, persian or whatever names etc. I want to tell you the story, as objectively as possible.

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

PART III: (IN INDIA) BUDH SAID TO HINDUS- GO TO MAHOMET (and "what the heck is budh avatar?")

From Granth Budh Avtar written by an Islamili Evangelist (is that a bad word?)

1. The Ninth Divine Manifestation was Budh
He appeared in the guise of a Mughol

3. He was equipped with a knife, a dagger, a sword
A bow and an arrow ready to be used

7. (At the place) where the Pandaw are accomplishing their religious ceremonies (Hom Jagan)
The Brahmins, seated, are reciting the Vedas.

8. At that moment started the Kaljug, and the Duapurjug ended The angels as well as the faithful deserted this world.

9. Since the Kaljug would be containing too many sins
The angels preferred to leave.

25. (Of the noisy place) where the Brahmins were reciting the Vedas. Shri Budh came to the door

34. The Brahmins are reading our Vedas
And your ugliness will cause harm

35. Then Shri Budh said:
Let Me tell you what is a damned.

36. The Divine aspect has left the Brahmins
And has taken the form of Prophet Muhammad.

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

Re: Budh Avatar of Ismaili Imam

What the heck is Budh Avatar? Is it a book?

by Above Average Bohra on Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:08 am
http://dawoodi-bohras.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3471

So, my friends, this is the story of India's partition, of the loss of millions of lives.

How it all REALLY began, how it came about, and to what end.

Next insallment in a little while.

DM, the differences between Torah and Quran are quite vast in details, imo.

Quranic commandments regarding who a Muslim may marry; what food is allowed; details of qibla, inheritance, fasting, zakat, and pilgrimage; claims of universality of teachings; requirement of writing down financial contracts; 4 witnesses as proof of wrongdoing; 100 lashes for adultery etc. … are at variance from what is found in Torah.

In principle one may wonder if distortions in Torah explain the difference between Torah and Quran. I think a more plausible explanation may be that Quranic teachings updated the details, while abrogating earlier laws.

Ok, friends, I am beginning to type the story in. Those of you who are interested in understading this complex tale of 600 years got to be patient a bit.

Indic people, read it. Hopefully, You will be as fascinated, as I had been. I will post it in parts as I type those parts down.

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


Part 1: WHAT THIS IS NOT.

None of this IS addressed even remotely to any Muslim of any kind. Please ignore it completely.

It also does not answer what 'might have been'. Nor does it provide psychological evaluations of all actors involved at all times. So it is not to be confused with a moving picture of people's intentions.

Finally, it does not answer the question of 'every single' one, since it presents only one major case. It will not, for example satisfy those whose vision of Sufism contains solely of Kabir and Bulley Shah.

I will be describing things as they happened, as objectively as possible, and Indic peoples can reach their own conclusions.

PART II: JINNAH AND GOOD MUSLIMS

"It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, litterateurs. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspect on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state."

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, an Isamili Khoja, delivering All India Muslim League Presidential Address at Lahore, on March 22–23, 1940

"I know a girl who is a Khoja. I never heard of it, when she told me. Than she explained to me than they came from India......It;s seems that she is a good girl, and praticing islam in a good way."

ShiaSister at Shiachat, Forum A Lesson On Khojas

Althou im not a Khoja, but i have been really impressed by thier vast knowledge! Alhumd.
And trust me, we, Pakistanis, really respect Khojas alot.

LoveAhleBayt at Shiachat, Forum A Lesson On Khojas

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=234947709

Jang
What gets into collective memory and folklore is interesting in itself. For instance in Bengal (apparently) it's bad omen to have cotton balls blowing around in front of your house. This is traced back to strict punishment that the Brits handed out to weavers and fabric merchants there dealing with indigenous cotton fabric.

omp, the way it works is like this. if its a one-off event, it typically gets forgotten or lost in a sarkari gazette. if its a systematic shyte, it remains in a collective memory. one can offcourse have have systematically inculcated and preserved ideas of victimhood (or us-and-them ness) which are passed from one generation to the next and these are typically regarded as real history.

hopefully the violence against sikhs will fall in one of a kind and remain historically true but forgotten from collective memory..that is moving on.

om_prakash#382:

I thought I was quite clear. If no documentary evidence is available, then one may take into account people's collective memory, especially if that memory is consistent with contemporary reality. pmishra in his post#373 gave an example of contemporary reality in the case of Afghanistan.

sattar bhai

I have not the smallest problem if a Muslim believes so. That is a matter of faith, and there is always a whole range of possibilities beyond human understanding and proof (isn't that what faith is about? :)

My objective is (or will be) solely to present facts as objectively as possible to Hindus and Indic peoples alone so they can make their own judgements as to the process and goals of the people involved.

But give me a little time. I will get to it only later this afternoon. Putting it all together will require me to focus a bit. Thanks.

dost_mittar

According to your theory, IF there were no written accounts of '84 or Jallianwalah bagh, then contemporary reality would indicate such incidents did not happen.
Or do you mean something else?

sattar:

Couldn't one say that the differences between the Quran and Tohra/Bible are indeed the distortions that have crept into the earlier revelations?

om_prakash:

What Mehmood Ghazanavi did or the Hindu mobs did to Sikhs are part of documented history, but where there is no documentary evidence, one can fall back on people's collective memory or what you call cultural myths, at least when they are consistent with contemporary reality.

Kaal, here’s an absurd thought …

I understand that compressing centuries of history into a few paragraphs would inundate and bore the reader, esp. one who is not familiar with the topic (presumably a Hindu). Hence, reluctance on your part …

Could the same principle be extended to the sufis? That they were reluctant to share details of the Islamic framework of their teachings … as these details would inundate and overwhelm those not familiar with the topic?

Admittedly, a case can be made that a seeker (or target convert, as the case may be) has to know a little something beforehand, in order to make sense of more intricate concepts. I am wondering if this principle may have something to do with what you are suggesting …

I don’t know the details or any answers; I am only tossing around possibilities. This discussion may continue over time …

Om bhai, I understand and appreciate. I will be glad if other Hindus can find your views reasonable and non-fascist. Best.

Eklavya
Sorry I don't have time to indulge in discussion with fascists.

om bhai, it seems you are making very narrow and technical points. Primarily to do with some 'might have beens.' As does murad bhai.

Could you please put them in bullet form so we Hindus can understand you. Thanks.

Sattar bhai, I haven't made the argument about Muslim deception of Hindus yet :)

And that case cannot be made to Muslims, only to Hindus. But describing what I wish to describe is like trying to squeeze 600 year of extremely active history in a few paragraphs without Hindus losing interest, or feeling lost. As you can understand, normal Hindus have not the foggiest idea of these things. So it's a challenge. But I promise to work on it this afternoon.

Best

I made a very narrow point. People are reading more into it than what was implied.
That two systems were in conflict means that there were significant differences between the systems (at that time and place any way, things might have progressed since then to erase the points of friction) and changing from one system to another was 'conversion.'
You may have your own definition of conversion that suits your political agenda. I can claim that I don't have an agenda here and that I believe everything ought to be examined on its own merit similar to saying Hindu-Muslim violence does not preclude or eliminate caste violence. Both existe(d) and the existence of one does not negate the other.

I have nothing more to add here.

It would be good to cite proper sources such as Romila Thapar (far from a hindutwadi!) to buttress claims of violence between hindus and jains and buddhists etc. Pointing to this or that web site is not very plausible; needless to say if one did that with islam the results would indeed be very ugly !!!

There is very little evidence to support the thesis of institutionalized violence between these groups - which is not to say that ancient indian society did not have violence - it had it in plenty - its just that religion wasnt its basis. I am sure that some kings took this side or the other for political gain - today a jain group has hegemony, tomorrow some shaivite faction is ascendant and so on.

Let us contrast the survival of hindu institutions and cultural objects in afghanistan with the survival of jain cultural objects and institutions in india. I think that gives a pretty good idea of the difference in scale, scope and deliberate targetting.

Islam and european christianity are quasi-imperial systems designed for conversion and explicitly allow violence to support this in many contexts. I dont believe any indic tradition has such an infrastructure within the religous tradition itself. Again, it doesnt mean that a group of shaivites didnt attack some jains once or that buddhists never physically fought with brahmins etc.

Kaal (#304),

I read the post … but I am not sure of your conclusion regarding deliberate deception on part of sufis, all sufis, or even khojas. I think it may not be the content, but perhaps the language and emphasis, that strengthens one’s existing suspicions against the khojas.

In other words, same content, written with different emphasis, may lead the reader to a different conclusion.

Could the Khoja doctrine simply be a product of fusion of indic and islamic teachings? If a khoja/shia/muslim believes in universality of islamic teachings, it would not be unnatural for him to seek the common thread that binds various belief systems in a common theme.

+++

DM (#315, 317),

It depends on how one defines “Islam�. If Islam is defined as divine laws revealed in stages by the universal deity, then Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not found Islam, but only completed it.

I think there are material differences between Quran, and, for example, Torah. Furthermore, in Quran Allah also suggests something to the effect that … whatever We revealed earlier, now stands abrogated (presumably in favor of Quranic teachings).

Jang, sure. We pretty much know what Murad Baig believes about Hinduism and Shankaracharya. I don't yet fully understand what ombhai believes.

Knowing that will help advance our common understanding

So if any other Hindu(s) undertand(s) what ombhai believes, let's all help each other grasp it.

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

I know both believe that Hindus massacred others in India for their religious beliefs just as did Muslims (Murad baig - Buddhists, Ombahi - jains, and others such as assif - Sikhs). That much I get.

dost_mittar
1 is a non sequitur. I never implied that the violence was somehow Adi Shankara's fault. You have misread me.
I am not Murad Baig so I cannot answer for him. I'll merely point out that your interesting approach would substitute mythology ("cultural memory") for history. By your reckoning, in a few more decades, our "cultural memory" would tell us that the Brits were kind to us because we get along fine with them and '84 never happened because Sikhs and Hindus get along fine. I am sure you see how ridiculous that would be. Your interesting point with respect to Ghaznavi does not imply that the opposite is automatically true.

From what I understand, there is Shaivite literature in the South that recounts the way the Jains were made to convert. I cannot argue this point more since I don't have the time to research this topic. You are welcome to ignore/question/believe/do your own research, etc.

ek yar, you should write an article on adi shankara and his works. i am emphatically telling you that hindoos know nothing about him. any even illiterate muslim knows about greatness of the prophet, his hadith. now when a learned man like murad writes about shankara, most hindoos would not even understand if the writing is a praise or an attack. i understand your sadness but this is the simple truth.

offcourse even an atheist non-hindoo can evry easily "defeat" hindoo in dawa, interestingly hindoo survives inspite of it.

Since you gentlemen are patiently engaged in a discussion I would not say anyting worse than express very deeply regret that people can actually live in India and know absolutely nothing about either shankaracharya or his philosophy. This has to change if Hindus have to live in peace with others.

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

Let me correct a couple of things:

Statement: Shankaracharya was representing something called 'Hinduism.' His purpose was to go around converting Jains and Buddhists to Hinduism. Had he lost any of his debates he would have had to give up Hinduism.

Fact: Shankaracharya's most celebrated debates took place with Mandan Misra - a famous Hindu scholar of ritualistic school. All of Shankaracharya's philosophy is an invocation away from any rituals, from any dogma, from a focus on rules being blindly followed. He debated EVERYBDY of every persuasion, trying to explain his philosophy. That's what itenerant Indian gurus and sages did in those days.

And Shankara's philosophy is an absolutely brilliant piece of work. I personally know of nothing better. May be some others do. Wish people actually knew about it before passing judgement about what Shankara was preaching.

Fact: As the most despicable and unfair blow, Adi Shanakara has been accused of promoting casteism. The only thing I can say is that that is akin to accusing Mr. Muhammad of preaching cow-worship.

Fact: He is being accused of being a non-pacifist. All his life shankaracharya taught and practised nothing but peace. He broke no idols, killed no enemy or enemies, asked to his followers to kill or rob no one. He taught oneness of all, of living and non-living.

Fact: He is accused of being an 'evangelist.' Evangelism is defined as the zealous preaching of a gospel.

Shankarcharya preached no 'gospel.' He had a phiosophy, he preached it, debated it. If that is supposed to make him 'worse' or 'less' than Muhammad and Zoraster and Christ (although I fail to see how), then so be it. This surely cannot be the Hindu view or even the Indic view.

The odd thing is that Murad bhai has, at other places, treated Shankaracharya almost as a founder of 'Hinduism.' He equates Hinduism with caste and holds Shankaracharya responsible for promoting caste.

I would stop here lest I say something right now I am determined not to say to Murad/Om bhais.

I would again request followers of other religions to develop a better understanding of Hinduism and of its most important figure. You cannot live in peace with a majority if you are totally ignorant of it. At some point in time, you wil be held accountable.

#358 om_prakash

[As to the argument that Jains and Buddhists were not much different from Hindus, I cited instances where such conversion was accompanied by violence.]

Which instances? Because Mr. Digambar Jain of digambarjainonline.com says so? Where is the historical evidence?

Eh?

#365 dost_mittar

["Binding progeny for all generations to come -
Is there a law in India against Muslims reverting back? Not that I am aware of."

I was talking about religion, not the law of any country. ]

om_prakash (interesting choice for a nick) knows very well that you were talking about religion. But he belongs to a people who have been able to fudge everything under the sun. Thus muhammad becomes a good person - no, a "perfect" human being, the koran becomes a book of love and peace, the muslims become eternal victims, not perpetrators and so on and on. Without fudging, in straight arguments, muslims would lose any argument very quickly. So they have evolved means to deal with that. Kill the other person - that's the traditional muslim way to settle any challenges to their "religion", or, barring that, keep stalling and fudging, hoping to confuse and divert the issue, and finally, if there is no choice, disappear for a while until the coast is clear.

Your argument with him about the Jains is a case in point. Of all the points you make with clarity - 1, 2, 3, 4 etc., he does not have any answer. Most likely, he'll lie low for a while, hoping that your post gets buried under some others (Tahmed is a master at this - for that matter all Muslims on Chowk are). If it doesn't, he'll simply keep harping on his unsubstantiated claims as if he never read your post.

om_prakash#343:

Once again, I am not a scholar of that period but would still try to address your quotation about Jains at various levels:

1. If the followers are violent does not mean that the religious leader was violent: Crusaders were violent but Jesus is generally accepted to be pacifist; similarly, some Hindus (who may not necessarily be followers of Shankara) killing Jains does not show Shankara to be not pacifist.

2. I am very skeptical of the various hairbrain theories that have come into existence after independence. As far as I know (and I am sure someone of greater knowledge would correct me if I am wrong), serious pre-independence historians of India, such as A.L. Basham or Max Mueller did not mention any such killings. The Marxian rewrite of Indian history by people with an agenda to prove that the Muslim violence over Hindus was no different from the earlier Hindu violence over practitioners of other religions is as suspect in my eyes as the M.M.Joshi's attempt to rewrite history during the NDA govt.'s rule with the opposite agenda.

3. I have visited several Hindu and Jain temples in various parts of India over the last four months, from Kerala to Madhya Pradesh to Rajasthan. Far from any sign of violence, what I found was that Jain temples were full of Hindu icons and in some cases the priests were actually Hindus (I was told that there is a paucity of Jain priests).

