Pagans and Competitive Conversions

A very good analysis indeed. I specially like the

phrase ``There is usually rivalry when people love

together but unity when there is a common bond of

hatred.`` Very well put!

The article also made me think about how Hinduism

can actually be defined. I think Mr Baig makes a

very good point when he says people are not Hindus if ``they do not worship Shiv or Vishnu but their own deities, know nothing of the Vedas and have no Brahmins to direct their ceremonies or worship.`` I feel that the first point is not that important becoz hinduism shows a remarkable adaptability in incorporating local gods into their own pantheon and mythology. Hey, even Buddha became an avatar of Vishnu! The clincher is the aspect about Brahmanism: there can be no organized(?) religion till there are priests. Amazing observation!!

-narain

Re: Murad

Hinduism as you correctly point out is not a prophet centered religion. However Brahminism is only one facet of Hinduism. Viewed through your glasses, south indians who worship karthikeya need not be hindus since brahmins do not worship karthikeya in most parts of India. Viewed through the same perspective, most south indians (tamils in particular ) have nothing to do with Ram. The malayalis worship Ayyappa who is unheard off in Gujarat or Madhyapradesh. The Kannadigas worship yellamma who is not known anywhere else.

Most of the villages in India have their own local Hindu dieties who are worshipped along with the mainstream hindu dieties. These local dieties are not worshipped by the Brahmins. Then by your words all the villagers who have a local god need not be hindus.

However, it should be noted that hinduism does not denounce all these village and tribal gods as non hindus. Instead it acknowledges and embraces these gods into its fold whenever and wherever required. Which is why hinduism had gods which keep increasing in number. Hindus do not denounce the tribal worship practices as heathen or pagan as the muslims or the christians do. Instead they accept it as a part of Hinduism.

There in lies the difference my friend

Rishi

p.s: most tribals worship hanuman who is very popular even among the kshatriya and the brahminical folds of the Hinduism. And it is this hanuman (monkey faced god) worship which the christian missionaries call pagan and denounce it and pooh pooh the claim that hanuman flew to lanka as a stupid myth.

Well If Moses can part the red sea and Muhammed can move a mountain why can`t hanuman fly goes the hindu logic...........nothing makes sense, does it ?

Re: Murad

One technical pointer...

Jains , Buddhists (Indian) and Sikhs are also considered Hindus in India. Only Muslims and Chritians are not . Amazingly in parts where i used to live , even Christians are considered Hindus because of no significant difference in culture.

Rishi

Re: Murad

A friend does not worship Shiva or Vishnu, does not feel any relationship with these two gods, and does not have brahmins direct his ceremonies as he is against the brahminical elements of hinduism while he himself is a brahmin. However he worship Ganapati who is actually animist in orgin (elephant head and all). Does it make him a non-hindu ?

Rishi

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: Rishi, Murad

If I am not wrong, according to the constitution of India a ``hindu`` is defined as a citizen of India who does not identify himself/herself as a Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Parsi or Jew. In these cases the respective personal laws apply. Everybody else is called Hindu (Sikhs, Jains, atheists included). I guess after Ambedkar`s conversion to buddhism the category of neo-buddhists was created and hence the separate personal laws for buddhists. I would appreciate if someone can verify these.

Another interesting fact is that till a few centuries back the orthodox christians of Kerala used to identify their church as the Hindu Orthodox Church. I guess the British census first started the current classification.

Ashish

(As for myself I am identified in the census as a christian.)

Murad : In your paradigm of 5 elements common to all religions, i am surprised you also managed to include Islam. Islam arguably does not meet element #3 as described herein, and quite possibly element #4 as well.

