Pagans and Competitive Conversions

re: Omar1974

A most welcome and interesting change of stance ;-)

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

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

Malinai states (addressing me) clearly the point that Rishi and RanaRansher are ready to pillory me for.

Basically, you have no clue about sufi message which is message of peace, love, egalitaranism, secularism and humanism and sprituality.

I have nothing against Sachal Sarmast and people of his ilk, even the Whirling dervishes (the Bektashi) in Turkey. In fact, I actually deeply admire some of these sufi mystics. But NOT in an Islamic context. They have an interesting way of approaching G-D. There may well be merit in it. Their msg I have nothing against as long as it is not preached as ISLAM. Rabbia of Basra (8th century) was a great Islamic Scholar & Mystic. I most certainly would never utter a single syllable against this woman who refused to marry, for she gave her life/love to G-D. Not that I would encourage that sort of thing as a widespread practice. Catholic monasticism is not to be encouraged, i.e the unnatural state of celibacy.

Thankfully Aasif (see his post) put his finger on my point regarding the vast majority of so-called Sufis & Wandering Fakirs + false Pirs in Pakistan today. They are nothing more than a bunch of Charlatans who dupe and mislead the illiterate masses. And one needs at some point to draw the line between Mysticism and their method of approaching G-D, and orthodox Sunni Islam. That is all I am saying.

I manage to do it (draw the line) by compartmentalizing things. Each has its place. I don’t mistake the one for the other, as the illiterate uneducated superstitious masses do in Pakistan. It is these Charlatans (who prey on the superstitious masses) whom I wish to expose ruthlessly. They are no better than the average mullah.

As to JATS; What I said was tongue in cheek. The word means precisely what I said it means in salees Urdu. (Uncouth, Ganwar)

As for my being an intolerant bigot, well while we all have our faults, i certainly have no wish or desire to be part of that group of people.

Nor am I.

Re: RanaRansher, Omar

I am not sure why Sufism is being discussed on this platform, but in anyway i suggest Omar to first read the Sufi message, read their Kafis and their poetry and then make your judgements. Basically, you have no clue about sufi message which is message of peace, love, egalitaranism, secularism and humanism and sprituality.

Throught history Sufis have raised their voice against the tyrants of that time. Sarmad raised voice against extermist tyrannt Aurangzeb and was murdered for that. Shah Inayat had built a commune for the fakirs and Haris as a cradle of security from the tyranny of landlords. It was a perfect egalitarian society. In the end he was executed by Azam Khan, Sindh governer of the Mughals.

On the day of execution, the ever generous mystic is said to have told his executioner:

``You have saved me from the fetters of Being --
May God grant you good recompense in both worlds!

Here`s a Sufi response to religion:

``I believe not in manifest religion,
I live ever in love.
Say Amen! when love comes to you.
Love is neither with the infidel
nor with the believer.
Love obliterates all religions..
Thy first duty is to
give up faith, unfaith, Islam and all religions.
The lover ought never to
entangle himself in religions.
As long as these towers, temples and mosques
are not deserted --
So long the path of the Beloved
can never be attained.``

--Sachal Sarmast, revered Sindhi mystic

re: OMAR1974

Regarding Sufi practices, egalitaranism, secularism, humanism, separating ritual from spiritual, Al-Hallaj, Anal-Haq, preaching ones message in the local languages, using local customs and imagery, etc.
YOu did not understand what I said. As far as your response to it is concerned `what the ....` ? What are you trying to say ?

Like I said before you have missed the whole point of the Sufi. A
BTW the relationship of Sufism to societies in India and Pakistan is the key to long term peace in the area. That is just my opinion, maybe someday I will elaborate in an article.

re: Intermediary between GOD and man

Again you have no clue. As this article points out the Kings and clergy have collaborated time and again to become this middle man. Extending that further in to a world view of religion, you can see that every saint, prophet, messiah as acted as a catalyst of change in a society where their `sect` challenged the prevailing `Church` and sought to reform it. SO when the Catholic clergy got too powerful, protestants denounced the need for clergy in `protest`. When the Hindu clergy abused their power the Buddhas and Mahaviras denounced it (happened again with Sikhism, Arya Samaj, Vedanta, Bhakti, etc.). Arabs were in a similar situation when Mohammad came by and reformed the man/God relationship whcih had become far too ritualistic and corrupt under the Meccans.
THe Sufi pirs (only the individuals I have deep regard for) were also trying to eliminate the middle man from religion. In fact, divine love is between the human and the object of love (God, pir, saint, spouse, etc.)
You obviously have no idea what they read/write/preach otherwise you would not make such ignorant statements. I could start quoting but then you would accuse me of trying to be your middle man between God.

re: Jats being considered blah blah by you

Very understandable given the ideological stand Jat communities had taken historically to bigots and zealots who threatened their identity. Given your views, in general, this one seems quite natural. Have you ever wondered what Jats think about your `types` ? WOuld require teaching you too much Indian history. Out of scope for this article.