4. Finally, and most importantly, here is a question I have asked Muradbhai more than once and he has never answered and, maybe you can. How come Hindus carry deep, deep scars of Mehmood Ghaznavi's loot and carnage after 1000 years but Jains don't show any such scars of violence perpetrated by the Hindus centuries later. I don't know how many Jain friends you have but I have had dozens of them at various stages of my life and still have half a dozen close one (was with two of them earlier this afternoon and I broached this topic with them). None of them has ever heard of any such atrocities. Indeed, far from being anti-hindu, some of them are among the most ardent followers of the Hindutva.

"Binding progeny for all generations to come -
Is there a law in India against Muslims reverting back? Not that I am aware of."

I was talking about religion, not the law of any country.

"yar jartrustra gets a higher pass due to monoatheistic message"

maybe so, but the point remains, monotheism is a philosophical/moral crieterion not influence, fame based one.

yar jartrustra gets a higher pass due to monoatheistic message ..proly nanak too

"oye yar all murad is saying as that shankara is not the same league as other."

No jang, I am not convinced of that. That would be a morally neutral evaluation based purely on amount of influence, fame etc. But when asked to explain his grouping he mentioned pacifism, evangelism etc.

At other times he mentioned miraculous, controlling god as bad. His classification is not just influence based, but morality based.

And it is not uniform w.r.t Hindu Shankara vs non Hindu others.

(P.S also purely in terms of fame, impact, influence I would count others higher but not necessarily Zooroaster higher than Shankara either)

oye yar all murad is saying as that shankara is not the same league as other. i think i agree with him..noone knows about shankara or what he stands for and such. certainly 80% of "hindoos" dont. not the same with guatama, nanakji, yesu or offcourse muhammed.

hindoos are simply ignorant people about teaching their kids "history", instead they teach them unverifiable myths. all other real religions, give their children a solid foundation on jihadis of their religions, reiterate the good and supress the bad. hindutvas tried a little bit with vivekandand and such but the larger hindoo is simply ignorant. he knows little abour shankara..for vast majority of hindus e.g. of north india hinduism is saying om jai jagadish hare and eating prashad while wearing a ghunghat.

given this, its a tough to put shankara in the same dais as others..in fact there is noone amongst the hindoo who can share that dais, so i would suggest that hindoos better give up on that.

"Buddha and Muhammad were founders of religion(s) and as such I would not consider them evangelists"

So If Adi Shankara had founded Hinduism and done everything else the same, converting etc , he would not have been an evangelist ?

So then murad's criticism of Shankara , in this respect of evangelism , is only that he didn't found a religion ?

( Om, please understand I am not trying here to get to your conception of evangelism but whether murad had a conception of evangelism that is internally coherent or a reflection of prejudice ?)

"Jains and Buddhists were not much different from Hindus"

I didn't present that argument, only that Hindu view is non exclusivist, and the muslim view is so, and the consequences for "imperialistic spread" and violence are different in both.

#320 om_prakash

[One could argue that evangelism is a christianity-specific term and has no meaning outside of it.]

I am curious. How would one "argue" that?

[Regarding Muhammad, he was not arguing theological points to convert. Again, technically, I would not consider it evangelism. I would not consider Khilji an evangelist either. ]

That sounds very technical indeed. Now where did you find that you have to "argue theological points" to be an evangelist?

This is most curious. Do tell.

Publius
To recap what I said - Shankara was an evangelist, converting Jains and Buddhists. As to the argument that Jains and Buddhists were not much different from Hindus, I cited instances where such conversion was accompanied by violence.
Buddha and Muhammad were founders of religion(s) and as such I would not consider them evangelists. Forced conversion is forced conversion, not evangelism in my book. In the case of Buddha, I don't think he particularly cared to start a movement.
Anything else?

#300 muradbaig

[Yes quite a lot including the Rgveda, Gita, summaries of the other vedas, upanishads, Sankhya, Dvaitya, Advaitya, Aurobindo, Vivekananda, Osho and others. ]

Have you noticed how you avoided my first question in #298, but answered the second?

Could you please address the first question, then I could give you a comprehensive response?

No om I am not off topic, if violence done in the name of superior god is relevant to shankara , then it is equally relevant to muhammad.

I would like a clear definition of "evangelism" that includes Buddha and Muhammad but not Shankara. Please state your defintion explicitly.

Jang
Read my previous post on the killing of Jains in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

Publius
You are going off topic here trying to compare violence in different religions.
I don't consider Buddha an evangelist. He had a realization that he felt he had to share. I don't think he had a conception of a 'Buddhism'. He was opposed to organized religion any way.

Let me also ask you om , in your conception of evangelism, was Buddha an evangelist ?

"at some airy. philosophical level. These could be life and death conflicts"

At times yes but we are talking here of whether the Hindu conception of God and religion in comparison to muslim conception of God and religion caused greater violence in the name of superior God.

And how murad can escape accepting that difference and it's consequences.

So once again I ask you which history, on the standard of violence in the name of superior god is worse and why ?

omp i dont know what you are talking of, i am talking of deeksha jains of today take based on talking with them (i talk to a lot of jains since i am from bombay and its full of it).

i was surprised to learn that there are 100 odd sects in jains!

Jang
If it was as simple as that why did the Jains convert to escape death?

Publius
My point in bringing up sectarian fighting within 'hinduism' is to point out that the differences were not simply at some airy. philosophical level. These could be life and death conflicts.

#331 SaimaShah

[The facts are that the essence of all religions is the same. Hinduism and Islam are aspects of the same truth. I mean they are the same. ]

Saima,

In a sense, all religions serve to fulfill some basic needs of human beings which are universal in nature. Most people are not theologians, and don't bother themselves with the intricate or simple theologies of their respective "faiths". Without something to hold on to, this universe can seem a pretty bleak place, and in that sense, all religions/faiths serve a useful purpose in providing that mental crutch.

But the similarity ends there. Islam, indeed all Abrahamic faiths are political in nature, and seem to have the goal of winning the numbers game by attrition. As for philosophy, on which for example the indic "religions" are based, there is NONE in any of the Abrahamic faiths. I know this because I have actually taken the trouble to wade through the Koran, the Bible and the Torah. Not one word that would stimulate any intellectual curiosity in a thinking person. Unthinkable that people could be reading that stuff day in and day out.

In any case, I recognize that your intention is noble. But you are part of the entity called Islam, and just like an ant in an ant-colony has no clue about what the purpose of the overall ant colony is, and how it's role fits into and enables the overall effort, so too you have no idea of your enabling role in the survival and propagation of Islam. You, and Osama Bin Laden, drink from the same well. In fact, people like Urstruly and Osama Bin Laden are much more harmful for the cause of Islam than are people like you, Tahmed and Om Prakash, just to name a few. People like Urstruly and Bin Laden are overt, not deceptive, so Islam's opponents find a clear target that liberals find hard to divert the world's attention from. People like Tahmed, Murad etc. intentionally deceive the world to give non-Muslim liberals some ammunition against those that could do any harm to Islam. People like you, who are in all probability well-intentioned, merely serve as a defensive shield for Islam - much like any civilian muslim population provides cover for Islamic terrorists. People like you, wittingly or unwittingly, provide cover and sustenance for people who carry on Islam's agenda. Well-meaning non-Muslims are reluctant to take a decisive stand against Islam for fear of collateral damage - to people like yourself.

in indian shyte, you get a deeksha..become a follower of a guru. its not a conversion..but formal declaration, of acceptance of a guru.

e.g. even today, jains themselves at times take deeksha from a specific sect guru..they convert from jain to jain. its not the same as a "conversion"...so different.

The essential meaning of evangelist has to be a person trying to convert people from one religion to another through preaching. Muhammad fits that definition clearly. Moreover the message of Muhammad makes such efforts more likely.


--------

"violence over which god is superior"

Let me ask you om, If violence done in the name of a superior god was the moral standard which history, Hindu or muslim, would turn out be worse ? And why ?

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

"is there a law in India against Muslims reverting back"

dost_mittar , meant, internally binding of course i.e the religion insists that apostasy is a punishable crime vs a religion that doesn't.

The remark about South India below was meant to emphasize that South India was not peripheral to Hinduism. Of course Adi Shankara and Ramanaju who made modern Hinduism what it is were from the South.

dost_mittar
Binding progeny for all generations to come -
Is there a law in India against Muslims reverting back? Not that I am aware of.

dost_mittar
Yours probably is a commonly-held view among most Hindus regarding the benignness of the conversion process.

Here's something interesting that throws light on the coversion process (in one geographic location during a certain period but bear in mind that South India was the repository of Hinduism after Muslim onslaught in North India:)

"With the Hindu Renaissance, Jainism in South India went into retreat. There may have been a terrible persecution of Jains in the eighth century. Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu show the impaling of eight thousand Jains at Madurai. In Karnataka Jains were slaughtered by the Virashaiva movement which started in the twelfth century, but Jains had important positions in the Vijayanagar empire founded in 1336. Nevertheless, Jainism continued to decline with many Jains converting to Hinduism. Significant numbers only remained in south west India. Jainism hung on tenaciously, exemplified by the erection of great images of Bahubali at Karkala in 1432 and at Venur in 1604."

from http://www.digambarjainonline.com/dharma/djsect.htm

om_prakash:

I am not a scholar of this period, so what I say is tentative. You can certainly define "evangelist" in a certain way that includes Adi Shankara. But whatever little I have read tells me that Shankara was not the first one to practice that technique; apparently, Buddha, Mahavira, Charvac all used the same technique; i.e. entered into a debate (shastrartha) and whoever was defeated became the disciple of the winner, alongwith his disciples. You can call it conversion, if you will, but the conversion was more like someone changing from Republican to Democrat and not necessarily a lifelong "conversion". I believe this is still the case among Hindus today; they may follow Sai Baba today and Anandpur wale tomorrow; this is not comparable to conversion which involves not only oneself for life but also binds one's progeny for all times to come.

Conversion as we understand it today not only involves accepting someone as a guru but also means renouncing one's previous faith. In that sense, even Buddha did not convert anyone because, as far as I know, he never renounced the religion (even the word religion does not have an equivalent in Indic languages) of his birth.

Publius
I said per my definition Muhammad was not an evangelist. Any way that's just semantics.
Within 'Hinduism' itself, there have been sectarian conflicts, some times violent, between saivites and vaishnavites over which god is superior.

If all you are saying is that Muhammad was spreading his view of god and Shankara his and to that extent they are both "evangelical", without considering their particular views of god well then murad has failed even in that regard, since he doesn't equate the two but puts Muhammad over Shankara.

But in fact the particular view of God preached by either does matter. It is no accident that Muhammad unleashed an imperialist religion trying to spread itself everywhere in the world and Shankara didn't.

The energy for evangelism is directly proportional to the exclusivist view of God. The more exclusivist it is , the more energetic that religion will be in trying to spread itself. And so on the evangelism question there are clear cut differences between Muhammad and his message and Shankara and his message.

Anyway , last post for now.

#331 Saima shah, there is no such thing as a Quran in persian, there is one Arabic Quran period. You make unsubstantiated claims like the BS that Hinduism and Islam are the same, they are not their social situatedness is not the same nor is their essence. Some similarities do not translate into, they are the same. They are not.

Have a nice day and don't arrogantly ban me for disagreeing with your "intellectual" nonsense. You are as shallow in your analysis as the mainstream liberals whose work is spewed just to give the impression that the system is open to dissent. They don't have a clue neither do you- how about that as poetry?

TNITC masadi

Saima Shah, can I ask why you have been censoring all of my articles as editor in chief of Chowk and promoting yourself and others that write on irrelevant topics, given the current socio-political situation around the country and the world. You should be ashamed of yourself for doing so.

Have a nice day and don't arrogantly ban me for making this post.

TNITC masadi

Publius
Are you aware that there were bloody confrontations and efforts at conversion between Hindus and Jains?

Sorry I meant A = C or B = D.

Publius
Saying that A relates to B similar to how C relates to D, does not at all mean A=B or C=D.

"Hindu notion of the importance of god"

That notion is not exclusivist , om. Sure they would accept that there was a 'Brahman' and there was a 'self' and that enlightenment comes with realizing that identity through voluntary discovery.( which was Shankara's view)

But that notion of God and Quranic notion of God are utterly different.(Of a God that has sent his message for all times, exclusively through his messenger,which men must obey and follow).

"From what I understand, had Shankara lost any of his debates, he would have had to give up Hinduism also."

Unbelievable. Incredible. For a 'Hindu' to make that statement!

That just knocks my socks off. But I have to leave right now, and will be back later in the evening to learn more about Shankaracharya from Om bhai and Murad baig.

Publius
There were theological differences in addition to philosophical one.
You have to remember that Buddhists were agnostic about god whereas Shankara believed in all sorts of deities. Acceptance of Hinduism would have meant accepting Hindu notion of the importance of god.

Re: # 13

I feel a little sad but also excited to read your comment. Rumi's work is considered to be the Quran in persian--so certainly Rumi wasn't a plagiarist and if he was then he was a plagiarist of both Quran and Hindu ideas... The facts are that the essence of all religions is the same. Hinduism and Islam are aspects of the same truth. I mean they are the same. It may upset your concept of your identity that has been brainwashed since childhood Hinduism has nothing to do with Islam me hindu therefore not muslim, but sadly that is political glastnost, not the truth.

Yeah but what was the content of Adi Shankara's view ?

Did he claim that he had the final true message from God which other must adhere to ? or did he try and defeat his opponents in rational debate( which he excelled in) ?

The central content, the substance of his views, was entirely absent of the notion of bringing people to the message of the one true god.( His view was humans achieve enlightenment by realizing the identity between themselves and Brahman)

Thanks for this wonderful gently written historical summary of sufism in the sub-continent. I enjoyed this very much.

From what I understand, had Shankara lost any of his debates, he would have had to give up Hinduism also.

Publius
Did you know that once they were defeated (and they all were) Adi Shankara's adversaries had to renounce their religion?
This was a cut-throat affair and Shankara's mission was to save Hinduism from Jainism and Buddhism.
Frankly I don't see a negative connotation to this.

The opposite of "excluisvist view of God and religion" is not that all religions are the same.

om,

From Shankar's pov what was "wrong" with Jainism and Buddhism were certain false views or doctrines, not that they were not the "true creed " from God and Shankara's was.

(In particular the Buddhist view of no self etc).

laddu
I agree with you on conversion by the sword. Murad Baig also has alluded to it in his reference to the different phases in Muhammad's life.

Publius
If Hinduism was the same as Jainism and Buddhism, where was the need to preach or convert?

om,

In the context of this discussion evangelism means having an exclusivist view of god and religion and trying to bering people to that view( which is why murad associated a negative with it). If he had meant just enthusiastic advocacy of a view, no matter what and how it would not have a negative meaning at all.

We can call it X if you like and then it becomes clear that Muhammad and Shankara were different on this parameter.

"arguing theological points to convert"

You don't have argue theological points, only preach that you have the best, final , the only really true message of God for it to constitute "evangelism" as per above.

Mohammad found the ultimate technique for 'evangelism' - it is called DAWAH by Sword.

The arguments are finally settled by Sword.

He who wins in the war of Sword may be considered to have the best argument!!

since, Mohammad won so many wars - hence his arguments were the best!!