In case you have forgotten the practice of the religion of your birth, (for if YOU were a recent convert you would know this), there are NO HIGH ANOINTED PRIESTS IN ISLAM. In Sunni Islam it is the eldest person that leads the community in prayers. In Shii Islam perhaps you can argue that yes it is hierarchical in structure. But in Sunni Islam there is no Pope. Ayatollahs in Shii Islam are equivilent to Bishops in Christianity. But they are recognized as Ayatollahs by consensus of the community based on their religious learning and their following of students. It takes quite a while under the tutelage of more learned recognized Ayatollahs for them to become one. Sunni Islam does not have a universal organization like the Shias do. In practice, the Ayatollahs have a great deal more freedom of doctrine and teaching etc than Catholic Bishops enjoy from the Vatican. Sunni Islam does not require a man to pray in a mosque, he can just as easily pray at home although communal Friday prayers are of course encouraged.

As for element #4, it is debatable as to whether any of the mosques or Imambargahs were donated by Kings to a priestly class, or that they provided extensive ammounts of money to keep the so-called priests in fine accoutrements in Muslim states. (Have you forgotten too how Hazrat OMAR was questioned by the common people about his share of the spoils of war, a mere piece of cloth?) If you are talking about late 20th century history, maybe you can cite some examples, but during the much longer period prior to the mid-20th century, in case you have forgotten, the rationale for building mosques was so that Allah would build that person a palace in heaven in the hereafter as promised. As for ostentatious clothing, well, need i remind you that Islam enjoins its followers to dress modestly, and all of the prohibitions it imposes on men wearing either silk or gold?

The en masse conversions in N.Africa and the middle East after the initial wave of conquest by the Arabs were NOT the result as you imply of the efforts of PRIESTS, but rather voluntary conversions facilitated partly by the head tax on dhimmis (people of the book i.e Jews & Christians) from which Muslim citizens were excluded (but obliged to do military service in its stead which dhimmis were excused from). The Arabs were very surprised at the extent of the conversions and did not expect them in the least. Initially these converts were treated like 2nd class muslims. In addition, the Byzantine Empire persecuted Christian heretics in the Middle East and these people welcomed Muslim conquest as relief from Byzantine oppression. Muslims did not persecute or differentiate between Christians. As the Quran says (paraphrased here)in referring to the differences between Jews & Christians, Allah will judge between them on the last day. I.E their internal bickerings over orthodoxy were never a concern for muslims, until they threatened internal order within the Ottoman Empire (and i`m not going into THAT tangent although i easily could sally forth).

Now are you going to bring up Akbar? Or some other Mughals? Lets see what you come up with. It better be good.

I like the confident tone of your piece, but when we examine some of the fallacies you are spreading in the guise of broad generalizations, your thesis begins to fall apart and lacks coherence.

Can`t believe Chowk actually published this piece and plans a whole series! Some rather glaring errors in your thoughts.



OMAR

Re: Murad

Another would-be Samuel Huntington (Remember the Clash of Civilizations Paradigm published in Foreign Affairs in 1993) goes down in flames. The professor`s argument just as yours, was structurally very appealing outwardly, at first flance/read, but just like yours, had plenty of flaws upon closer examination. Now thoroughly discredited. Need i say more? Do you surrender? I warn you Murad, i don`t take prisoners. On guard!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: Saima Shah

Re: Omar

Murad Ali Baig did not use the term `anointed priest`. You did. `Priest` has been used as a term for a religious community leader. Islamic community has those in abundance. Leaders who on the surface are devoutly `MUSLIM` take on the challenge of uniting the community against a common heathen god.

Correct thus far Saima.

Baig is perfectly correct that it was the four caliphs who furthered the cause of Islam, as the religious leaders, opinion leaders and quranic interpretors.

I did not disagree with his analysis of elements 1 & 2, just 3 & 4. So this is irrelevant.

Recently we had Zia Ul Haq and Khomeini who taught the rest of Pakistan what Islam means. And what about Maulanas? the common mullah is a diseased mind who furthers his perversions in the guise of `spirituality`. In that way we have something worse than mere priests, we have self-proclaimed priests without an obvious charter or organization like the papacy or the pundits. No rules, hardly any training. Just a god for all the people, by the perverted people.

Agreed. You won`t find anyone who despises Mullahs as much as I do. Nonethless, you must in fairness admit that there is no concept of priest in Islam as i clearly indicated in my previous post, and this differentiates it from Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism significantly.

