The Identity Crisis of a Modern Muslim

Reply Shammi # 341

“Boy, you have been to a lot of eateries all over India, haven`t you?”

I’m convinced that I’m related to anNy.

Reply Prem # 346

“Zafar, I AM a vegetarian but, for goodness sake, The Only Place is not for you maass-machali eating brutes only! They serve pretty nifty ghaas-foos too us grass-grazers. I have eaten some killer apple-pie and lassagna (sp?) there, while my dear friends busied themselves devouring endless quantities of lamb tikka and beef steaks.”

Hey do you remember how the OP took up only about a quarter of the Regents Guesthouse compound – and how another quarter (within clear view of tables) was taken up by the tombstone making business? I always thought that was profound in its own way. (Burp. Eat, drink, for tomorrow we DIE. Please may I have a second Apple Pie?)

“Now, how do I say this without getting the whole of India and Indian diaspora jumping at my throat. But I must utter the blasphemy of all blasphemies....MTR IS OVERRATED!!”

Taubah!!!!! Kaa kahath dudeva?

MTR is lajavaab – and standing in line for an hour in order to get a table and eat at 5:30 am is just part of the experience. These Northies – no concept of tradition…

Reply SameerJB # 345

Sameerji

“Internalizing freedom of conscience means not taking sides to any man-made philosophies because of his assumption that divine truth passed down through religion is absolute truth.”

I’m not sure I follow.

Freedom of conscience mean the freedom to take any side you truly believe in. (Theistic or atheistic.) The belief that divine truth is passed down through religion is only one of these sides. Or am I missing something?

(And what does internalising this mean?)

Of course if an individual espouses one belief this affects how he or she views the validity of other beliefs. Freedom of conscience just ensures that one individual’s choice of belief system does not limit any other individual’s right to chose.

I don’t see anything actively anti-religious there. All it does is deny people from any one religion the right to bully people with other belief systems. I’m not sure that I buy this “secularism is a religion because bullies religions by restricting their ability to bully other religions” bizzo. At most secularism can be seen as the equivalent of a policeman. (?!) Or better yet, a nanny.

“People considering every idea and philosophy actually man-made will keep rejecting his assumptions despite his calls for internalizing freedom of conscience - ghulam ullah at deep down inside to reject ghulam marx, ghulam adam smith etc etc.”

What it boils down to is respecting the right of people to accept or reject the truth (however defined), as they wish.

hobbyty

.... i would write up a sacral defense for secularism if i knew what sacral meant ..... but anyway, unlike religious dogma, i don`t believe secularism needs a defense - it is not the word of god, relayed by angels and parsed by wise men ...... it is a simple concept that any fourth grader can grasp and appreciate without having to reach for maudoodi ......

...... but if you must insist on a ``sacral`` defense, i guess it would be based on the god`s rather dubious character.....russel makes a pretty compelling argument:

``There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ`s moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching -- an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence.``

........that, for me, closes the argument - anything else would be pedantic sophistry designed to obfuscate the kaka out of mortal sophomores and hapless hindoos ...... now there is another confused bunch for you - looking for dried river beds in pakistan and drowning perfectly good elephant nosed gods in the sea .......

sameerjb

thanks for explaining the idea of ``freedom of conscience`` - but coming from a person who professes fanatical faith in a particular religion, or one particular god, it is simply a blatant attempt at eyewash (and hogwash) .... `` you are free to follow your conscience as long as you end up pointing towards the kibla`` - rubbish! ....... actually it is a sad attempt to cloak religious dogma in politically correct language ..... if i am not mistaken, the common legal term used is ``freedom of conscience and religion`` .... it is rather devious to drop the word religion and assume that sophomores and communists won`t notice it .......call us paranoid, but we recognize it when someone is trying to pass on their god like a three dollar bill .........

hobbyty # 337

hobbyty, I must say that of ALL the posts of yours that I have read, this one was by far the most instructive (I say that in a genuinely complimentary way).

I now appreciate what you are trying to do within Islam (though I hasten to add again that your understanding and knowledge of Hinduism is extremely poor, but that is ok...I probably know even less about Islam...We can only know so many things).

Hobbyty, I have a feeling that you and I might have much to agree on outside of the bounds of religion - Hindu, Muslim, or whatever else. Perhaps, we can explore our agreements in nonreligious realms, and then deploy those agreements to generate some common understanding of religious tasks and challenges (or of a mode of thinking that may be used to understand religious tasks and challenges).

So, help me grasp your framework a bit better. Within the Popperian structure you described, evolution of the institutional autonomous world should be a function of the evolution of knowledge. What is the relationship between this autonomous world and knowledge?; and how does this knowledge change? How might it change continuously?

It feels good to be discussing an area where we may not be beginning from fundamentally different assumptions.