QED

Publius
One could argue that evangelism is a christianity-specific term and has no meaning outside of it.
If you go beyond that, then the dictionary definition is an enthusiatic advocacy of a view, philosophy, etc.

Regarding Muhammad, he was not arguing theological points to convert. Again, technically, I would not consider it evangelism. I would not consider Khilji an evangelist either.

"debating and converting."

om in that sense anybody trying to convince anybody else through philosophical arguments can be termed an evangelist. I don't think that is right.

An evangelist is somebody who believes in " the one true creed" based on divine revelation and seeks to convert others to that creed.

The term is far far more applicable to Islam and Muhammad than Shankara and his ideas.

"converting so much as acquiring followers through force and his revelations"

I don't see the difference between converting and "acquiring followers" in this context.

Besides, Muhammad was not a jew.

om_Prakashji:

My understanding is that Muhammad himself claimed to have not brought any new message; the message was the same as brought by earlier prophets, he was sent merely to correct the distortions that had creeped into the followers of the earlier prophets.

dost_mittar
Islam is supposed to be Judaism AND MORE. It was not simply a sect of Judaism with Muhammad as its head.

om_prakash:

"Technically I suppose Muhammad was not an evangelist since he was the founder of Islam and he was not converting so much as acquiring followers through force and his revelations."

Technically, Muhammad did not "found" Islam. Technically, Islam is supposed to be the same religion as was preached by Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Muhammad was only the last messenger of the same message.

muradbaig
Adi Shankara travelled all the way from Kerala to Kashmir debating and converting Buddhists and Jains when they were defeated. In this sense, he definitely was an evangelist.

Technically I suppose Muhammad was not an evangelist since he was the founder of Islam and he was not converting so much as acquiring followers through force and his revelations.

Jesus most definitely was not an evangelist. He remained a jew who was trying to reform the religion from within.

laddu

By all that is holy and unholy, these people must be expossed.

People may very well believe in Islam if they choose to, but this kind of distortion, deceipt and trickery must be put to an end. And nobody who stands by them can be good for anyone.

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

What these people have been doing is more than shocking. I am looking at the a vast material, and don't know where to start, or how to begin describing it!

Infact, Sunni Wahabbis are more forthright - but nothing can compare the Shia-Taquiyya. Ask any Sunni , they would vouch for their duplicity.

Re: # 308

"I do not recall his converting many others except family memberrs but he definitely urged everyone to convert to Islam."

Mian , you are either not properly read in Islam or are just doing taquiyya - a Shia-Speciality!!!

Re: # 308

What a Joker!!

Murad bhai,

So

(1) you have no evidence that shankara urged conversions.

You have evidence that muhammad urged everyone to convert to his religion - which he called the last and final one for all mankind.

Yet, in your dictionary, Shankara was an evangelist, muhammad was NOT!

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

(1) You have evidence that Muhammad fought and killed poeple.

(2) You have no evidence that Shankara ever fought or killed anyone.

Yet Muhammad is defined as a Pacifist, Shankara is NOT!!

Re: # 302

Eklavya in reply i must say Yes and NO. Seriously. The sayings of the prophet were generally mild and generous when he was himself being persecuted in Mecca. His words become more arrogant while in exile at Madina and become much more authoritarian after he returned to Mecca in triumph. I do not recall his converting many others except family memberrs but he definitely urged everyone to convert to Islam.

There is no evidence that Shankara urged conversions but plenty to show that many newly raised and evangilical Brahma Kshatras (who later became Rajputs) used his name to persecute Buddhists and Jains. There were very few Muslims to persecute in his time and the many unclean tribals with their own tribal gods were beneath Brahminical contempt.

I will also show you over time what these people really believe. So you can decide whether to laugh at them or cry for their soul.

Just to whet you appetite and give you some laughs for tonite:

From a book called "Budh Avatar Granth" Written by One of Murad Baig ancestors :)

Gotama Budha is talking to Indians:

35. Then Sri Budh said:
Let me tell you want is dammed.

36. The divine aspect has left the Brahmin
And taken the form of Prophet Muhammad.

So this use of the Buddha, and buddhism, to promote Muhammad and Islam seems to go to the very root of Murad Baig's existence...but there is a lot more interesting stuff, which will require more context. Will provide that tomrrow. Goodnite for now.

If you at least skim through that long piece, you will also see later the how people like Yoginder Sikhand and his group deliberately misrepresent reality to aid distortions of facts by Muslims like Murad Baig.

*Intellectual and Moral Fraud By Muslims Against Hindus*

Folks, here's an interesting background piece, by Yoginder Sikand. I will build on this, and take you behind the veil of Islam, explain the 'batin', as Murad and Ombhai might say. If you are a Hindu, at least skin through it (it is a big longish), so we may understand what Muslims have presented, and the truth behind their mask.

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

A Hindu-Muslim synthesis
http://www.sabrang.com/cc/comold/march98/ethos.htm

The amazing eclecticism of Khoja beliefs represent a unique and lasting synthesis of Hindu and Islamic doctrines and tenets

Numbering no more than 15 million worldwide, the Nizari Ismaili Shias are one of the smallest and the least known of all Muslim sects. Over half of the Ismaili population resides in the Indian sub-continent, where they are commonly known as Khojas or Aga Khanis, so called because they regard the Aga Khan as their spiritual leader. Because of centuries of persecution, the Ismaili religion has evolved into a highly esoteric tradition. Like other Shia sects, the Ismailis recognise Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad, as the Prophet’s legitimate successor, and consider a long chain of Ali’s direct descendants as spiritual authorities or Imams.

What distinguishes them from other Shia groups are their hidden doctrines (batin, in Arabic) and a complex theology which while deeply mystical, is considered heterodox by mainstream Muslim groups. What particularly sets the Ismailis apart from other Muslim sects in India, Sunni as well as Shia, is the amazing eclecticism of Khoja beliefs, representing a unique and lasting synthesis of Hindu and Islamic doctrines and tenets.

According to popular Khoja lore, the first of the many Ismaili missionaries or dais to India was the twelfth century Sayyed Nuruddin Nur Muhammad. He is commonly referred to as Satgur Nur, or ‘the true Guru of Light’. He first landed at Patan in Gujarat, where he set about making a deep study of Hindu and Islamic religious texts, gradually evolving the Ismaili mystical order known as the Satpanth, a Sanskrit word meaning ‘the True Path’, combining features common to both the Hindu as well as the Islamic traditions. Satgrur Nur is said to have so deeply influenced the Raja of Patan, Sidhraj Jaisingh, with his mystical piety that the royal family became his disciples, as did the ruler of the neighbouring kingdom of Dhara-nagari, Raja Surchand, whose daughter Palande he later married.

Fearful of persecution by their more powerful Sunni Muslim and Hindu neighbours, these and other new adherents of the Satpanth kept their religious beliefs concealed. Hence, they later earned the epithet of gupti momins or ‘secret believers’.

From Gujarat, Satgur Nur then travelled to the Punjab and eventually to Kashmir preaching the Ismaili Satpanth all the way. The gradual inter-meshing of Hindu and Islamic beliefs that Satgur Nur had initiated was carried forward by a growing number of Islamili mystics who followed in his wake. Of these, the most renowned was the 14th century Pir Sadruddin al-Hussaini, commonly known as Bar Guru (‘The Great Teacher’) or Suhdev. Born in Sabzvar in Persia, Pir Sadruddin was sent to India by the 13th Imam known among the Khojas as Shri Islam Shah, to further spread the message of the Satpanth.

Like Satgur Nur before him, Pir Sadruddin had a deep understanding of Hindu as well as Islamic doctrines and mysticism; his teachings represent a strikingly harmonious intermixture of the two. In his development of the Satpanth, he laid particular stress on the poor, speaking out against oppression and for the rights of the marginalised. This won for the Satpanth a large number of followers from down-trodden castes. Among them, the Lohanas were the most numerous.

Perhaps the greatest contribution of Pir Sadruddin to the Ismaili Satpanth tradition in India was the vast body of mystical poetry and prose that he composed. Known by the Sanskrit term of gyan (knowledge), this corpus of profoundly mystical writings, mainly in Gujarati and Sindhi, is particularly noteworthy for its unique synthesis of Hindu and Islamic motifs and beliefs. In his lengthy poem, Chhatis Crore (360million), for instance, Pir Sadruddin refers to the four Hindu yugs or ages and writes of the millions of souls that have already been saved in past yugs by Prahlad, Raja Harishchandra and Yudhishtra, and of a similar number who have earned salvation in the present kaliyug by following the Satpanth.

Similarly, in his Bavan Bodh (‘52 Lines’), he writes of the need for Satpanthis to strictly abide by the sandhya (evening prayer) and the vandana (hymn-recital), both clearly Hindu practices, albeit modified to suit Satpanthi doctrines. In the same work he warns his followers against lying, which, he says, is against the teachings of both the Quran as well as the Vedas. In another text, the Sakhi Samrani Granth (‘Book of God, Advice Worthy of Remembrance’), he writes of the falsity of mindless ritualism, and creatively reinterprets the Brahminical thread as ‘a hundred kiriyas (noble deeds)’. ‘Only those who attain communion with the Guru Brahmaji are the real Brahmins’, he says in a biting critique of the caste system, adding that, ‘they alone are those who know the Brahmagyan (knowledge of the divine mysteries)’.

Pir Sadruddin’s unique blend of Hindu and Islamic tenets is carried even further in his Dasavatar (‘The Ten Incarnations [of Vishnu]’). Here he writes of the nine previous incarnations of Vishnu familiar to Hindus, and, while glorifying them, presents Ali as the tenth avatar, saviour for the Kaliyug. In so stressing the equal validity of both Hindu as well as Islamic religious traditions, Sadruddin laid the basis of a remarkable culture synthesis that still survives almost intact among the Khojas of the country.

Khoja syncretism was carried further by Pir Sadruddin’s son and successor, Pir Hassan Kabiruddin, who, like his father, was the author of numerous gyans. Thus, in his Anant Akhado (‘Eternal Gathering’), a lengthy prayer still recited daily by the Khojas, Pir Kabiruddin equates the Muslim Allah with the Hindu Ishvar. Each verse of the poem ends with the distinctly Hinduistic cry of ‘Hari Anant !’ (‘Hari, the eternal One !’).

Here the Prophet Muhammad is equated with ‘Guru Brahma’ and Ali with Vishnu. India, which he calls by the Sanskrit name Jambudwip, is said to be the final meeting place of all the holy men of the world. The same word is also used symbolically to refer to ‘the eternal home’ of the soul that has attained salvation. Here, again, the ten avatars of Vishnu are talked about, as is Sita, who is extolled along with Fatima, daughter of Prophet Muhammad and wife of Ali, as ‘the perfect ones of their age’.

God, in fact, is shown in a remarkable feminine light, with particular stress given to God’s role of a ‘mother’ caring deeply for her children. Kunti, Draupadi and the Pandavas come in for praise along with Ali and the Prophet. Pri Kabiruddin speaks of the ‘four books’ (the Torah of Moses, the Psalms of David, the Bible of Jesus and the Quran of Muhammad) as well as the four Vedas, as all divinely revealed. Elsewhere, he writes of the Quran as being the fourth Veda (atharved).

It is perhaps in the gyans of Pir Kabiruddin that the Satpanthi call for a harmonious fusion of Hindu and Islamic tenets finds its most forceful expression. Thus, in the Anant Akhado, he writes that the Satpanth ‘encompasses all paths to God’, and that ‘the Husband [God] plays mysteriously in many forms’. This remarkable Ismaili Satpanthi religious eclecticism, which so clearly symbolises the spirit of the faith, is best expressed in one of the Pir’s many gyans:


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.

Yoginder Sikand

If you feel uncomfortable, you don't have to explain your answers. As a believer you can choose to believe anything. Simple yes or no would suffice (unless of course, you would care to explain).

murad bhai, those are very questions. You can answer them here.

For your convenience, here they are again:

(1) do you consider muhmmad to have been a pacifist, or 'mostly pacifist' in comparison to Adi Shankara?

(2) do you hold that Adi Shankaracharya was an evangelist while Jesus, Muhammad, Zoraster, Buddha were not?

Many thanks.

Re: # 299

Yes. Pl read my Chowk article on the persecution of Buddhists and Jains in May 2008

Re: # 298
Yes quite a lot including the Rgveda, Gita, summaries of the other vedas, upanishads, Sankhya, Dvaitya, Advaitya, Aurobindo, Vivekananda, Osho and others.

Murad bhai, the way you worded #282, some confusion has arisen over whether you consider muhmmad to have been a pacifist, or 'mostly pacifist' in comparison to Adi Shankara.

Just to confirm, you also hold that Adi Shankaracharya was an evangelist while Jesus, Muhammad, Zoraster, Buddha were not?

Many thanks in advance.

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

Publius, agreed. And as we know more, it may indeed become possible to differentiate between the two more easily.

#286 muradbaig

[My post no 244 should make it quite clear that I do not subscribe to any `religion'...]

Then why are you expounding on the "gentle power" of Sufism?


[..though I respect the founders of most faiths. So please understand that I am no closet Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Christan. I am hostile to all who use the name of religion to legitimise unfounded myths and inhuman practices and deplore the violence that so many religious exteremists seem to love. I want human brotherhood, understanding and free thinking unqualified by any dogma. I want no religious authorities or religious claptrap to tell me what I should think. ]

Well, if you are indeed spiritual, and not religious, have you ever bothered to read any Hindu philosophy? I have noticed that you have written a lot about Hinduism vis-a-vis other religions.

#289 laddu

[That would be ultimate dawah. A Shia Twelver deciding what hindu is after making a caricature of Hindu idolators.?? ]

laddu,

Let me tell you a story about this whole "idolator" business that Muslims, Christians etc. like to brandish in the Hindu face whenever they can.

When the British were ruling India, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar (or maybe it was Swami Vivekananda - I don't remember) was visiting a British friend at his house. They were having a discussion about something, when this British guy asked Vidyasagar how come intelligent human beings could put such stock in an idol - something which is just made of stone, or some such material object. In response, Vidyasagar simply got up from his chair, went up to the wall behind where the British gentleman was sitting, where there was a framed photograph of that gentleman's parents. He took the photograph down, put it on the ground, and stepped on it. The British gentleman was outraged. "Those are my parents!" he exclaimed - "how dare you!". And Vidyasagar said to him - "Well, what's the big deal - isn't it only some paper and ink?". The British gentleman then understood what Vidyasagar was saying to him - that an Idol to a Hindu REPRESENTS some aspect of the Brahman, just like the photograph REPRESENTS some aspect of his parents.

In this sense, ALL Muslims and all Christians - indeed everyone in the world - are "idolators" as well. They too put stock in material things that represent entities that they love, respect or cherish - be it pictures of family members, or the physical structure of a mosque, or the cross, or a church.

kaal the discussion about om is getting a bit tiresome. Murad is apparently biased against Hinudism, om is not. That to me is the difference, and moral difference, even if om doesn't recognize that there are muslims who misrepresent Islam to Hindus.

But on this matter we may not be able to convince each other, so perhaps it's best to move on.