Here is what some long-dead-corrupted-by-Hinduism 15th century Sufi tried (in vain obviously!) to teach your types.

chal we Bulleyaa oththe chaliye
jitthe saare anne
naa koi saadi zaat pehchaane
te naa koi saanu manne
------Jiye Bhullaah

Re RanaRansher #28

It seems to me that you have taken the task of educating the ``ignorant`` muslims of the sub-continent of their Sufi past. May I humbly suggest that we are very much aware and proud of our sufi ancestors/teachers. And we proudly continue to practice their teachings.

What omar (I think) was trying to denounce was the majority of pirs and fakirs of this day and age (and the past) where they abuse the unassuming masses. I have heard/seen countless first hand accounts of how these quacks do their miracles. Like the one in rural punjab known as the ``nanga pir`` who would ``bless`` infertile women by making them walk around himself.

The real Sufis are reverred in all parts of Pakistan. Millions participate in the annual URS of these mystics. It is ridiculous to equate the quacks of today with the spiritual luminaries of the past. I too am a big admirer and student of their insightful poetry. If one has heard of the terms ``ramziyat`` and ``tareeqat`` then most of their poetry does not sound like blasphemy. Like when listening to Aziz mian say,

Hai Kum-bukht tu nay pee hee nahee



doesnot amount to a scorn for not drinking!

regards

Aasif

RE:``The article was written for Indian, predominantly Hindu, audiences in the context of the present attack on Christians and the Islamic aspects were only lightly touched upon. Generalisations were inevitable in compressing a vast subject into 1000 words.``

1. I didn`t know that a ``Hindu mind`` has to be addressed separately. Maybe, I ought to do something about this affliction called Hinduism that renders me incapable of understanding what others regularly understand. Perhaps, I should apologise for all criminals or whatever bad`s happening in India -- for 80% of criminals in India (Since 80% of people in India are Hindus, 80% of criminals in India will be Hindus) are my co-religists and hence I must answer their crimes.

2. Or maybe you are just confused between Hinduism and Hindutva. First term is religion and Second term -- perhaps you ought to define it.

Benumbed by your Superior Logic

A-Wretched-Hindu-Soul

Harish

Re: OMAR1974

``Never really understood how ANYONE could be proud of being called a JAT. To me the term signifies an uncouth person, a ganwar, nothing more.``

-- Yeah and to the entire non-muslim world, the term muslim might mean fundamentalist, wife-beating, uneducated, unrefined mediavial religious bigots. Aren`t you proud of being a Muslim.? Guess, just like how you feel, a JAT feels too. To me, neither the term muslim means fundamentalist, wife-beating, uneducated bigots, nor does a JAT means an uncouth person, a ganwar, etc., It is just that some/many people within these sects/religions are guilty of the criterias we specify.... see where i am coming from ? I am not defending someone`s pride in being a JAT here. And in this day and age, pride is not a valuable commodity

-- For a person who consistently propagates , women liberation, anti-mullah and anti-fundamentalist sentiments, you appear to be on the verge of becoming a fundamentalistic with your beliefs. ? While you appear to be intolerant of abuse of women in the muslim world, you also appear to be intolerant of all other groups (as your comment above specifies ), and you also end up denouncing probably harmless fakirs and pirs whom many follow just because they do not follow your brand of islam. You inevitably end up with the ``I am the only one who is right `` and ``my version of Islam is the best``, attitude with your views ? And with these views you so galantly espouse you are increasingly becoming as intolerant of differing views as a local fundamentalistic mullah ? If you are right in denouncing pirs and labelling JATs as uncouth, can you theoretically defend yourself from being labelled by a fundamentalist Mullah as a heretic culpable of blasphemy for espousing an anti-hijab, anti-mullah stand. ?

This does not mean you cannot denounce anyone at all . There however exists a thin grey line between these various shades of grey. Try to find that out first before you move on your Quixotic adventures.