Cheers.

Sindu/Saraswati Civilization

re: hobbyty # 338

hobbyty,

Somethings, IMO, are less important, and thus occupy less of my time, than others. But ignorance has never stopped me from voicing my opinion on any subject before, so here are my (largely uninformed) thoughts on this Indus/Saraswati debate.

From times immemorial civilizations have risen and thrived along various rivers. If a civilization existed along the Indus (Sindhu) river, it should be called the Indus or Sindhu civilization. While the term Indus has no local native pedigree (not that i know of) and Sindh and Sindhis form such an important part of Pakistan, I think the average Pakistani will be delighted with the term Sindu Civilization.

On the other hand, if a civilization existed along another river called Saraswati, now considered to have been lost, it makes sense to call it Saraswati civlization. I don`t understand what is Hindu/Muslim about it. For example, just because Ganga is holy to many Hindus, it doesnt mean that the Gangetic plains should be called by some other name...I have never heard anybody claim that the term Gangetic plains promote Hindutva...just as thankfully no one yet, in India, has protested against the term arabian sea for the crime of promoting Islam.

I don`t really understand where this resistance is coming from?

Now, Joshi may be upto his tricks in many areas...but hobbyty, people who want to fight him will be wiser to fight him where they have a strong case. Raising a stink in this case and asking that Saraswati civilization, if it existed, be called the Sindhu Civilization, or vice-versa sounds all too absurd and petty minded.

What a gang of hungry connoisseur we have here!

Zafar, I AM a vegetarian but, for goodness sake, The Only Place is not for you maass-machali eating brutes only! They serve pretty nifty ghaas-foos too us grass-grazers. I have eaten some killer apple-pie and lassagna (sp?) there, while my dear friends busied themselves devouring endless quantities of lamb tikka and beef steaks. Besides, don`t forget the ever popular Wimpy`s, and the Cellar on Brigades. Ah...The Brigade Road is the place to be!

Never tried the Farmhouse Bannerghatta place you mentioned, Zafar (though I have heard of it). The only time I went that side, I was a guest at IIM; and all my creature (dis)comforts were taken care of by those poor professors (may God bless them).

Now, how do I say this without getting the whole of India and Indian diaspora jumping at my throat. But I must utter the blasphemy of all blasphemies....MTR IS OVERRATED!!

I mean it is good and all...and I enjoyed the food everytime I went there...but so much fame?! Besides, I found the place to be almost always overcrowded.

Better than that was Karavallis on the Residency Road. A bit more more expensive...but also a better overall experience.

BTW, have any of you been to the Sukh Sagar restaurant? This time when I was there, I was told a new Sukh Sagar has come up somewhere, but I am talking about the old one...the one at Majesty Circle...It served some of the BESTEST gujju food I have ever had. Basically, these sweet-loving gujjus have perfected the art of vegetarian cooking.

Among my worst experiences there must be one time when I ate at Amravathi on MG Road....Geez...it must be my fault ...may be, knowing nothing about andhra food, I ordered somehting wrong...but they served me nothing but a whole heap of wicked chillies on a big plate! Clearly, my tastes were more in the line of what Tandoor serves nearby on the MG Road.

RSax, Memories of China is definite very very good, but I am told it is facing a lot of competition these days from newly opened chinese restaurants.

``While I point to the idea of freedom of conscience as a necessity for the experience of being Muslim - our Indian and a number of sophomores and communist Pakistanis mouth the word ``secular`` - as if they have not understood the meaning of the ``freedom of conscience`` and it`s implications - which in the minds of most resonable persons immediately necessitates the discussion of object and subjective - because of the fear engendered by those who refuse to internalize the implications of ``freedom of conscience``.

I think hobbyty presents the best possible defense of Islam at chowk. No Farangi Kush or Urstruly comes even closer to the spirited challenge he mounts. Call it inherent weaknesses of Islam or disagreement with his assumptions, his arguements fail to impress those who either have a different set of assumptions or discard assumptions down the road as unnecessary or in favor of better assumtions, proven and modified through application and rationality.

Internalizing freedom of conscience means not taking sides to any man-made philosophies because of his assumption that divine truth passed down through religion is absolute truth. According to him this must be accepted by Muslims above any secular, liberal thoughts. He thinks secular/ liberal are scared of accepting this absolute truth lest it might compete or take lead over their bound conscience to some man made secular theory etc etc. Thus freedom means free of all other thoughts at deepest conscience level. His assumptions are pretty much intact even in Western societies. They have found easy way out, by simplifying to a fuzzy concept called love. Their internalizing of ``jesus/ god is love`` does not interfere with routine lifestyles.