AkCheema & Regards

Here is the result of a scientific anthropoligical study (done by Department of Humanities of Kyoto university) of the religious beliefs of the primitive and islolated pygmie tribes in Africa. The conclusions, without a shred of doubt, stipulate that every tribe originally believed in ONE Absolute Supreme Being. The corruption came later.

http://www.africa.kyoto-u.ac.jp/kiroku/asm_suppl/abstracts/pdf/ASM_s27 /04_SAWADA.PDF

Re: # 293

Oh I can hardly wait. Could you do it today.

Re: laddu # 282

So WE need a Shia Ayotollah Cult Follower to define what Hinduism stands for ??

No??

That would be ultimate dawah. A Shia Twelver deciding what hindu is after making a caricature of Hindu idolators.??

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

Laddu ji, I know you don't agree with me at all but that is what sufism is.

Between today and tomorrow, I will write up a little about a concrete case to show to Hindus who may be concerned (not to murad/omj is) what the structure of "ultimate Muslim dawah" is.

Thank you murad bhai. That does make it easier to understand your and om bhai's point of view.

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

Publius, having considered the matter a bit, I do think it would be very wrong to make sharp distinctions between murad bhai and om ji. From every point of view, except perhap, moral, they present, one single force.

I would be most glad to change that opinion if either of the two - om bhai or murad ji - can help us see what the differences, if any, between them are.

#283 Urstruly, "284 Akcheema
If I may remind.
God concept was primarily an attempt to understand something more powerful than humans. Mystical forces always favoured as they could not be explained easily. Nature forces was 'naturally' foremost baffling phenomena when culture 'gene' appeared some 40,000 years ago. Gods in ancient Egypt were alreday urbanized version of God. They came much after the nature gods- Lightening, fire, wind, water etc.. and there were dozens.

Nature gods disappeared in favour of 'King' gods (monotheism!!!) when urban life brought forth social hierarchy.

You don't have to go far. Just check with present day isolated tribes. Only Gods they have are a multitude of deities reigning on one feature of their lives.

Re: # 282

Mohammad a pacifist? Which quran have you been reading Muradbhai. I generally do not like to quote from the Quran, but here is a verse for you, which quite clearly is not speaking of the "inner jehad":

"«And Fight those who have not faith in God, nor in the Hereafter, and (who) forbid not what God and His Prophet have forbidden and (who ) are not committed to the religion of truth, of those who have been brought the Book, until they pay tribute by hand, and they are the low.» (9:29)"


The quran calls those who accept some portions of the quran and not the others (esp. jihad) as Munafiq, a great sin.

I might add that Rama, Krishna and Gobind Singh were also not pacifist.

Re: # 282

So WE need a Shia Ayotollah Cult Follower to define what Hinduism stands for ??

No??

That would be ultimate dawah. A Shia Twelver deciding what hindu is after making a caricature of Hindu idolators.??

"pacifict, he was also rather evangalist in brilliantly "

If pacifism and non evangelism is the standard then to consider Muhammad, who lead in wars and started a whole converting type religion , better than Adi Shankara , who didn't, and placing him in the company of Buddha and Jesus is absurd.

It only reinforces the impression of an attempt to whitewash Muhammad while exhibiting a strong bias against Hindu figures.

Jang, goal-matoal hoge tum! I do the treadmill!

Re: # 285

Ajeya

My post no 244 should make it quite clear that I do not subscribe to any `religion' though I respect the founders of most faiths. So please understand that I am no closet Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Christan. I am hostile to all who use the name of religion to legitimise unfounded myths and inhuman practices and deplore the violence that so many religious exteremists seem to love. I want human brotherhood, understanding and free thinking unqualified by any dogma. I want no religious authorities or religious claptrap to tell me what I should think.

#282 muradbaig

[Unlike most of them who were mostly pacifict...]

Eklavya,

I think you should not argue with murad any more. I think he is a classical example of who a Muslim is and what being a Muslim means. Very much like Tahmed.

As I have said many times before, true Muslims cannot be persuaded by logical arguments to change their approach to things. My wife, after reading some posts, has told me many times that I am insane to be wasting time with these people. But as I tell her, I am not here to change anybody's mind. I am just here to beat their idiot heads into the ground (metaphorically speaking, of course) whenever they pop up to make their "logical" arguments. The effect is never lasting, and they always disappear and pop back up when the coast seems clear, as if they never heard the last argument I made that they were unable to refute. That is the Muslim way. Unfortunately.

Re: # 283; urstruly

that is one point of view and by no means can be regarded as'proof' of anything ... but I am happy to go along with that for a bit

why is it do you think, that there has always been this 'natural' tendency for the 'prototype', i.e., monothiesm in your opinion, to 'deteriorate' into something else? .... time and time again through human history (by your own admission)

.... to an outside observer it almost sounds like 'nature' keeps dragging humanity towards a 'default' position ... which always appears away (rather than towards) monotheism

#182 Posted by akcheema

Re: # 180; urstruly

".... why is it that under 'natural' circumstances humanity always chooses animism/polytheism etc and NEVER monotheism (examples all around the world from arabia to persia through to india, polynesia, american natives etc"

Mr. Cheema your argument is not at all supported by facts, au contrair, given the "natural" circumstance humanity has always chosen Monotheism first, and then it was corrupted into diffrent variations of polytheism, deism, and pantheism etc. That goes even for Hinduism as well. Here please educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism#In_ancient_Egypt

Re: # 245
I think Shankaracharya was a great guy even if the story of his life and works is so clouded by myth as to make it rather unreliable historically. But I do not consider him to be in the same league as Buddha, Mahavira, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammad or Nanak.

Unlike most of them, who were mostly pacifict, he was also rather evangalist in brilliantly presenting his philosophy. I do not also think that Hinduism can be defined by his teachings.

Is Sufi Muhammad also a sufi?

This is just to mop up , not extend the discussion.

In addition, to #275, the plausibility of a view is also a factor in deciding "dishonesty vs mistaken view".( That historical intent is impossible to prove is, imo, a false but not completely implausible view.)

That's very loosely written. It would be impossible to prove what Hindus WOULD or WOULD not have done, but I am going to present the case, and let people decide. It will not (as noting probably will) convince Muslims and om bhai, but others can make up their own minds.

Sattar, zee and I have often made that point. 'Goodness' and 'evil' are matters of definition (broadly Muslims might have one definition, Hindus another). Islam expands by offering to men and women what many of them want.

I suspect most Muslims tend to see 'good' in Islam, and not so much 'good' in other religions, and vice versa for non-Mulsims.

-----

But the argument of deception by sufis is independent of that. It says that many Hindus would NOT have become Muslims had sufis exposed to them the basics of Islam first. Or worse, not actively tried to deliberately dress up Islam as just another form of Hinduism that Hindus were used to, in order to convert them to Islam.

Good points everyone. I will go ahead and in a few days try to present at least one major case, may be two. My personal belief is that these cases represent just tip of the treacherous iceberg called sufism, and if Hindus really had studied carefully they would discover a lot more. On the other hand, one could also argue that those cases don't represent EVERY sufi.

In any case, if I just kept talking about it and never presented anything, then that would be dishonest of me. So give me a few days, folks. And thanks in advance for your patience.

Kaal (#267),

Minor but critical point: I am not suggesting that some "goodness" in Islam drove all the conversions.

I am not sure what "goodness" is ... defining "goodness" would be a different, never-ending discussion.

I am only suggesting that some aspects of Islam "suited" the converts better than the alternative; rest is subjective ...

+++

And I wouldn't pay much attention to om parkash or murad if I were you. You are getting into petty squabbles while ignoring the bigger issue at hand. Just my $2E-2 ...

kaal it depends. Suppose he believed that intent ( narrowly in historical matters or widely anywhere) is genuinely impossible to prove and applied that idea uniformly wherever it was logically applicable he would be seriously mistaken not dishonest.

Suppose he took the above position not because he genuinely believed it and was consistent with it elsewhere but because he wanted to evade certain facts or because it was convenient in an argument he would be being dishonest.

---------
As a completely separate and unrelated point I would also point out, to those who hold om's view, that the question of what constitutes deception is separate from whether it can be proved.
( You see , we should be able to spell out what constitutes deception even when it may not be possible to prove it, just as we can spell out what murder is even though we may not be able to prove it in this or that case)

What I learned from this discussion is that muslims do not have any objection to use of deception in converting non-muslims.

septic..LOL

yar om and many indians are not delusional, just scared of "discovering" the truth, or where will it lead to kinda stuff. overall humans kinda want to do whats right, true etc. so if "truth" is hit upon, it means action. and therein lies a fear. tamasoma jyotir gamaya flame also can light a fire. therefore truth-pandits become hate-pandits, esp if they are not muslims. muslims have clear guidelines, divine injunctions, hadiths, a clear dawa (as sattarbhai recognizes) . all hindoos have are treacherous saibabas.

anyways i digress..if this fear is addressed, imo the pill might become more palatable, especially in a diverse nation like india. e.g. pakistan has no such issues.

Publius, will do so, but before, for just a bit more, I want to push you on the moral angle.

(Why) would it not be right to consider Ombhai's approach quite immoral and dishonest if he refuses to lay out a reasonable, operationalizable standard for proving deception AND throws stones later once such evidence is presented?

kaal , imo, om is simply wrong in thinking intent is impossible to prove or to be uncomfortable in spelling out his standard of deception.( I think he senses a 'trap' in that)

I am just not sure that it is the result of evasiveness or dishonesty.( there may be some reluctance, motivated by good intentions, to take an anti islam position, I grant you that)


Please don't wait for him to agree or disagree, provide the facts regardless, whenever you are ready.

Great! If ombhai agrees, I will get to collecting some evidence. I have collected nothing as of now, but know precisely what I am talking about. People might be surprised to learn how consequential ultimately for Hindus this 'sufi deception' turned out to be.

Publius, that is precisely what I intend doing.

But I would consider people like ombhai utterly dishonest if they did not define what they would consider a reasonable evidence beforehand but rejected any evidence presented as inadequate.

Would I be right in doing that?

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

You do think of moral issues involved a lot more than I do, so it is always wonderful to get your perspective! Yours is not a perspective that Muslims will accept but I do! :)

"Active Camouflaging of Islam: In fact, there is evidence many sufis took delieberate steps to camouflage Islam in Hindu colors, to make Islam more palatable to Hindus, promoting an appearance of similarity with Hinduism. EVEN when they knew that Islam was quite different from Islam.

We can show that Sufis (again not kabir type) hoped that Hindus would over time drop aspects of Hinduism and become real Muslims because they knew that Islam was not the same as Hinduism.

From Hindu point of view, that formed clear deception."


Yep if you can show that it would constitute deception ( or as near to it as it can be in this case)

Sattar bhai, as a matter of principle, i don't argue that case with Musllims because I know exactly how they think - so I appreciate the arguments you have made.

Were ombhai a Muslim, the issue of proving or showing sufi deception to him would indeed be rather futile. He would truly believe, as you do, in some goodness of Islam drove all conversions. And that would make perfect sense to him.

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

My argument of deception against Sufis is aimed exclusively Indic peoples, and can be, with some effort, shown. I would not, however, put that effort in, unless people who are likely to object - such as ombhai (not you, because you will never accept it, and should not either) can tell us what reasonable evidence they WOULD accept.

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

But I can make the logical argument for the benefit of Indic people again.

Hindus are deceived part: Hindus misunderstand sufis. Hindus think Sufis are/were netural wise men promoting merely 'eqaulity of and respect for all religions.' They are agnostics, atheists etc.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Sufi Acts of Omission:

Despite having lived with them for hundreds of years, Sufis NEVER took steps to clarify their stands and beliefs to Hindus, to confusion and misunderstanding in the Hindu miid. They didn't have to since it was not their "responsbility". But that would only be true if they had agendas different than the ones Hindus thought Sufis did.

Sufi Acts of Commission:

Active Camouflaging of Islam: In fact, there is evidence many sufis took delieberate steps to camouflage Islam in Hindu colors, to make Islam more palatable to Hindus, promoting an appearance of similarity with Hinduism. EVEN when they knew that Islam was quite different from Islam.

We can show that Sufis (again not kabir type) hoped that Hindus would over time drop aspects of Hinduism and become real Muslims because they knew that Islam was not the same as Hinduism.

From Hindu point of view, that formed clear deception.

"if one followed proper form of dialogue"

kaal I think in some respects he didn't follow the proper form of dialog( in refusing to define his view of deception, for instance) but your calling/suggesting him muslim didn't help either.

Anyway this is getting too dragged out. I think it would be best if you did 2 things, regardless of what anybody else thinks

a) Set out with clarity what constitutes deception in this context

b) Provide concrete example(s) of such deception in a sufi(s).

Regardless of anything else, that would move the discussion forward for all the rest of us.

skeptics! :)

Publius,

Being a sceptic, intelligent or not, is perfectly fine, if one followed proper form of dialogue. If he does not believe that sufis were deceptive, that is not a big deal.

"but also determinedly sets standards that may be impossible to meet."

kaal I don't think that the issue of the standard has been hashed out completely to reach that conclusion, the discussion became distracted before that.

I don't think it has been demonstrated that om is irrevocably closed to the very idea, the very possibility of deception. IMO, he needed to be challenged/argued with much more patiently than has been done so far.

In general convincing others, especially intelligent skpetics like om, can be a very very difficult and elongated process.

Publius, would om bhai's personal views should not matter. It should be enough that not only he is not convinced, but also determinedly sets standards that may be impossible to meet.

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

Again, I raise that because that is the very same strategy that a real believer uses. They place before unbelievers such standards that simply cannot be attained. If Ombhai does the same, they seem to be part of implementing one single stategy (irrespective of what ombhai actually thinks - which he has not shared).

Does that seem reasonable?

Kaal, … it would help if you provide basis for your claims regarding deception by sufis …

I understand that proving something may be a tall order and I am not asking for it. However you should provide some basis for your claims …

A few thoughts:

Granted, Sufism may not be a bridge between Hinduism and Islam, but a one-way street. Why do you think that was the case? Blaming it on deception on part of sufis may not be the complete answer. Is it possible that the converts found in Islamic teachings something that suited them better than teachings of Hinduism?

Here’s another way of looking at this …

Quite possibly, Islam is not the wahabi religion that we see today … which forbids women from attending school and men from getting a haircut. Arguably, Quran makes the opposite case: It makes a distinction between being a Muslim and being righteous. One becomes a Muslim by simply accepting Muhammad (pbuh) as a prophet of Allah, but Quran admonishes believers that while you consider yourself Muslims, don’t think that righteousness has entered your hearts (or something to that effect; I am missing the reference here).

Becoming a Muslim would be the first step … and acquiring righteousness would be a lifelong journey, according to this interpretation. Using Quranic view, one may also argue against the wahabi Islam … in favor of a different, gentler form of Islam.

I wouldn’t be surprised if in the early days of Islam hundreds and thousands of men entered the folds of Islam … without knowing the details of what it was all about. Over time, perhaps across decades and generations, they adopted more and more of its rituals and details.

+++

Similarly, in the light of Quranic teachings, one may validly argue that Ram and Muhammad worshipped the same god. Granted, a Hindu may reject this as sheer nonsense … and insist that Bhagwan and Allah are two distinct entities with nothing in common. However, this argument from a Hindu would have little appeal for one who has accepted this particular Quranic interpretation ... and converted.