A man does not need a mullah or any priest to get married, he can if he wishes do the nikah himself. Find me another significant religion that dispense with the need of a formal priest on occasion such as birth, marriage, death, prayer. Please I`m waiting for Murad or anyone else who has a cogent intellectual argument in his defense to take up the gauntlet. As Saima herself confess HARDLY ANY TRAINING i.e no seperate caste of priests exists in Sunni Islam. I think its clear enough.

The only rulers who used Islam in the way Murad described were the Shahs of Persia from the 17th Century onwards, who forced/foisted Shii Islam upon the masses for political reasons (their conflict with the Ottomans played a signifcant role in this choice of theirs in order to unite the country against the Sunni Ottomans they needed to be different, and Persia has always been different from the Arabs, its culture preceeded any inkling of Arab culture by well over a millenium, in fact the Arabs to this day have little culture beyond date palms, hijab, the dessert, prayers and polygamy- reference to sheiks & kings etc). I am excluding ofcourse the Egyptians who are heirs to the ancient culture of the Nile.

Re: Omar

Murad Ali Baig did not use the term `anointed priest`. You did. `Priest` has been used as a term for a religious community leader. Islamic community has those in abundance. Leaders who on the surface are devoutly `MUSLIM` take on the challenge of uniting the community against a common heathen god. Baig is perfectly correct that it was the four caliphs who furthered the cause of Islam, as the religious leaders, opinion leaders and quranic interpretors. Recently we had Zia Ul Haq and Khomeini who taught the rest of Pakistan what Islam means. And what about Maulanas? the common mullah is a diseased mind who furthers his perversions in the guise of `spirituality`. In that way we have something worse than mere priests, we have self-proclaimed priests without an obvious charter or organization like the papacy or the pundits. No rules, hardly any training. Just a god for all the people, by the perverted people.

Saima Shah writes:

`` the common mullah is a diseased mind who furthers his perversions in the guise of `spirituality` ``

This is an unfair put-down, Saima. All the `common mullahs` I have had the good fortune to know have been kind, generous, thoughtful and sincere people. Every walk of life has its own share of twisted minds. Why sweepingly dismiss `the common mullah` as diseased and perverted ?

Saad

PS: Omar1974, you`re right of course. There is no organized clergy in orthodox Sunni Islam.

Murad Ali Baig forwarded the following response directly.



Gosh! What a quick and vigorous response to my first article on internet.

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. Some points can be answered:

 I do not subscribe to the view, even if it might be in the Indian constitution, that any citizen of India who is not Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Parsi or Jew is a Hindu. I have travelled to most of India`s districts, in my years with tractor marketing, and believe that India`s many tribals do not belong to any religion. They are and remain Animist or Pagan.

 Rishi asks who do I consider to be a Hindu? I believe that all those who subscribe to religious customs presided over by Brahmins are Hindu who have, over the years, incorporated many earlier, local and tribal deities and customs into rituals and myths managed by them.

 Hinduism is not just the religion of the Vedas as many Hindus believe, as the Vedas say nothing about reincarnation, dharma, karma, ahimsa that are the pillars of practiced Hinduism today. The `Aryan` tradition had incorporated many earlier, Buddhist and Jain traditions as it evolved.

 There was no Shiva and even Vishnu was a very minor god of the Vedas. Vishnu rose to eminence much later and acquired many of the attributes of the old Vedic god Varuna including his old epithet Narayana or the one who rests upon the waters. There is no Ram and the only Krishna is no deity but the leader of the Dasyus and Rakshashas. Their tradition evolved much later in the oft rewritten Ramayana and Mahabharata . There is just one goddess, Usha in the Vedas and the later worship of Durga, Kali, Lakshmi and assorted other Shaktis were also later additions.

 Snakes, monkeys, elephants and many other animals and birds were totems and later deities of anamist tribes in many lands. Hanuman and Ganesh were added from such tribal traditions as the tribes were conquered. The earliest reference to Ganesh is in the 8th century AD. Many tribal deities including those who presided at Madurai, Bhuvaneshwar and Tirupati were later incorporated into the evolving `Hindu` tradition and interpreted as incarnations of Shiv or Vishnu. Practiced Hinduism is mostly based on the Puranas that were written between the 4th and 10th centuries.