People considering every idea and philosophy actually man-made will keep rejecting his assumptions despite his calls for internalizing freedom of conscience - ghulam ullah at deep down inside to reject ghulam marx, ghulam adam smith etc etc.

I agree with dost-mittar response that first accepting then rejecting is one of the normal modes of mindset. Most of us do it all the time in matter of choices. While Hinduism being a collection of local traditional beliefs, it is possible and happens all the time to reject even the ``essense`` of Hinduism and still be a Hindu. Such is not the case when divine truth through revelations, rained in few years time instead of seeping through over millenia. It must be accepted entirely and essense is not up for comparison or change.

Hobbyty has been cornered many times by sadna, Zafar and rajanjua on selective areas of revelations. He evaded them through decreasing the importance of, say historicity, etc in the overall picture. It is common practice with Islamists to consider a matter insignificant when cornered by intelligent people. It is another story that, in the absense of counter arguement or challenge, they will turn around and go to great length in support of same insignificant portion of the so-called larger picture. Just compare belief in divine truth as alternate to man made (internalizing freedom of conscience) and risking the future of Pakistan with Taliban and Kashmir jihad. Similarly Mohammed`s personal life is lot less important in the larger divine truth in discussion with secularists etc but think of blasphemy law.

Besides internalizing freedom of conscience is private on individual basis. It is not suppose to be displayed publically in the must stupid ways possible.

Check this out:

``Bhutto says Pakistan govt may destabilise Kabul``

http://in.news.yahoo.com/020123/64/1eewp.html

Also, this -- one of the best articles on promoting Indo-Pak relations:

``Needed a coherent India policy``

http://jang.com.pk/thenews/jan2002-daily/23-01-2002/oped/o4.htm

Re: Previous post

``...Thanks for stating that the emperor has no clothes ...``

I meant Prof. Hobbs as the `emperor` -- not Sadna/Zafar.

re: Zafar

{{Do you recall a Steak House (assuming you aren’t Veg) on Brigade Road called the Only Place?

How about…the Farmhouse Restaurant, on Bannerghatta Road?

The immortal Mavalli Tiffin Rooms?}}

...everyone knows the best food in bangalore is, ironically, at the Memories of China restaurant at the Taj Residency...they do chinese food even better than the commie chinese themselves ever could...no funky smells, no bland white sauces, but just enough spice and other desi ingredients to make it appeal to any indian mouth...

Re: Zafar

``...Do you recall a Steak House (assuming you aren’t Veg) on Brigade Road (in Bangalore) called the Only Place?...``

Boy, you have been to a lot of eateries all over India, haven`t you? I recall having a discussion with you about Karim`s in Old Delhi, and you seemed to have been there as well! Speaking of which (Old Delhi), I am now trying to establish for Nasah using my `connections` there if `Chitlee Kabar Kababia` of pre-Partition fame is still in business!

Re: Hamidm

``.....ever since i started reading prof hobbs eloquent posts of little meaning, though the words are strong, i have developed a horrible inferiority complex ...this is aggravated by the fact that the two indians sages, sadna and zafar, seem to know exactly what the wise professor seems to be saying...``

Thanks for stating that the emperor has no clothes -- it makes petty mortals like me feel that I am not alone, and in august company. I, too, was amazed at the fact that Sadna and Zafar actually read, SEEM TO UNDERSTAND AND DEBATE all the points that Prof. Hobbs makes. I had given up on understanding him quite some time ago.

Hamidm and other nay sayers

Islam - the cause of all India`s Ills or call a spade a spade

“ Beware of the academic fascists

Saradindu Mukherjee

In a genuine academic debate over selection of facts and their interpretation, people should be graceful enough to accept their folly, if and when it is exposed. As Union HRD Minister Murli Manohar Joshi correctly put it (HT December 2): “Who says they are respectable?

They have received government support for 25 years.

There is a large section of people who say they are distorting history — there was a conspiracy to keep out anyone who did not have a Leftist view. I say India is a huge country and these are not the only people. This is academic fascism.”

It must be noted that the ‘academic fascists’ are an ideological front for pan-Islamic fundamentalists, and in this lofty mission they have the support of the Nehruvians. Hence, they have to flaunt their anti-Hindu credentials and that explains their desperate attempt to repeatedly rub the Hindu psyche by referring to their alleged fondness for beef in the nebulous past, or rationalise every indignity suffered by the Hindus. To some extent, it was perhaps the by-product of a ‘wounded civilisation’ and the resultant slavish mentality but mainly it was nurtured to provide the essential mindset for a political ambience and voting behaviour under the Nehruvian set-up. The Japanese call it the kokutai — the fundamental character of the State.

The post-Independence polity was sought to be nurtured on such a self-defeating mindset to kill the very soul of India. No wonder the ‘academic fascists’ are consistent in their revolutionary role as the foot soldiers of the Islamic ummah.