+++

You seem insistent on preserving a particular flavor of Hinduism (Indic views?) … which can have nothing in common with Islam. You need to base your ideas on something more than merely wanting to preserve a particular flavor of Hinduism. It has to offer something to the common person … in order to survive and expand its influence. What is that core in Hinduism? (this is a rhetorical question). Unless you carefully define it and make it stick, your efforts may be futile … and may go down the path of wahabism … which it seems, has no option but to brute force its teachings on others. This may fly for a while … but will eventually hurt wahabis themselves … perhaps after a lot of blood has been shed on both sides.

This discussion can forever go in circles … however, I am particularly interested in hearing more about your claims against sufis. Granted, it may make sense to Hindus, and not to Muslims … but let’s hear it anyway …

"Without Om bhai, Murad baig will fall flat."

maybe but we don't know om's views about murad , do we ?( the only thing we know is that om is unconvinced about sufi "deception")

What I would re-state is that those of us who find Murad bhai's shenanigans unacceptable and destructive, cannot afford to separate him from Ombhai.

They form key actors in a single strategy. Without Om bhai, Murad baig will fall flat.

# 256

A very fair statement, Publius.

----------

Providing direct and conclusive proof of deception would be excetionally hard, and a person may rely on that difficulty as a strategy of defense.

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

# 257

OK, will give some more thought to the use of the word evil.

Also about the other points look I consider om's views about Israel totally immoral but that is once again different from calling HIM immoral.( which I would for Islamists for instance).

In case of sufis I think om views are nearer to mistaken and unclear than immoral( a person who liked Shah Walliullah but called him sufi would have immoral views).

kaal w.r.t to 1 and 2 I do believe that there is some obscurity and incoherence in om's views about deception but I don't accept he was throwing red herrings.

This is very difficult to prove, without a detailed lingusitic analysis, but my overall impression on reading his views below are not of prejudice but of a person somewhat honestly struggling to understand somebody else's views but not being clear enough in his won mind about certain things( what, for instance, would constitute deception in such a context etc) and then getting sidetracked because the discussion got personal( for which kaal I am afraid I blame you partially).

As to his being Hindu , kaal, once again that is the sort of aggregate impression that is very very hard to pin down into proof. His nic, his views, his own statement of who he is, these combine together to build that impression.

Look I find it very , very implausible to say he is anything other than a Hindu background.

I didn't mean to say his views are irrelevant per se , and yes you are right that a Hindu awareness of Islam's true nature is absolutely essential, but that is far cry from labelling any Hindu who doesn't as evil.

Publius, there was a gap in that argument so let me close that. :)

Murad bhai and his group may still succeed without Om bhai if ALL Hindus were totally ignorant or didn't care.

But in reality, SOME Hindus would always know a few things and would care. It is then that Om bhai's role comes to the fore: to stand up and throw stones at such Hindus for speaking out.

--------

That's my understanding of Om bhai's role as an enabler of evil that I believe Murad bai represents.

Publius, IMO, OM bhai is not irrelevant (if you meant that).

He (if he is Hindu) is absolutely essential to the success of deception/bad faith against Hindus. That's the reason murad baig and om bhai can only be approached as one.

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

But, Publius, we use mere nicks here. What should convince us that Om bhai is not a Muslim? I am curious if I missed something.

Publius, good point and you may be right about om bhai.

But I still have strong doubts on two scores.

(1) Om bhai would not agree on any 'reasonable' (from non-Muslim point of view) measure or indication of what deception by sufis may involve. Yet rejects charges of deception against sufis.

(2) Om bhai has been throwing in red-herrings one after another. Both in cases of the followers of sai bab and Hare-Krishna, I explained to him what deception would entail.

All one hears from him is silly labeling.

I think it is unlikely such a person is a Hindu.

-----------

Given all that, you may still be right. As dost_mittar ji noted, the reason Hindus face problems from murad baig and his group is because of their own internal issues.

And the allegation of muslim is just absurd, he is clearly an atheistic Hindu whatever else his views maybe.
(And although this is somewhat irrelevant, his political views, in so far as I can judge them, contain enough leftism to make them dangerous in some important matters)

"insisting that such a person not be opposed and totally exposed."

kaal you are mixing up things and overstating them. Om is not convinced of "deception" of sufis but he has not said a word about murad baig. Now on the question of "deception" I think there is some lack of clarity in om's views but his objections are reasonable/plausible enough not to be seen as systematic evasion on his part.

And it is certainly not enough to attribute to him the status of being evil or muslim.

Publius

The situation is like of a Hindu preaching to ignorant Muslims and others that Mohammad (Quran) preached cow-worship to Muslim, that Bajrang Dal is peace corp, and a person with a Muslim nick (who we expect to know better), insisting that such a person not be opposed and totally exposed.

The two seem to be one, and need each other to succeed.

"It's amazing that you would accuse the Great Shankaracharya - the foremost philosopher of advaita - of preaching about 'one controlling and miraculous God' and include (Prophet) Mohammad with Buddha on the other!"

I completely agree, that is ,on the face of it, evidence of bad faith and prejudice.( evil is too strong a term)

Also it is evidence against murad baig not against om and I completely disagree with calling om either muslim or evil.

One cannot simply be wrong, not just present a 'different perspective,' one has to be evil to twist facts like that on a persistent basis.

No real Muslim will do it. No Hindu will do it.

There is something deeply evil about people like muradbaig and om bhai.

It's amazing that you would accuse the Great Shankaracharya - the foremost philosopher of advaita - of preaching about 'one controlling and miraculous God' and include (Prophet) Mohammad with Buddha on the other!

If this is not the most despicable and blatant form of intellectual whoring and exploiting the ignorance and goodness of your readership then it's hard to know what that would be.
-------------------------

If Om bhai is a Hindu and accepts this kind of nonsense, then he should stop being a Hindu. Hinduism can allow all levels of flexibility but this is no flexibility. This is outright and tendentious mis-statement of verifiable fact.

Eklavya:

Take it easy on Muradbhai. He is the Indian equivalent of tahmed saheb and seems to really believe in what he says even though tahmed saheb hates sufis as tomb worshippers and Muradbhai adores them.

But there is something that Hindus should do some introspection on: generally speaking, Hindus who marry Muslims (example Teetsa Stelvad) end up being defenders of Muslims and Muslims who marry Hindus become detractors of the Hindu faith. There must be something in the Hindu upbringing that is responsible for that.

Murad bhai, nobody knows what jehad was supposed to mean for the last 1400 years but your jehad against Hinduism is clear to us.

"Buddha, Mahavirs, Jesus, Muhammad..."

Before one can even begin to take what you write with any seriousness, you should make that to...

"Buddha, Mahavira, Shankaracharya, Jesus, Muhmmad..."

Then we can discuss what, if anthing, they share.

Re: # 241

Perhaps you are right. The greater Jehad was supposed to be an inner struggle.

The spiritual messages of Buddha, Mahavirs, Jesus, Muhammad and other great souls were not `religions'. They became religions when their followers formalised these into scriptures, rituals and religious customs that were practiced in their places of worship. Sadly however the thoughts of the founders have been universally twisted by the Monks, Mullahs, Pandits, Padres, Rabbis and other professional priests who claimed to be the `sole selling agents’ of their brands of GOD because all religions are big businesses trading on the gullibility of their devotees.

The founders of all religions were simple human beings who had love and compassion for all humanity. Professional priests later mythified these prophets, apostles, saints, sages, etc., and raised them to a sacred status to enhance their own power usually by attributing miracles and distorting the words and actions of the founders into the sacred scriptures that they wrote long after their deaths. Most of the `gurus’, `pirs’ and `babas’ deserve the same skepticism because many, despite their huge followings, are often surprisingly narrow-minded and ignorant.

History clearly shows that none of the scriptures of any religion were the words of God or even the exact words of the prophets or founders.

the leaders of the Taliban are all of the sufi tradition, to Eklavya, has a point. Mr. Baig, is painting a false picture of the sufis, and their brand of Islam. Indeed, a lof of what Mr baig puts forward is more than a cart load of BS taken straight from the history of his kind.

We know all about it, and we have been driven from our lands by his kind. the day his kind are stopped is the day the world will improve.

the leaders of the Taliban are all of the sufi tradition, to Eklavya, has a point. Mr. Baig, is painting a false picture of the sufis, and their brand of Islam. Indeed, a lof of what Mr baig puts forward is more than a cart load of BS taken straight from the history of his kind.

We know all about it, and we have been driven from our lands by his kind. the day his kind are stopped is the day the world will improve.

Re: # 240

Muradji is doing his own Jehad in his own way- calling all other religions as 'fossilized' and full of dogmas and texts and never questioning the same about Quran as a fossilized text by politically motivated mullahs and thekedars of Islam who compiled the Quran.

Muradji, you cannot be faulted for your studious attitude. We had a Maulana in Allahabad who could hold his own on Bhagwat Geeta in front of any Pandit from Varanasi, and he was popularly known as Maulana Chaturvedi, similarly we have a Y Pathan who is a devout Muslim but not many in Maharashtra can hold his hand as far as knowledge of the bhakti poet Sant Tukaram' works go. As you continue to hold forth on Geeta and related subjects with conviction, you could become a candidate for the title of 'Murad Shastri'

Another article that pays glowing tributes to the Sufi non-sense...

When will you all wake-up whirling derwishes?

#236 muradbaig

[I love the non religious sufi idea that we are all sparks in the divine or cosmic flame and their freedom from fear and hatred that most religions have unfortunately fostered. Love and understanding is what we need most in these troubled times.]

murad,

This "non-religiosity" of sufism might be applicable for a handful of sufi saints. The vast majority of them are just looking to convert Hindus to Islam. A.R. Rahman's family's conversion is a good example of this.

And the "fear" issue you raised. The central problem in Islam, and what makes it different from all other religions, and makes it so cultlike, is the pervasive fear amongst its adherents. Non-conformity is not tolerated. Obedience, submission, and falling into line with everybody else is emphasized and glorified. Any deviation, insubordination, expression of disagreement is punished swiftly and with brutality. This has created a culture where people vie with each other to prove themselves to be holier than the other - another feature of cults. And this has been a central feature of Islam from the time of mo right until today.

Before joining the league of civilized religions, islam has to first banish fear and intimidation from its modes of operation. Although this is never going to happen. Because Islam is peculiar in its many vulnerabilities. Unlike Jesus, Mohammed's life (and hence the very basis of Islam) will not stand the bright glare of public scrutiny and open discussion. A Larry King live episode on mo's attraction to 6-year-old Ayesha will do more harm to islam than anything George Bush has done. Islamists know this, So they will try to prevent any discussion by any means possible. So unfortunately this change will not come from within Islam most likely.

"by early Buddhist thinking before Buddhism too became fossilised into a monk managed religion with scriptures, dogma and all the other paraphenaia of worship."

Nonsense, Buddhaspoke about Sangha and its importance much before the Ayotollahs started managing the Shia Cult!!

Buddhism remains an individualistic religion which emphasises upon individual nirvana but with the collective power of Samgha.

On the other hand the Ayotollah cult is appropriately described as above by and the Shia Imam Cult perfectly fits the description of a fossilized cult with scriptures and dogma.( like the coming of hidden Imam Mehdi).

Re: # 195

In retrospect it is always very difficult to know what was the mother or daughter of any idea becasus all ideas evolved continuously. I have suggested... note suggested... that some of the concepts that later became Sufism might have been influenced by early Buddhist thinking before Buddhism too became fossilised into a monk managed religion with scriptures, dogma and all the other paraphenaia of worship.

We all want definite answers but history does not always oblige us. I love Wikipedia but that is not historically sacrosanct about the dates of the Gita or anything else.

In this article I have not tried to take any position. Neither Muslim, Hindu, Christian or whatever. I only wanted to put a set of `possibilities' before all of you and am glad that it has stirred up quite a lot of interest. But please do not try to limit the discussion by trying to put it into the box of any religion.

I love the non religious sufi idea that we are all sparks in the divine or cosmic flame and their freedom from fear and hatred that most religions have unfortunately fostered. Love and understanding is what we need most in these troubled times.

LOL

"Although Sufis are now widely considered to be a Muslim sect, their history goes back to long before the advent of Islam."

Many Muslims will of course want to fanatically deny it, but just about whatever is packaged as the superiority of Islam is in fact taken from pre-Islamic cultures- including the concept of a single God.

Riding on all those niceties of appropriated glory is the ugliest thing possible, the cult of someone who in today's age would surely have spent his life behind bars for unmentionable crimes against children.

In the core of Yin lies the Yang.

Re: # 147

Eklavya I think you should stop interacting with this character he is one of the 4M's muslai missonai marxai ya macaulayai.

Your idea should be able to educate the Hindus especially the intelligent ones on the threats posed by sufis.

All Hindus please read the art of war if you do not know your enemy you shall win always each time and every time.

Sanatani

Conversely since we do not and do not bother to do so we woill lose always each time and every time

Islamic man of my heart would have been Al-Biruni. Islamic man of Murad Baig's liking would be Avicenna. They were comtemporary. Al-Biruni critcised Avicenna and his easy acceptance of Aristotle as Gospel Truth, whereas Al-Biruni attacked everything in his sight using strict scientific method. He criticised Astrology and separated Astronomy from Astrology. It would have been possible de-Islamize Al-Biruni using his own method of science and he will love that you did that to him. OTOH Avicenna went into denial. He entrusted task of replying to Al-Biruni's letters to a student. Major literary output of Al-Biruni is destroyed.

Following info from wikipedia:

Al-Biruni's works number 146 in total. ... Among these works, only 22 have survived, and only 13 of these works have been published. 6 of his surviving works are on astronomy.

Avicenna wrote almost 450 treatises on a wide range of subjects, of which around 240 have survived.

BTW, let's hope Murad baig bhai would show up and answer some questions that have been asked of him. About the basis on which he came up with his arguments, instead of simply saying: it might have been.

Gotta go, for now. Later, ombhai, and take it easy, my friend. :)

"(Hinduism) poses more danger to evangelical religions than to Hindus themselves, if you remember that incentives to convert are pretty much gone."

True. Hinduism is affecting the thoughts of people around the world, definitely in India.

Political loyalties and numbers are another matter, though. That's where Hindus, in fact, all Indics should seriously consider what is going on in the world.

om bhai, as you said, this is just an anonymous forum!

if it's not important to you, you surely have the option of not engaging in a discussion.

I have never understood why someone like you should get all keyed up. Can I or others do something to help?

Jang
As it is the Pope cannot keep his flock together. Africa and the Americas are leaving catholicism. East asians, Indian tribals are all he has left to look forward to. Hindus are a tough bunch, are syncretic and would devour everything claiming it to be a part of Hinduism. This poses more danger to evangelical religions than to Hindus themselves, if you remember that incentives to convert are pretty much gone.

Eklavya
To tell you the truth you seem to have a very high opinion of yourself and what it is that you are accomplishing.
You claim you are interested in ideas and yet you have a very closed mind on pretty much everything (unless it's something that reinforces your pet theories).
This is an anonymous board, you must surely be aware of it, your style of argumentation is not conducive to exchange of ideas and yet you pretend to be doing something earthshaking other than passing time. You and your indics mean very little to India and Indians.

such little ambition :(

chalo, if that makes you happy. Enough for you, ombhai?