 Omar has a point that my sweeping account does not specifically consider details of many religions especially Islam. But Islam evolved out of earlier religious traditions that were clearly animist and the third and fourth elements of priests and patrons were certainly present. Every religion, unfortunately, deviated from the visions of their founders and had experienced periods of tyranny in which the priests and kings colluded. I don`t think that voluntary conversions of Persian, African or others would be easy to substantiate.

 I would be happy to discuss your thoughts but without bars or handcuffs. The only prisoners are the captives of the mind.

Re: Murad

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. Some points can be answered:

The author concedes the paradigm might not have universal application, when we examine the nitty gritty details, and I have not even really examined if from a Confusian/Chinese perspective or a Hindu perspective, I leave that to more knowledgeable readers in those areas. I choose to focus only of the religion, history and culture of over 1 billion muslims in the world today, a large enough area to handle. In order to refute a paradigm it is not necessary to refute everything. The author did made some good points.

 Omar has a point that my sweeping account does not specifically consider details of many religions especially Islam. But Islam evolved out of earlier religious traditions that were clearly animist and the third and fourth elements of priests and patrons were certainly present. Every religion, unfortunately, deviated from the visions of their founders and had experienced periods of tyranny in which the priests and kings colluded. I don`t think that voluntary conversions of Persian, African or others would be easy to substantiate.

Very rationalist perspective on the so-called ‘evolution’ of Islam Murad! Having heard all these arguments before I think I can safely say that in matters of religion the only real proof lies in a believer’s heart. I can no more ‘prove’ that Moses parted the Red Sea, than I can that the Quran is the revelation of G-D. As for details regarding the ‘voluntary’ nature of conversions during the spread of early Islam I really think that if you look at any number of serious scholarly works on early Islam’s spread, you will find this is a virtually universal opinion. Tell me then, on a side note, that When the Mughal Empire, The Ottoman Empire and the Safavid Empires existed together, at the height of their powers, why then did the Mughals (except for Aurangzeb whom Hindus hate to this day, and whose memory they have tried to efface from India Completely – Incidentally I find nothing more repulsive than Aurangzeb’s idea of penance, the decline of the Mughals can be traced back to his interpretation of Islam. The murdering scoundrel who had killed so many, including his own brothers/rivals at the time, spent his last days as an Emperor stitching prayer caps to pay for his own keep, in order not to be a drain on the public exchequer, instead of running the Empire and dealing aggressively with the British and encouraging both the expansion of trade and the development of an indigenous industrial base—may he rot in hell for his failure to do so.)

 I would be happy to discuss your thoughts but without bars or handcuffs. The only prisoners are the captives of the mind.

How cute! An oblique way of labeling me a Zealot! Well, I tell you this Murad, I am an intellectual Zealot when I am aroused, a religious Zealot I am not. So I am receptive to new ideas. I’ll not be labeled a “Pharissee”, who did not see the coming of Christ for he walked with his eyes closed. (Zealots, Essenes & Pharisees were all Jewish sects at the time of Jesus Christ)



