Gujarat, Madrasas and Other Things

Good Effort!! The article beautifully brings out the pshchological churn that goes on in her mind. There are images galore;They all have names, attributes and associated memories. But, in this melee of emotions the point is not made. Sometimes, the author wants to lash out at the Sanghis, sometimes feel proud of her composite culture,what exactly does she want to say? That Gujarat violence highlights the fact that Hindus and Muslims are one nation? Or, a dialogue needs to be initiated between two huge religious communities because law-breakers burnt alive 60 innocent people and their friends in the other community returned the favour?

hmm.. one question arises in my mind..
do you think Shias and Sunnis cant live together in Pakistan? The Shias should have a separate homeland...?

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

Oooh,Studes,thanks for your concern.

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

Urbashi, Its pretty apparent how devious you are, and you seem to have perfected the art of evasion. Furthermore, i never talked about nuking india, as we have more of our muslim brethren in india than in Pakistan, but if it was all hindu, then that would be a different case. Now initially, you went on ranting about how the hyderabadi cuisine is not Mughal in origin, and how its the same as the hindu cuisine, and when i presented the facts, you started BS`ing about all these nuking business. And again you are lying to me when you tell me that the Muslim cuisine of hyderabad is as different from the cuisine in telngana as the difference in andhra cuisine and hyderabadi cuisine.Well why can`t you accept that Muslim - Mughal cuisine is different from the hindu cuisine, again more evident in the deccan areas. Actually to be honest with you i have never seen such a difference in two communities living in the same region as found between the urdu speaking muslims in the deccan areas and the south indian hindus of the dravidian stock. They are physically very different, they speak a totally different language, they have very different cultures and practises. And trust me even the caucasions of the west notice these distinct differences. You can pretend to be a nationalist all you want, but the fact of the matter is that most North Indians look down upon the south indians of the dravidian stock. And study your own religion and understand how the south indians and the lower caste (both of the dravidian indigenous stock) are treated in your own scriptures, actually the south indians, shudras and the adivasis arent even hindus, an undeniable fact, they are shaivites or tribals.