Whoa!
Eklavya is overtly angry, LOL notwithstanding.
I have done my good deed for Chowk.

jang and ombhai (if he has not run away in a huff again)

bhaiyon, I must have the clearest and most open agenda here.

I believe Indic people have to develop a better self-awareness because that is a poltical necessity.

If someone has not understood that or thinks i "might" have an agenda, then the problem lies squarely with them :(

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

For my views, I have been called worse than VHP/fundamentalist etc...so ombhai need not fee shy about using those endearing terms :)

oye yar, let us at least stipulate that based on evidence hindoos are vulnerable, inclined to if you will, to baba-giri. let us leave intelligence-stupidity out of it since its a subject, its not easy to measure unlike size of okra. we an also stipulate that kaal is with agenda (or bigoted if he agrees).

Just don't come back after a while and expect your ideas to be taken seriously.

One Murad bhai is enough for that kind of nonsense. LOL

Ok, you did not accuse Hindus of being stupid. You implied that if they were fooled and tricked by Sufis then they must be stupid.

I pointed out that was not necessarily so.

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

You want to be out? Sure, ombhai. If that is what you must do.

Eklavya, yes I am running away. Fundamentalists wedded to weird ideas and ideologies scare me.

Here's a case of obvious deception. I claimed Hindus are stupid - where? If you carry on this dishonest line of argument just to score point, I am out. Keep talking to yourself.

Now, you are again running away from the discussion. Does one need to point that out to you, ombhai?

Eklavya
Let's start with you proving that you are not a fundamentalis Christian with a secret agenda to befriend Hindus. You seem to know so little about Indians and Hindus and so much more about Indics who live only in your head.

By the way, the reason is again not because Musims are stupid (as you accused Hindus of being), but because to them sufis were simply doing, noble, Allah's work.

Nothing wrong with that.

Surely, they are not proof. I would need to do some real work to produce that 'proof.' We Hindus simply have not focused on such things, before, as you might know from your Hindu friends.

Before I do that, what would you accept as proof good enough for you. If you are a Muslim, I do not hope to produce compelling enough evidence for you. That would be a futile attempt.

Eklavya
Now you are turning into a caricature of a fundamentalist. It's quite interesting to watch.

Eklavya
You have been pushing this you-dont-agree-with-me-so-you-must-be-Muslim and ombhai-ran-away in several posts now. Naturally as a gullible Hindu I took that to mean you were turning this board into a discussion about me.
You have been making your claims about sufis threatening to produce proof with nothing of that sort forthcoming so far. Your idle speculations in the cause of your pet theories are not proof.

om bhai, see why I call you a Muslim. I love the way you use language LOL

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

Khair, what leads me to NOT call Inkas stupid? The knowledge, empathy, and understanding that Islamic/Chrisitan/semitic way is not the only way for humanity to live.

Eklavya
What other than PC makes you say the incas were not stupid? At least with the Indians you could claim whatever since one assumes you are at least marginally familiar with the culture you grew up in.

oh oh, ombhai, I have no idea why you think this is about you or your interest!! LOL

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

I have explained many many many times why I accuse sufis of being deceptive and fraudulent. Is there something specific you did not grasp?

Jang
Regardless of how others may percieve Hindus, the easy to harvest have been tribals who are outside the bounds of Hinduism. The "indics" at VHP Headquarters on the other hand are kicking up a fuss to push their own agenda.

Are Hindus stupid?

Again, we discussed it before. For the second time, no they are not. They think differently than Muslims do, than the Pope does.

That does make them vulnerable to fraud and deception (using my definition) by others.

I also gave the example of Inkas who were treated similarly by Europeans and Chrisitan missionaries. These Inkas were not stupid. They just thought differently than did Christian invaders and missionaries.

Eklavya
The physicists who follow Sai Baba are carrying on two contradictory ideas in their head and yet they are guilty of self deception at the most.

Spell out what you are after. How sufis (all or most) were knowingly deceptive and let everyone judge for him/herself. You are turning this into a stupid game where you think you are being clever. I am not interested.

What deception would be on the part of sai baba following physicists:

If these sai-baba following physicists told other physicists that sai-baba is actually a physicist and carries out miraculous physical science that these followers have evaluated using known principles of science and found satisfactory.

That would be clear case of intellecual fraud.

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

Om bhai, you have now played this game twice. First using Hare Krishnas example, now with sai baba followers.

Would you consider accepting the truth that you are trying to avoid a discussion?

yar omp that hindoos are a good harvest of souls has been expressed by his holiness pope himself. that they are always looking for gurus-spritual babas etc to worship is a long tradition and a proven fact. so i think they appear to be naturally vulnerable no?

Jang
This whole deception argument is stupid and weird. It assumes ipso facto that Hindus are easy to deceive (for any number of reasons). Some are and some aren't as with any group. Are quantum physicists who follow Sai Baba deceptive? After all, they lend weight to the Sai Baba phenomenon and validate, directly or indirectly, his miraculous powers?

om bhai, fair enough.

Once we agree on what deception would be for you, I would try to provide evidence of clear sufi deception (if it is possible given your definition).

Best.

Who are these Indics you keep refering to - you and a handful of your friends who agree with you? These "indics" come across more as a politburo of intolerant individuals who are incapable of accommodating an alternate point of view.

Eklavya
Deception is what you are trying to do here just to score points - suggesting that I am a Muslim for not agreeing with you, a born-again Hindu who knows very little of the actual India but thrives on theoretical mumbo jumbo.
I am easily bored with people who have an agenda and are dishonest to boot - kind of like what you are accusing the sufis of. In your case though the deception is obvious.
I may join the discussion if it gets interesting again.

water carrier? ha ha.

Jang, you are too much. :)

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

Yes, it would be futile to do the work and dig up evidence if om bhai is going to turn around and claim that as a Muslim he or any other Muslim simply can't be deceptive because he truly believes in Islam being a superior religion.

Now, if a self-declared Muslim made that argument, that will be acceptable, because that is the natural thought process of a Muslim. Indics, of course, will reject that argument as no different from a rapist claiming to do a good favor to a woman by raping her, using trickery or force, and claiming to do so for the purposes of improving her children's gene pool.

"I don’t think you have addressed the issue of (deliberate?) trickery and deception on part of sufis."

as eklavyas water-carrier, i think he tried hard to establish what deception means with OmP but alas, failed. i am sure he has an ace up his sleeve once definition of deceit is accepted.

in the interim, we all have to wait patiently :(

Sattar, that is a fair charge, although not in a way that om bhai made it. Om bhai is simply running from discussions.

I am very confident of my views but that doesn't mean others have to accept it too. So I will provide further substantiation.

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

Here, the more immediate issue is to establish the absurdity and dishonesty of Murad bhai's brazen attempts to Islamize buddhism and separate it from its proper Indic context.

Particularly, given the possibility that Islam might have played a significant role in physically demolishing Buddhism after its appeal had been weakened by Adi Shankara.

Kaal (#82),

I don’t think you have addressed the issue of (deliberate?) trickery and deception on part of sufis. Your comments aimed at validating your claims, seemingly rest on wider assumptions that themselves remain invalidated.

You have adopted one view of the sufism phenomenon, out of several plausible views. And you seem insistent on applying this particular view to all sufis.

You have criticized murad baig, with validity, of not properly substantiating his claims. It would be helpful if you share the basis of your views … with or without om-parkash taking a position in advance.

einstein bhai, as you probably well know and understand, all of Indian philosophies flow into and build on one another in some ways.

So neither buddhism nor the bhagwadgita arose in isolation. For isolation simply wasn't the Indic game.

For instance, both buddhism and gita can be related to the sankhya school of philosophy, both building upon it (and other schools), yet differentiating themselves in interesting ways.

Murad bhai is trying desperately to interpolate sufism in here without the smallest bit of evidence or logic.

Aleph call it best: Islamist tripe (perhaps born of logical and moral desperation), except that one shouldn't insult real Islamists by linking such fakery to them.

Buddhism was never principal school of thought in India. It did spread as a result of efforts of Ashoka. In Buddha's times his preachings were successful in gaining a big following. He signed on many celebrities and Rajas (who were very violent) of his time. It seems that Buddha suffered a crisis of faith. He was to be king and a kshatriya and it was expected that he will harden himself in his attitudes to life and violence but contrary happened. Rather it did not happen, it is just that he was like that only right from chilhood; much given to brooding thoughts and always becoming upset at cruelty even to animals also. He was depressive type. Not King type. But as soon as he was dead his movement's influence started to wane because of infighting among his followers. There were many parting of ways, and then debates to mend differences some more sinking of difference and then more infighting and so on. Ashoka was majorly influenced by significant buddhists of his time and also by other movements and thinkers. There was no nice solution in existing books and wisdoms of the problem of war caused depression. People turned to all kinds of Gurus and wisemen and intuitive psychiatrists and preachers and charlatans and such. In Ashoka's times there was a choice of schools.

"Its earliest inspiration may have been from the early doctrines of Buddha, especially the Abhidhamma Pitaka, and may have also later inspired the Bhagavat Gita that was much later interpolated into the constantly evolving versions of the great legend of the Mahabharata."

In other words what you are saying is Sufism's earliest inspiration may have been from the early doctrines of Buddha, especially the Abhidhamma Pitaka. And it[Sufism] may have also later inspired the Bhagavat Gita that was much later interpolated into the constantly evolving versions of the great legend of the Mahabharata.

Or do you mean early doctrines of Buddha ispired both Sufism as well as Bhagavat Gita? Sorry, your sentence construction is confusing.

From wikipedia's entry on Bhagavat Gita: "Scholars have opined that the date of composition of the Bhagavad Gita is between the 5th and the 2nd century BC." In light of this is your conjecture plausible? Bhagavat Gita may have been interpolated at a later date after main body of text of Mahabharat was fully developed. But what evidence you have of Buddhism or Sufism inspiring Gita. Any archeological evidence or philological basis of such a claim?

Muqaddam, I know what Murad bhai is trying to do here.

If linking himself up with Buddhism makes him happy, good for him. Many Muslims like to delude themselves as such, IMO. Some Pakistanis were even claiming that the God of Buddhism is the same as the God of Islam!

He just needs to provide us with some basis for his assertions.

Up until now, it's all: "it might have been."

murad i think you are trying to fit gol-matol hindoos in a koranic box of an immutable divine book. its not that important for hindoos if "original" geeta was 88 verses and shyte. they are gol-matol in their thinking (maya etc) as they are in their bodies.

they like geeta as it is now apparently.

"The philosophies of Buddhism and Sufism had some common links and differences too and might have influenced each other at some stage."

What were those common links? Might have? How? What makes you say that, murad bhai?

Re: # 189

Careful! The historical dates of all ancient literature is always very dodgy but many reputed historians believe that the events of the Mahabharat were around 800 BC and did not include the Gita. The oral versions were first recorded in the Brahmi Lipi script and then in Devanagri after the 5th century AD. The oldest extant version dates to the 13th century AD.

Over the centuries, the originally egalitarian texts of the Mahabharata and the Gita were corrupted with the Vedic idea of a great mind-reading, prayer-fulfilling, miracle-producing supernatural God capable of divine intervention in human affairs. Before this time the early Sankhya philosophy, attributed to the non Brahmin philosopher king Kapil, had believed that human destiny depended on only two realities of Purush (human being) and Prakriti (nature) with no concept of any personal God. These had also inspired Buddhism and Jainism. Now devotion, piety, superstitions, rituals in the name of spirituality with holy talismans, sacred hymns, astrology, reverence of Brahmins and respect for gurus was to make the Brahmins very powerful.

According to extensive research by Phulgenda Sinha, R. B. Vaidya and others, the original Mahabharat had 8,800 verses and had been called Jaya. It was expanded to the Jayabharata with 24,000 verses and finally to the present Mahabharata with 100,000 verses. The original Gita with 84 verses was expanded to 800. Even Yoga was evidently corrupted. Patanjali’s original text with 83 very practical Sutras was now enlarged with the addition of 112 new ones to make it an almost religious text.

The philosophies of Buddhism and Sufism had some common links and differences too and might have influenced each other at some stage.

#173 laddu-bhai

good analysis, much superior to Murad-jis one-note contribution. So sufism is a two pronged device: on the one hand it is a tool for conversion (and confusion) of the kafir, the sultan will give payment and riches to the sufi-baba and build him giant mazar after death and so on. The local hindus will get confused and in their traditional way incorporate this tradition as part of their way of life. Many of the south asian sufis, specially those who were part of armies or imported from central asia fall into this category.

On the other hand, sufism is also broad and humanistic enough that crypto-hindus, atheists, typical indian pantheists can all crouch underneath the sufi umbrella and live somewhat peacefully. And thats where genuiuses like Kabir, Bulleh shah, farid and nanak found their home and some safety.

Methinks what Muradji is getting at is that Buddhism was the principal school of thought in ancient India and over the several centuries that it was central to social and spiritual life in India its pacifist message deeply influenced the social ethos which in turn attracted the more cultured section of the recently converted Muslim population to the then evolving sufiism.
As for his gaffe on Gita, we should just excuse his exuberence and enthusiasm (Gita was written over 3000 years ago when there was no Islam and therefore no Sufiism to influence it)

Regards,

have you ever been to a traditional Hindu household. ..... etc

Truly mian's mind is already made up- he knows what he wants to know. There is no way you can change his mind.

to fight back your cousins in Punjab and Afghanistan.

There is a better way. Get Truly mian's cousins to fight among themselves.

Regards

#180 Urstruly

You seem to be a sufi of your own tradition- living in a contorted world of your own aggressivity. For your own sanity and at this point - for saving our two countries – Pakistan & India, as we’re on the verge of a disaster, please do not maul history so badly. There are some undeniable facts:

You say: “The reason that Islam spread so fast in Hindustan was that humanity there was longing for the message of Monotheism, which appeals to the genetic make up of humans everywhere. To prove the point take for example, Sikhism; the Sikhism spread like a wildfire as long as it remained a strictly monotheistic religion. As soon as it turned into a Pantheistic relilion, the only sikhs now are those who are born into it.�

Can you really say that without a blush? Well authenticated history, spread over 600 years, is all about sikhism taking roots as another sect, among other sects (call them hindus but they were general Indian population), to fight back Islam. It adopted some of the traits of Islamic monotheism to bring all under the same banner. Polytheism by definition is about diverse speculatory opinions and invariably leads to lack of discipline - a poor organisation when you’re attacked by a hoard driven by simple military rules. Also as Akram Cheema has already pointed out, all over the world the first gods were always nature related (sun, wind, fire, lightening..) – whether In Greece, Egypt or India. Monotheism was invented by a cartel of priest class as it is much easier to control hoi-polloi, posing as representative of one deity. Multiple deities create multiple sects and .. multiple priests who have to share the same clients. In polytheism, at least clients can judge and question and do not have to obey blindly. A cartel of priests needed simple dogmas and one single God.