Saima, Who appointed the Mullahs as the guardians of Islam? Who? As you stated yourself, they are the self proclaimed ‘guardians’ of morality and Islam. We don’t have to accept their authority in religion. When you get a chance, read my article on CHOWK, ‘The lack of rights for women in Pakistan.’ If CHOWK ever gets around to publishing ‘The Mullah Vs. Me’, you’ll find it interesting, I think. Ideologically, we are not opposed. It all goes back to a patriarchal conception of society. Why blame religion alone for the mullahs. Why cannot we ourselves assume control of our faith? If a mullah tells you something, confront him then and there, and use your knowledge of real Islam as power, like a Taweez against a Mullah, say boo and he will retreat. As for the right of divorce being cut off during the Nikah, speaking for myself, if a girl cannot stand up for her own rights and publicly humiliate the mullah in front of a few hundred wedding guests and create a scene, well she lacks the spirit that I admire. (This btw, is the ideal girl/woman entitled to my respect, and as it so happens, the Jewel I’m looking for). You will prevail. If you were my sister or for that matter any womyn with the absolute guts to stand up for herself, and we happened to be in a mosque together, (this would be a rare incident for me), and the mullah declared a Namaz Unqaboolabal in the circumstances you described below, you would witness the most exquisite confrontation between myself and the maulvi sahib in front of the entire crowd. I’m just looking for an opportunity. It has never happened when I was present. I would feel compelled to seize the microphone and give a khutba of my own against the entire class of devils. I need not go on into details regarding child abuse etc by mullahs here. I also well remember the scandals in Islamabad between a prominent mullah/politico, and his association with a prominent Madame as her client, years ago. In any event Murad’s 4th point of official patronage of the Clergy stands refuted if one looks across the hour glass of time through the history of Islam. Even the Khalifa’s of Baghdad were powerless during Abbasid times. The Sultans held the real temporal power, yes Murad, and the Khalifa’s were just an ornament, more like their captives. Were their courts ostentatious? Probably, yes. Baghdad earlier, in the 8th century was the first planned city. Perfectly concentric, with 4 doors facing the 4 corners of the World (N-S-E.W). With Zia, yes, there was official sanction of the ‘high priests’ of Islam in Pakistan. Also known as Jamaat Inc. But they were not enriched financially as a result, only accorded political legitimacy because they afforded Zia the same. It is the Kings of Saudi Arabia after the 70s oil boom that financed he construction of Gigantic mosques worldwide. Even in impovrished African nations, billion dollar mosques have been constructed by rulers to accord themselves political legitimacy, however, if you go back to my first post, i left the period after the mid 20th century as an exception to the rule of the entire period of Islam in general, Yes you can find exceptions in Spain. Also see my posts to the Nirmanli Fakirni article. Its is the uneducated classes that have bestowed the sanctity of ‘priesthood’ upon the mullahs, pirs etc, who have introduced Un-Islamic elements into sub-continental Islam. Incidentally, it was the mullahs who opposed the creation of Pakistan, and then took it upon themselves to make it ‘the laboratory of Islam.’ The Cheek, the absolute gall. M.A. Jinnah’s ideals completely disregarded.

OMAR MIRZA

Re; Murad

Ooops !

I didn`t actualy finish part of what i meant to say below.

Continued from :

Tell me then, on a side note, that When the Mughal Empire, The Ottoman Empire and the Safavid Empires existed together, at the height of their powers, why then did the Mughals and the Otts who were superpowers in their own right not forcibly convert Hindus on the subcontinent and the Eastern Orthodox in E.Europe/ Middle east/ N.Africa? Why did the Ottomans devise the `millet system` and protect the religious rights of the minorities. Though it is certainly possible to argue that the patriarchate of Constantinople was a tool of the sultan to control the E.Orthodox under the Greek Church leadership. Now if you`ve read Bridge on the Drina by Ivo Andric you can comment that there was a levy of young christian boys for a time, whom the Ottomans took away from their families, converted to Islam, and used in their armies. (The Janissary system). These boys rose to the highest administrative posts in the Empire. But this is again an EXCEPTION to the generally honoured rule of no coercision in religion advocated by Islam !!!

OMAR MIRZA

Murad:

Your definition of Hindu is far too limiting in a political, social or even religious sense.

I do not believe in the caste system or the need for Brahmins to officiate in ceremonies. I consider myself a Hindu. Whether this violates ancient texts is of no interest to me. I am still a Hindu.

I think most Hindus use a loose label to apply to themselves. The fact that this label is used inconsistently by different Hindus is true. It doesnt matter. It is a contradiction or inconsistency that most Hindus are very comfortable living with. That it bothers cataloguers and census-takers is their problem.

I think this whole conversion debate is at the root of it all an anti-Sonia political game.

The intellectual background and epistemology of the word Hindu is not part of the debate. It is pure chauvinism and parochialism.

Regards.