Rishi

Re: Omar (reply 11)

``Find me another significant religion that dispense with the need of a formal priest on occasion such as birth, marriage, death, prayer.``

-- Hinduism does not require priest for birth, marrige or death and even prayer. There are temples in India where there are no priests. Do`nt confuse one form of Hinduism --- brahminism for the entire superset of Hinduism.. My parents got married without a priest and do not worship shiva or vishnu. My grandfather was an atheist but still they all called themselves hindus. The common mistake that most of the non-hindus and some hindus make is to equate brahminism to hinduism. Brahminism is only a subset of hinduism like shaivism or vaishnavism.

Re. Murad.

Agreed that no one can force someone else to be called a hindu. Likewise no one can force someone else not be called a hindu. And by labelling hindus under one sweeping defenition you are guilty of the same crime that the brahminic zealots are guilty of.

Suffice it to say that a hindu is one who considers himself a hindu,,,regardless of the god he worships, the priests he uses for officiating his ceremonies or such ......

Re: all

In my opinion, religions come into existence only by differentiating with other existing religions and not by accomodating them. Hinduism in practise does not call other gods of other religion as false god. There is no one way for salvation in hinduism. One can attain salvation through any god. A muslim is needed to categories someone a hindu and vise-versa. Almost all practicing hindus, consider the sikh gurus, the jain gurus and buddha as their own gods or holy people. Hence they do not differentiate people from these sects as non-hindus. A hindu would willingly worship in a gurudwara or a buddhist temple or a jain temple (check out saravanabelagola, the golden temple or the bodh gaya for tangible evidence). A hindu would even worship in a mosque (vabar mosque near sabarimala, erwadi dargah,,, etc,,, etc or the velanganni church.). One would have to be a hindu to understand how hinduism functions. As a hindu i can acknowledge that Allah is indeed the god. Like wise i would also acknowledge that Shiva or Jesus is a god too. The plurality that comes into play with Hinduism would be very confusing to someone who is brought up a monotheistic religion.

My definition of pirs below also includes the wandering Fakir variety.

RanaRansher:

Since the pirs are now your favorite fellows, i`ll tell u what i plan to do next.

The next time i am in Pakistan (it might be a few years), i will actually go and hang out with several of these guys, individually, and take some bhang/Charas/hashish and a bottle of Jack Daniels with me to keep us all in good company.

Then i will prompt their babble, and i promise to be neither too stoned nor too drunk to recollect what happens and what they say and do. It (the experiences) will make for an interesting piece for CHOWK don`t you think? :)

Perhaps I can even convince them that I want to be a true MUREED. Still some of them are reputed to be quite `pohnchay-way loog` so we shall see whether they see thru me, for i am only a little devil afterall. They are the professionals who do it for a living!

OMAR

I read your reply before RANARANSHER, and I just went back to it and read it again. As for the websites, later, i`ll check them out, kinda busy right now.

I don`t see how/why your if one of them is bad ... all of them must be bad charcterization of what i said comes into the equation. I`ve met a few. They exploit the illiterate masses with superstitious nonsense. I completely agree that they (Sufis) have indeed incorporated Hindu ritual, hardly surprising given theitr mission of converting the local-yokels spiritually (the entire point of Sufisim/mysticism) w/o any emphasis on what you dismiss as ritual. However, they seem to have in the process ignored something very basic to Islam. That there are no intermediaries between G-D & man, and no is no need of any. Approach the Almightly for assistence directly. Pray to him. You don`t need a mullah or a Sufi as an intermediary. Its a perverse synthesis of Hinduism & Islam.

OMAR MIRZA

oops !! apologies....
the last post for OMAR1974 was meant for the Nirmanali Faqirni article. Not quite sure what happened here.

regards

re: Omar1974

I guess you ignored my earlier post.
In any case, so there is one pir who is a `low, slimy character` therefore all of them are.
Likewise, there may be one mullah who is a fraud, so they all are.
And there is one Osama, who calls himself a devout Muslim, so can we conclude all devout Muslims are terrorists !!

Mullah (Omar1974) te mashalchi duhaan iko chit
lokaan kar de chaandna, aap andhere wich
------- Jiye Bhullaaaaah

regards

re: Murad

you say `` they (Hindus) fervently believe in their faith and cannot understand why many tribals are so half-hearted about becoming proper Hindus.``

Can you explain what is required to be a proper Hindu ? Is there such a thing ? What exactly are you talking about ?

Now again, don`t take this as a defense to what some zealots (with narrow minded definitions of Hinduism similar to yours !) do to CHristian missionaries in the name of protecting their faith. But what a lot of people have a problem with is being told by SOME that their pagan/heathen ancient indigenous/native ways are not proper. It`s about spiritual freedom.