You say: “When Muslim Sufis came to Hindustan, they examplified a different breed of holy men for the local population. A sufi was neat and clean, immaculate in his personal heigiene, and appeared to be reasonable and sane person who could relate to anyone in the society. Compared to them there were Hindu Sadhus with absolutely no concept of personal heigiene; rolling into their own excrement to please their gods; doing tantra yoga by sticking a rope into their anuses and setting it on fire, while screaming 'Ram Naam sat hay". So self absorbed that most of them appeared mental cases. The choice for local population was clear.�

Have you ever seen a sadhu and for that matter have you ever been to a traditional Hindu household. I’m raised in one. I don’t remember a day when as a child I was allowed to have even breakfast until I had a proper bath even if it was 0°C (BTW, we did not have closed rooms. It was always near the well, in the open. Well water infact was a little warmer and we preferred to pour water on us as quickly). All sadhus, except some queer sects, have to get up in Brahma Muhurta (4AM) , take a bath and be ready to pray rising sun. There are festivals like Mauni Amavasya in freezing cold of winter; when whole families, including children will troop to the nearest river and take 3 dips whatever the temperature is. If anything Hindu families are concerned about if there are muslim neighbours or when renting houses is about cleanliness of a traditional muslim household. Though it is again a cliché because of mutual ignorance

I didn’t much care about your posts till now but your ilk are getting too close. It is better that we discuss now before we Indians are obliged to abandon our tradition of fostering diversity of opinion and get united on a single point agenda, à la Sikhism or Islam, to fight back your cousins in Punjab and Afghanistan.
Be careful. I’m a fully confirmed atheist. It goes on and you’ll see me as a Sikh.

Murad bhai, I noticed you have not yet chosen to answer the basic question posed to you by both sattar bhai and me.

On what basis did you make your statements of buddism influencing sufism and sufism influencing the Gita?!!!

----------------------------------
Is the following it from you?

{Re: # 66

Quite right. Thanks.

History does not provide all the answers but I do think we need to see it with a broader perspective.}

Aasif bhai, I have no problem with Islam. I have a huge problem with fraud and deceit. I also don't think it is becoming of a great religion like Islam to include tricksters and deceivers serving its purposes.

laddu ji, we have gone over this many many many times. :)

Let me explain this finally, so you don't give om bhai and aasif an opportunity to slip from the discussion and clap from the sidelines gain.

Yes, some 'sufis' were practising reverse-taquiyya.

These were the people who had nothing to do with Islam, and could be, just as well, called bhaktas. This point was also made just on this board by dost-mittar ji. We discussed that for these 'sufis' Muslims held no great brief.

So, yes, may be kabir was doing reverse taqiya. And some other 'Muslims' like him. But most Muslims were not fools like Hindus. Not many fell for the erverse taqiyya of kabir then, nor does kabir mean much to them now, in comparison to their own 'sufis' who were NOT doing reverse taqiyya.

Accepted that, agree with it, no problem.

Again, yes, there were some sufis doing reverse taqiyya.

I accept it. PLEASE dont' remind me of it again. :)

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

But the sufis hugely celebrated by Muslims, those with orders and huge powers and following, you can dismiss them as darbari sufis - were doing none of that. These Muslim sufis and others like them were into the business of converting Hindus.

These were the sufis who wrote tomes on what sufism was. They are celebrated as the philosphers of 'sufism.'

Do you disagree?

That is the Islamic sufism I am talking about, not of those hiding their kufr under rever taqiyyaa that so fascinate you.

I myself mentioned at the beginning of the discussion that sufims played this double role - it trapped many innocent Hindus into Islam at one end and allowed many kafirs to live as Muslims on the other.

Om babu had problems understanding that when I said it but used it to avoid the discussion later on.
---------------------

Do you finally think I have understood your point of view?

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

If I have, would you please let ombhai and aasif bhai answer some questions about sufism. Questions they have been running away from?

Thank you.

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

Again, if you still feel I have not understood your point of view, please explain it to me.

Re: # 182
akcheema...
exactly....and you need prophets to enforce it in the name of god...
mind that, pe-abrahamic peiod, there were no prophet and the concept of god was much aligned with nature and humanity....all this sh** of montheism is something enforced by gang of people and that also, has to use some "revealition" to single prophet...and unfortunately, that has given rise to non military barbarism (I don't know, whether Abraham stated war to enforce word of his God...but Mo definitely had done that....)....

Re: # 180; urstruly

[[The reason that Islam spread so fast in Hindustan was that humanity there was longing for the message of Monotheism, which appeals to the genetic make up of humans everywhere.]]

really!!!! ... then why is it that under 'natural' circumstances humanity always chooses animism/polytheism etc and NEVER monotheism (examples all around the world from arabia to persia through to india, polynesia, american natives etc ... whereas the latter always came as an 'alien' idea that had to be enforced

Truly mian,

# 180

I think u have summed up both Hindooism and Islam quite well. But tell me why do idolatrous polytheists still constitute a majority in the subcontinent?

Regards

The sufi tradition in Islam starts with the companion of Holy Prophet (pbuh), named Abu Zar Ghaffari (RA). He is one of the erliest who reverted back to Islam when it was in infentile stage. As Holy Prophet (pbuh) passed away, Abu Zar (RA) left Medina and went to North Africa for preaching the Word. Decades later when he came back he saw that Medina had been changed from "the valley of Thorns" into a sprawiling metropolis with palaces, villas and cobbled streets. Abu Zar was quite dismayed with the transformation and he started teaching people about a simpler life that was examplified by the Holy Prophet (pbuh). That was the start of the sufi tradition, which has transformed over the centuries.

It is hard to define Islamic Tassawaf or Sufism. But according to Qura'n and Sunnah a Sufi must have three qualities:

1. A sufi is a missionary or a Tableeghee. He dedicates all or most of his life in spreading the Word of God in his own
community and everywhere else - just like Holy Prophet (pbuh) and Abu Zar (RA).

2. A sufi is the one who dedicates his life in teaching the Word of Allah in an educational setting. This education has a necessary component of training as well. All the Sufis in Muslim world from Sheikh Abdul Qadir Jilani to Rabia Basri, to Ali Hajweri, to Nizamuddin Aulia were are all basically educators.

3. An ascetic is absolutely NOT a sufi, so is the one who practices Monasticism. Both Ascetism and Monasticism are forbidden in Islam as per last verses of Chapter Al-Hadeed (The Iron).

The reason that Islam spread so fast in Hindustan was that humanity there was longing for the message of Monotheism, which appeals to the genetic make up of humans everywhere. To prove the point take for example, Sikhism; the Sikhism spread like a wildfire as long as it remained a strictly monotheistic religion. As soon as it turned into a Pantheistic relilion, the only sikhs now are those who are born into it.

When Muslim Sufis came to Hindustan, they examplified a different breed of holy men for the local population. A sufi was neat and clean, immaculate in his personal heigiene, and appeared to be reasonable and sane person who could relate to anyone in the society. Compared to them there were Hindu Sadhus with absolutely no concept of personal heigiene; rolling into their own excrement to please their gods; doing tantra yoga by sticking a rope into their anuses and setting it on fire, while screaming 'Ram Naam sat hay". So self absorbed that most of them appeared mental cases. The choice for local population was clear.

The demise of Muslim Sufism started when they started violating the three guiding principles listed above. With all intent and purpose they became pantheists. And worst yet they started copying their Hindu counterpart Sadhus in a competative market and for all intent and purpose have become Mushriq, polytheists.

The new Tableeghee jamaat is the reformed version of Muslim Sufism; where Muslims dedicate a part of their lives in the
service of religion but at the same time they fulfill their worldly obligations as well - just like Holy Prophet (pbuh).

laddu bhai, I understand and respect how you approach sufims and Islam. It is certainly not the same as Muslims themselves view those subjects. :)

But I am busy doing something else right now...will continue later.

Re: # 176

These are Darbari-Sufis- always aligned with powerful Ulemas who want to regain political power by enshrining the Qazi-system.

Re: # 137
Sure but it is quite irrelevant to Sufism.

NANOMANIA

Murad Ali Baig

After all the hype the actual launch of the Nano was a rather tame affair. Mamta didi’s spoke in the Tata wheel meant that the October launch was delayed by six months and the production had to be scaled down till the new Gujarat factory can become operational next year. The Rudrapur factory is now producing about 2,500 cars a month which is far short of demand. But we will see the bright little cars on our streets in June.

I got to drive it recently and was quite impressed. It is 20 Cms shorter than the Maruti 800 but 20 Cms taller and 6 Cms wider. So it will comfortably seat four large adults and be easier to park. The 35 bhp engine will generate less gross power than the 37 bhp of the M-800 but with modern electronic engine management it deliver enough stable power for an air-conditioner (on the deluxe model) and for driving on mountain roads. On the road it accelerates easily up to 80 Kmph and can struggle to a top speed of 105 kmph. So it will be great for city driving but a bit slow on the expressways.

The inner space compares well with the Santro, Spark or Zen Estilo for four large adults except that there is no storage space in front or behind the passenger compartment. There is a space of about 30 Cms X 30 Cms X 120 Cms behind the rear seat where two small soft bags can be stored. It is big enough for a small CNG or LPG kit if needed. When the rear seat is flattened there is a large flat deck. But the strong ribs on the roof means that it can carry a roof rack that may be necessary.

With a rear engine and transmission there is less weight in front so power steering is not necessary and it is quite easy to maneuver even while parking. But its steering at speed is not too impressive and shows a tendency to roll.

The 2-cylinder rear mounted 624 cc petrol engine is quite peppy and there is little power loss when the AC is switched on. The modern engine is measured for 23.6 Kmpl under test conditions that will probably mean about 20 Kmpl in city driving. It will meet international crash test safety norms.

Although the consumer price of the non AC base model is around Rs. 1.25 Lakhs most buyers will want AC’s and will pay Rs. 1.50 or 1.65 Lakhs for the CX or DX models. At costs nearly half the price of the cheapest Indian car but three times the price of an average motorcycle it may attract some 5% of the 7 million annual buyers of 2-wheelers. Indians bought 1.2 million passenger cars last year so the Nano impact will not be too great for some time. Some 38,000 Nanos are planned for 2009 -10 and 300,000 for 2010-11 so the impact on bigger cars motorcycles will not be huge even if it dents the second hand market.

Some people worry about crowding. Today there are already about 14 million cars, 60 million 2 and 3- wheelers and 8 million buses and trucks on Indian roads so the Nano will not add as much to the traffic burden as many people fear. But India wants more cars so the state and municipal governments will have no choice but to provide wider roads and more parking facilities.

India for most months of the year has a horrid, hot, dusty or wet climate. With growing affluence the people deserve something better than bicycles and bad buses. Even with better public transport people want personal transport so the Nano must be welcomed.

Until now the Indian automobile industry had been sustained by foreign technologies. Now an Indian auto technology leads the world. Earlier `peoples cars’ like the Volkswagen Beetle, Fiat 500 and the 425 cc Citroen 2CV had been huge global successes. The Maruti 800 had revolutionised India’s car market in 1983 and the Nano offers a more modern car at nearly half the price.

Sufi Mo of SWAT is gentle Power of Sufi Tradition ? Just coincidence in name.

Eklavya i,

I think both Om Prakash ji and me are in Punjab and hence understand the issues much better than others.

kaal, yaar based on your posts from past few days, your carefully cultivated facade is no more. Your hatred for anything remotely islamic anywhere in the world is apparent. I must congratulate you to finally succinctly expressing your point of view for once. Your opposition to sufism is nothing besides the eternal fear of sanatan dharma khatre meiN hai. sort of like a e-brahmin-samaj-bhai-pana..

Eklavya ji,

1. Sufism is of two types- Darbari versus non-Darbari.
2. Darbaris aligned with ruling Ulemas, Qazis and political Islam and were marketing agents for 'conversion'.
3. Non-Darbari stayed away from ruling Muslim Elites were considered nenmies by the Ulemas and Qazis always plotted against them.
4. Conversion was not top on the agenda of non-Darbari Sufis- yet some hindus did 'convert' to their sect which cannot be considered as mainstream Islam.

Now you can see what I am implying because there are very different shades of Sufis and a lot of different type of activities going on in the name of Sufism.

Bulleh Shah, Waris Shah, Sarmad and many such munafiqoon kufr propagating sufis etc. were reverse-taquiyya practicing 'muslims' and Sikh Guru were the first to understand this contribution.

aasif bhai, laddu and I will resolve our issues. Don't worry about that.

Don't hide behind laddu :)

Re: # 66

Quite right. Thanks.

History does not provide all the answers but I do think we need to see it with a broader perspective,

ok, that's your privilege.

I will argue that is pure evil, that active deception is pure evil, at least from the Indic point of view.

And that's why for Indic people sufism was, for the most part, little more than pure evil, and should be rejected, or at least treated with disdain and suspicion.

You may choose to believe differently. If you are a Muslim, you should. If you are not, we simply disagree.

Is that fair? or, of course, you could accuse me of some more crimes for exposing, what I believe the deception and fraud of sufism against Hindus.

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

Anyways, I need get other stuff done for now. See you later :)

yaar kaale khan, you need to resolve this matter with your brother in arms laddu and the demons in your head.

1) Were/Are sufis deceiving muslims?
2) Were/Are sufis deceiving hindus?
3) Were/Are sufis deceiving themselves?
4) Were sufis agents of insidious change of the green kind?
5) Were sufis agents of insidious change of the kesari kind?
6) Is there anything indic in sufi thought?
7) Is there anything non-indic in sufi thought?
8) Is there any thought in sufism?
etc

Eklavya
You have lost me here. You are setting up a hypothetical and asking me to take a position. I consider your premise absurd. You cannot prove intent. Besides, laddu has shown that the issue is more subtle and complicated than your simplistic black & white portrayal.
So, no, I don't agree with your definitiions.

Re: # 51

I agree. Our sainted Brahmin scribes lived in a world of their own and were not very influenced by Greek, Persian, Jewish or other traditions. But please remember that their scholarly works were mostly secret during the 1000 years of Buddhist supremecy and 600 years under Turk and Mughal rulers and not widely known to the masses even if playacting the Ramlila was quite popular in North India. It was Father Courdeveaux who `discovered' the Rgveda in 1753 and Aurangzeb's brother Dara who `discovered' the Upanishads and had it translated into Persian. It was later translated into Frnch and English before becoming `Known' in India.

"So you consider ladduji Muslim too?"

Om bhai, let me repeat for your benefit :)

I have made a serious allegation. That most so called sufis that Hindus thought were loving wise men preaching same-same were actually wily agents of Islam, actively converting Hindus to islam. And in this game, many stooped to outright deception.

IF this was true, would YOU accept these people as evil?

it will help if you could tell me whether you accept what I have alleged as evil behavior.


Geez! :)

Eklavya
So you consider ladduji Muslim too?

Sorry, hopefully you will overlook those spelling errors etc...my keyboard isn't the easiest to type on.

Om bhai, laddu ji I disagree on the fundaental natur of both sufism and islam.

Since you disagree with me, it will help if you could tell me what you accept what I have alleged as evil behavior.

If not, then this discussion is meaningless. As it might be, for instance, if you are a Muslim yourself.

the self proclaimed islamo-orientalist will also consider deobandis sufi. khair it is not him it is in his DNA.

Om bhai, I have made a serius allegation. That most so called sufis that Hindus thought were loving wise men preaching same-same as actually wily agents of Islam, actively converting Hindus to islam. And in this game, many stooped to outright deception.

You have made a big issue of disagreeing with that.

That is your privilege. If you are a Muslim, it is your duty.

But the first question is: if those allegatioons were true, would you even accept that evil?