Hence the centrality of beef in their discourse. Even if we accept that beef was indeed on the menu, what is the big idea talking about it so vociferously aeons after it became a taboo. Besides being insensitive and gross, it has the ulterior motive of encouraging those insisting on cow slaughter.

Look at its political dividend for some. As against this grossness, they take extra care to keep quiet on the seminal concepts of kafir, jehad and ghanimah. While spread of Islam is superlatively described, there is not a word on how it expanded — its ideology and mechanism, not a word on the devastation and degradation of the polytheists and the pagans. Some of these historians are now claiming that they believed in giving ‘different theories’: but why not give at least the basic facts if not different theories about the other credal beliefs? It is this selectivity which exposes them as propagandists.

I have no hesitation in saying that India’s hesitant approach to counter Islamic terrorism and grasp the significance of jehad even after being one of its longest suffering victims emanates from this terrorised and confused mindset. If the purpose of studying history is to understand the past, so that it helps us to grasp our present better and also be our guide to act appropriately in future, then history has to be objective. Why then blow up the irrelevant part of proto-history and smother other relevant facts? Is this history?

Leave aside this ‘scientific’ and ‘rational’ methodology, no historian can claim that their written words alone constitute the ultimate historical wisdom, and especially if they happen to be public sector historians. As Fernand Braudel says: “History is always being begun anew; it is always working itself out, striving to surpass itself. Its fate is shared by all the social sciences. So, I do not believe that the history books I am writing will be valid for decades to come. No book is ever written once and for all, and we all know it.” This is what a historian of Braudel’s stature (about whom it is said that he could have been the first recipient of the Nobel prize if there was one for historical studies) thinks of his own work.

As for modern Indian history, one of the textbooks proclaim that “the Mughal empire still commanded respect in the country”. In saying that, they certainly ignore the agonies of the kafirs who saw their world crashing before themselves. It fails to record as to how and why the Marathas, Jats, Sikhs and others rose in revolt.

As for the British rule, they are rightly credited with giving us the concept of “rule of law” and “equality before law” while not disclosing the provisions of the Cornwallis Code which stopped the amputation of limbs and provided for the testimony of non-Muslims against Muslims in criminal cases previously prohibited in Muslim law. It goes on to say that, “Previously the judicial system had paid heed to caste distinctions and had differentiated between the so-called high-born and low-born. For the same crime, lighter punishment was awarded to a Brahmin than to a non-Brahmin.”

There are serious omissions too. Warren Hastings is mentioned without his most important gift to Indians — the Asiatic Society, Raja Rammohan Roy’s Gift to Monotheists has been wrongly dated to 1809 (actually 1804-5). While its ‘weighty’ arguments against the polytheists and views favouring the worship of a single god are admired, its critique of prophethood — central to monotheistic creed as well as his views on Muslim rule in India are suppressed.

The Hindu-Muslim communal differences are solely ascribed to the “perfidious Albion”, while the role of the Wahabists and Faraizis is completely ignored. It is like ignoring the role of Al-Qaeda, Jaish-e-Mohammed etc. while studying Islamic terrorism in our own times. The exclusivist and intolerant elements inherent in Islam are smothered and the “racial arrogance” of the British is highlighted.

A student of Indian nationalism is never told about the stirring message of Vande Mataram while Iqbal gets considerable coverage.

Extra-territorial loyalty and obscurantism inherent in the Khilafat and fanaticism of the Moplahs are hidden. Similarly suppressed is the role of the communist party in supporting the Partition and opposing the Quit India Movement. Thus, students are never told about all those forces which are bent on destroying India.

The writer teaches history at Hansraj College, University of Delhi, and is member, Indian Council of Social Science Research``

Zafar Al-talib, hamidm

“…I wanted to illustrate the point about how the meaning of history in India has changed with in the last 15 years. It has lost what I think is a search for the truth and is instead now a dishonest, historicist search for a certain particular truth.”

Um…some would say this is the pot calling the kettle black…

It is most certainly not in the context of archeology in the service of state ideology - but it is the general sense the pot calling the kettle black.

Now about this business of terms, what are you arguing here, was there ever any doubt in your mind that it is hindutva ideology I was referring to - is Joshi working on the indian constitution?

It was just a simple idea: that the Saraswati civilization thing is the appropriation of archeology by hinduva types - You know this to be so, we all know this to be so - could we just agreed from the beginning - instead of bickering over ``depends on the what you think the meaning of is, is``? thenm grudingly say, yes, kinda!

yes we disagree, and I like that foil, but don`t expect me to disagree, just because you are on the other side of the divide.



Hamidm

The mind is a terrible thing, but how would I know? Would be interested in reading something called ``Sacral defense of secularism``?