Or would you hide behind words?

laddu
Best post so far!

To clarify, you sound like some street corner preachers who offer the choice between paradise and hell.
Where do I stand, indeed?
Right here, my friend. :)

Eklavya,

Let me speak from the point of view of a community and religious civilization under siege by a Dawah shouting and sword brandishing ulemas who are alwyas inciting the muslim rules to ensure Islamic domination.

For a lot of Hindus many of the Sufis (ofcourse the non-darbari types) were the first line of defense against mullahism. Such non-darbari Sufis toned down the mullah rhetoric by supporting dhimmitude instead of genocide upon hindus. Thus, Sufis were found to be ideological supporters of finding a way to escape Islami-guillotine and mercy towards idolator hindus.

In that way a lot of non-darbari sufis helped spread of munafiqoonism and kufr and were by and large responsible for lowering of jazba-e-jehad amongst muslim awaam. They were on the side of hindus because they served the purpose of toning down the violent rhetoric against hindu idolators and provided the space for hindus to practice their idolatory.

In turn , we hindus erected their shrines and paid respects to their departed souls after they died in their hindu way.

By doing that we hindus turned a lot of muslims into munafiqoons which helped us survive the Islami guillotine.

Ofcourse, a lot of darbari-sufis aligned with political powers and showed their subservience towards the ruling Ulemas and Qazis. They acted as marketing agents of Political Islam.

Eklavya
On this side is an orchard of mango trees full of ripe fruit. On the other side is fire and brimstone - where do I stand? ;) ;)

Since my dalit brother is here, let me correct that to "according to SOME Muslims" :)

Om bhai, that is a matter of proof.

But if one did deceive, would you accept that as evil in your framework?

Remember, you don't have to. If you are a Muslim, it is good enough that the Hindu was brought into the fold of the right religion, any way possible. In an Islamic framework, the evil of Indic framwork, could actually appeaer a noble act.

So where do YOU stand, IF there was deception?

om prakash writes "Evil is when there is forced conversion under threat of worldly consequences over which the converter has power. "

Much like what the US doing with Pakistan in the context of the Talibaboons.

shah wali ullah was as much as sufi as deobandis are... go figure

Eklavya, deception would be hard to prove. I don't even know how you'd recognize deception.
Evil is when there is forced conversion under threat of worldly consequences over which the converter has power.

Can such a sufi, in your framework, ombhai, use deception to bring a Hindu into the fold of Islam, without being charged with being an agent of evil?

Suppose it was proven that this is what was done, would you accept such sufis as being evil people?

om bhai, so long as a Sufi believed that Islam was the right religion and Hinduism was not (or Islam was the right religion for everyone to follow), what would you accept as evil behavior on the part of this sufi in converting a Hindu to Islam?

masadi, in the larger scheme of things you are also a fodder for jihad....you are spending your life creating distraction by defending beheading videos, coming up with new conspiracy theories, putting human face on the pigs while pigs do their work in the background.;)

Eklavya, to be honest, no.
You are the one branding conversion as evil, not me. If you show there was intent, then you will have shown that BY YOUR MEASURE, it was evil. If you cannot show there was an intent, then you should stop talking about it.

I am trying to lay down what you would agree as evil.

If I was able to establish what I wrote below, would you accept sufis as evil?

ok om babu, two issues.

IF there WAS an intent to use an appearance of similarity to convert Hindus to Islam, would that be evil enough for you?

Bridge not in the sense of bhaichara but a common understanding (of a personal god).

Eklavya
That's a lot of mental gymnastics. You are claiming again that there was an intent to mislead without any proof. Sufis spoke the language of the bhakti movement perhaps because they really identified with it themselves?

Or even Christians believing (being told) that Hare Krishnas were simply creating a "bridge between Christianity and Hinduism" while the whole and clear purpose of the bridge Hare Krishnas were building was to convert Christians to Hinduism.

That we Indics would have no problem accpeting as evil.

OK, later.

Om bhai, in our framework, we would accept as evil the follwoing:

Any Hare Krishna who approahces and works on a Christian man with the intent to convert the latter to Hinduism, with the Christian imagining the Hare krishna to be simply another preacher of Christianity, and the Hare Krishna taking active steps to encourage that belief.

Fair?

Eklavya
Are the Hare Krishnas evil?

sheru,
Are you saying they were just peons of the east?:)

Publius, if you, ombhai, and I define evil as Sufis working proactively to increase the numbers of Muslims by converting Hindus to Islam, without Hindus at all realizing that was the aim or the attempt of the people Hindus thought were just wise men, not really any different than their traditional gurus and bhaktas (this being again a proactive ploy of sufis), then yes, I wll be glad to present a case - a major case, in a few days.

But again, must say, for ANY Muslim, that is not necessarily evil. For many Muslims, not just fundamentalist ones, this could be a wonderful thing for the sufis to do, for the good and benefit of Hindus themselves, and for the betterment of mankind in general.

See you later, everyone!

Dear Murad beg Sahib:

You disappointed me for you wrote about Sufi traditrion. I would rather hear what you think about TATA's NANO.

Next time won't you write about this little gem NANO, please.
Kamath

"There was no evil intent"

Kaal in this discussion evil or sinister operationally means intent to increase muslim numbers. That is all that is being debated.

So if you can concretize it would be good. I hope om reads it too.

Sheru writes "they are used as foot soldiers and fodder by the minority who does have sinister plans and intents..."

Religious people are not ruling this world, those that dominate the dominant global institutions are not the religious, they are the commandeers of capitals who might use religious legitimation to obfuscate and confuse the masses. You don't have to be religious to be confused and misled. Know that and study the surveys during the current Iraq war when using legitimation specific to a culture a whole country was misled into believing that Saddam perpetrated 9/11-

TOAO

Imagine having to call Kabir a "Muslim." ha ha ha

Now, by calling him a 'sufi' the poor man could survive.

"You are saying that people who are so appaled at those videos that they cannot belive that someone of their belief can do that are jahils"

He is saying that they are spreading lies about evil acts committed by muslims. Their motives , what ever they are , doesn't change that.

Good post, sheru.

Nothing at all will be lost if for instance one called kabir and bulley shah bhaktas.

But that is not true of people whom Muslims call and celebrate as great sufis.

Kabir etc are called sufis by Muslims (and ignorant Indics) because there is no other category in which to place these people, if they have any relationship (say by birth) to Islam.

OM, I agree with your point somewhat..even today not all religious people have sinister motives...actually majority of them don't but unfortunately they are used as foot soldiers and fodder by the minority who does have sinister plans and intents..even if based on sincere faith.

we have to differentiate the sufis....the sufis mostly popular amongst Hindus and sikhs are poets....they don't have big shrines built after their names. Shah Hussein, Waris's mazaars are very modest.. Bulleh shah's mazaar is built only recently (in present form)and also modest compared to other religious places in Pakistan. most muslims consider them poets, wisemen, nice guys but not necessarily religious figures to place your aqeeda on. people like walliullah, mujadid sarhindi etc have higher status in history of islam in the subcontinent...muslims consider them ideologically closer to core of Islam,...sufis like Bullah were side freaks who were not even thought worth reciting janaza prayers for.

Popularity of poet sufis amongst the masses is recent phenomenon and a result of mass media developments of last 100 years. poet sufis were literary people. they were spiritual but not necessarily religious. all literature is spiritual even the atheist one. such people have a different kind of connection with the people through the language - the words that keep resonating for centuries.

all information is given on a need to know basis and you do not need to know....

Publius, i will get you some information one at least one case, a big case actually, where the sufi ji knew precisely what he was doing, and did it to faciliate conversions. Wih the clear understanding that these newly converted 'muslims-in-name' would become real followers of Islam after abandoning their Hindu ways over time or generations.

There was no evil intent. These sufis like most Muslims of them and now, actually believed (believe) this to be a good and proper thing.

masadi? Is that you?

"Nothing that's said by one phantom to another should really matter."

It matters in the exchage of ideas. That's what we are doing here.

By the converting a Hindu to Muslim is doing the Hindu a favor, helping him - that is not a fundamentalist Muslim view. It simply follows from Islam, and it should be a matter of happiness for most Muslims.

Unless, again, you are refering to some Islam that we don't know about.

Kaurasch writes "Muslims are claiming that the videos, ON MUSLIM WEBSITES POSTED BY MUSLIMS, showing beheadings and torture of muslims by Taliban are anti-muslim conspiracies. One cannot argue sensibly with such jahalat."

First let me politiely suggest that you keep out of Muslim affairs, it is not your business what Muslims are saying about it, you should worry about what the white man is saying about it since you consider his words to be pure nectar from heaven.

Second, think about what you're terming jahalat. You are saying that people who are so appaled at those videos that they cannot belive that someone of their belief can do that are jahils. No, they are of high morality, much higher than yours, they are testifying through saying that, that those are not their values and that those that seek ulterior motive are using those videos selectively to damage not only Islam but invade Muslim lands. They have a valid moral and intellectual point, which cannot be dismissed by crying "conspiracy". You are the jahil.

Have a nice day

TOAO.

Eklavya,
It's all right. Nothing that's said by one phantom to another should really matter.

Om bhai, don't know why you would say so.

I do agree that a hindu cannot really understand Islam unless that Hindu is willing to move out of his traditional comfort zone.

Sorry...strike that last question.

Whether you or anyone is Hindu or Muslim or anything else should be irrelevant to the discussion. Apologies.

Eklavya, you think like a fundamentalist Muslim even though you are born-again Hindu ;)

oh!! Not sinister motives, ombhai.

If you are a Muslim, then converting a Hindu to Islam is a GOOD turn you are doing to the latter. You are being helpful. Nothing sinister from Muslim point of view.

Are you a Muslim or not? :(

"necessarily having any deep strategy"

It is possible om and a conscious or a sub conscious awareness of one's having such an impact (and liking it, agreeing with it) is also possible.

That is why we need concrete examples.

As to Waliullah, if he is a sufi then I don't know what a fundamentalist would look like.

These is no reason to believe that the great sufi shah waliullah, who according to Indian Muslims of his time, was their greatest intellectual (wikipedia if it can be trusted) was not genuinely saving Hindus, if they converted to Islam.

Where we disagree is you ascribe sinister motives to them whereas I do not (not broadly any way).

Om bhai, that's exactly what it was. These good sufis were 'saving' Hindus, while Hindus thought of them as simply nice wise men being friendly, just like their other traditional gurus and bhaktas.

We agree. Don't know what we are disagreeing about.

Publius
My point was simply that someone could be out "saving" others in good conscience without necessarily having any deep strategy.

"BTW I am shocked that Waliullah is considered a sufi. He was an out and out revivalist who led to Deobandi Islam."

ha ha ha ha ha

Goes to show how little we Indics have any idea what Muslims call sufism.

ha ha ha ha ha

calling kabir a sufi is actually a great insult to the man. I am sure a similar case can be made for Bulley Shah (although I know much less about him, and think of him only as a dude all Punjabi friends go gaga over :))

BTW I am shocked that Waliullah is considered a sufi. He was an out and out revivalist who led to Deobandi Islam.

om,

That example is not valid. The evangelical is not hiding his exclusivist belief, the sufi is. He is appealing to the Hindu not by saying Quran and Muhammad are the only valid ways to god but by suggesting to him that it Ram and Rahim are the same and that Islam is just another path.

There is a clear distinction between "bhatktas" and "sufis". Bhaktas never tried to change anyone's faith but only spoke of their love of god and denounced meaningless rituals. Sufis, such as Kabir, Dara Shikoh or Sai Baba, who did not try to convert anyone to Islam should be considered as bhatktas. But one notices that these "sufis" were discarded by Muslims: Kabir's followers are now mostly Hindus who sing Kabir's dohas in their mandirs and hindu congregations and not at Sufi mazars and his own kin in Benaras call themselves Ansaris instead of Kabirpanthis and probably did not mind blowing up Sankat-mochan temple; Dara was executed for his sins and Sai Baba has hardly any Muslim follower. You hear Ishwar Allah tero naam in Hindu mandirs but not at Nizamuddin or Ajmer Sharif.

"Hindus were gullible and stupid"

No, it's a matter of the world view.

Have you ever read anything of the history of South American Indians?

These days I am trying to learn a bit since I am developing some interest in South America.

If you look at the interactions between those American Indian leaders and European invaders and Christian Missionaries, you are shocked how the two approached each other. Read up on how the last Incan king in Peru was captured and treated by European and Christian missionaries.

This king I am very sure was not stupid, nor was he 'gullible' in the normal sense of the word.

He, and the Peruvians there, simply did not understand European invaders and their christian missionaries and priests.

Publius
Have you met an evangelical Chrisitan who honestly believes that acceptance of Jesus as the son of god is in the best interest of the one receiving the message? I have and I can tell you that there are those for whom this is not a numbers game. Same with sufis although the quote by pmishra2 gives me a pause as to how many of them were really playing a political game.

Eklavya
The flip side of your argument is that Hindus were gullible and stupid. Do you really believe that?

"it was one of the strands of Islam"

om in that case the question of deception ( whether in consequence or intent) against sufis remains open
If their view was not normative, and they knew that it wasn't then the converts were in a sense being duped.

"The one-way movement is the fault of Hinduism which did not have a mechanism for conversion"

I would grant you that. My heart breaks even today when I talk to very intelligent Hindus like cobra and stuka and they show no interest in even accepting anyone as a Hindu, let alone motivating them.

But that also assumes that sufis were netural in the game, in faciliating the traffic. We know they were not.

Unless you can tell us otherwise.

I see Mr. RiazHaq has arrived with his unmedicated mental problems and delusional worldview...ah, yes, the problem in south asia is the bad, bad upper-caste hindus. Thats why our current prime minister is a sikh and our next prime minister could be Mayawati. Both are hindus of the highest caste, you see.


Here are some gentle thoughts from Shri Wahiullah, a highly respected sufi thinker of the 17th century. Notice that this is well before european hegemony in india, it shows how educated muslims considered themselves a nazi-style master race even during the mughal empire. Shri Mohammad Iqbal would later rework this thinking for the 20th century.

[quote]
Eulogizing the barbaric persecution of non-Muslims in medieval India as glory of Islam, he did not believe in Indian nationhood or any national boundary for Muslims and therefore, invited Shah Abdali, Amir of Afghan to attack India (Third battle of Panipat 1761), in which Marathas were defeated. In his letter to the Afghan king he said, "All control of power is with the Hindus because they are the only people who are industrious and adaptable. Riches and prosperity are theirs, while Muslims have nothing but poverty and misery. At this juncture you are the only person, who has the initiative, the foresight, the power and capability to defeat the enemy and free the Muslims from the clutches of the infidels. God forbid if their domination continues, Muslims will even forget Islam and become undistinguishable from the non-Muslims"

Reminding the Muslim rulers of the dominant role of Muslims even in a multi-religious society Wali Ullah said, "Oh Kings! Mala ala urges you to draw your swords and not put them back in their sheaths again until Allah has separated the Muslims from the polytheists and the rebelious Kifirs and the sinners are made absolutely feeble and helpless" (Ibid. page 299)

[quote]

So is this a great Sufi hero? We already know Mr. Haqs opinion already, I am waiting for Mr. Baig to explain where this islamist nazi fits into the "kind and gentle" picture.