Syed, I`m convinced you`re quite, quite mad. I can`t believe that anyone with the least modicum of sense would be so deaf and dumb. I can`t stop you from imagining in the possibility of that absolutely ridiculous Pakistani hope of a Mughalistan, because Pakistan was after all built on the 2-nation theory which Indians of all religions and modes of belief reject, and it`s essential for your sense of identity to believe that one day..... etc, etc. I don`t think it`s going to be possible to interact with a madman. And I refuse to believe that all Muslims, even Pakistani Muslims, have the same kind of windmills in your head as you do. Certainly the Indian Muslims I know, and very closely, too, would feel very embarrassed indeed if they read what you write and feel worried that all of them might be tarred with the same brush. So this is my last response to you here. You don`t deserve civilized or rational discussion. All that you can do is to abuse. If only you were strong about your facts.
Indians don`t need to obsess about the ``na-pak`` Pakistan/is. We have enough variety and entertainment in our everyday lives, and are very sure of our COMPOSITE and PLURAL identity. As far as most of us are concerned you people are just a nuisance.
Please note that I`d written HYDERABADI, not Andhra, cuisine. Hyderabad is a distinctive region of the present-day Indian State of Andhra Pradesh, and is very proud of its special cuisine. As Bilkees Latif points out in her definitive book on the cuisine of this region ( as you can see, she`s not a Hindu but a Muslim - and BTW, she`s a daughter of the late Nawab Ali Yavar Jung of a famous Hyderabadi noble family, a resident of Hyderabad, and the wife of a retired Air Chief Marshal), The Essential Andhra Cookbook, the founding of the Nizam`s dynasty itself was associated with food - no, not typically ``Muslim`` food but the kulcha, which is hardly Muslim. (FYI, when the general Asaf Jah I was sent by Aurangzeb to Hyderabad, the Sufi saint Hazrat Nizam-ud-din Aulia (venerated by Hindus and Muslims alikeas symbolizing the great syncretic Indian traditions, as you clearly don`t know) shared some of his kulchas with him. After the general ate 7 and said he couldn`t have any more the saint blessed him, saying that he and his descendants would rule Hyderabad for 7 generations. Which is exactly what happened. The Nizam`s flag had a kulcha on it, too.) Anyway, this is what Mrs Latif writes:
``Over time, people from different regions and various communities have settled in Hyderabad and enriched its cuisine. Parsis, Kayasths, Marwaris and Anglo-Indians, among others, brought with them their traditions and their food and helped create the cultural ethos that is the special charm of Secunderabad and Hyderabad, the twin cities. This process of assimilation is at the heart of the Hyderabadi culture and cuisine.`` (Introduction, pages xiii-xiv) The food of Hyderabad is as different from traditional Andhra cooking, Hindu or Muslim, as it is from Telengana, another part of Andhra.
Mughlai food anywhere in India was a product of the INTERACTION of the Tartars, the Persians and the Turks with the local population, usually Hindu but sometimes Muslims too. It is NOT foreign to India. You can shout all you want, but that doesn`t change anything. I know it`s very difficult for you to accept that India has assimilated all cultures and made them her own. You want to believe in a Pristine Pure Muslim world. But that`s not the way things happened. And if you read history you`ll realize that this is the way of the world, everywhere, at all times. As I said earlier, I would much, much rather not have anything in common with the Pakistanis (notice I don`t abuse them, much as I`d like to, because I realize that they`re not necessarily to blame for their mad mullahs and their politicians), but unfortunately I do have more in common with them than with Caucasians in the West! Why do you think you can`t rid yourself of the ``corrupt Hindu practices`` you write of? Because they`re not Hindu at all, they`re part of human nature. No Hindu holy man or scripture sanctions these ``corrupt practices``. What Hinduism really believes in is the kinship of all the universe and the importance of letting every human being discover his or her own way to God. We have neither a Pope nor one scripture to dictate things to us. We believe all ways of reaching God are equally to be revered and respected. I know that this is something you can`t accept, because your identity depends on an unbending alterity - a clash of civilizations. For us, there`s no clash of civilizations. There`s a meeting place of civilizations, where we can all learn from each other if we want, and if we don`t want to do so we can go on with our lives without trying to convert people to our point of view. Call us pagans if you like, kafirs if you like. It doesn`t change things. If you are the pits, the dregs of humanity, it doesn`t stop us from trying to be better human beings. It`s your loss, not ours.
Yes, of course India has constantly been invaded by outsiders. They all came to loot and plunder and were so fascinated that they stayed back and became a part of us. BTW, the invasions were all from the west - i.e. from the western borders of present-day Pakistan, whose people were all such poor warriors that they lost practically every battle, whenever they attempted to defend themselves. Now what does that tell you about your national character? Your history doesn`t go back just to the Muslim invasions, you know! Just as you`ve lost every single war against India. So don`t talk rubbish about nuking us. Just be thankful for the US, who`s protecting you. You couldn`t even use all the arms and ammunition you`d got from abroad because you didn`t know how to use them. We could nuke you all to perdition before you knew what was happening to you.
And try not to be so abusive and vitriolic especially about things you know absolutely nothing about, just read about in weird sites like mughalistan. Try to meet a few Indian Muslims and learn about the reality of India.

Hey Syed,what are you smoking?
Indians do not have an obsession with Pakis.I never knew Pakis think so much about India before I came to chowk!About all the invasions-well,only countries that have anything to offer the invaders ever get invaded.Therefore,you need never worry about Pakistan as long as you leave India alone.Anyway,if we`re so bad at war,what does that make Pakistan,never able to win a single war,in spite of trying so hard?super bad?
If you are going to talk about things,do get your facts right.I hope you`re young because you`re very stupid,and the only excuse for this would be youth.You have never been to India and you imagine you know everything about the country.Why are you so concerned about India anyway,as a Canadian or British or whatever citizen??No wonder Western intelligence agencies are so suspicious of Muslims.I always get people telling me(they`re sympathetic because they know India has a border with the epicentre of terrorism) Muslims should not be allowed to enter this beautiful country.Somehow,I also understand now for the first time why John Howard is so adamant he does not want any refugees,mainly Muslim,in the country.Who would,if they all behave like you??You have no respect for anything or anybody not mentioned in the Koran,you`re worse than an illiterate Bedouin.At least he has never seen any better.
Who`s going to nuke out India??Pakistan??Would the US lend you the money to do it?You`d devastate your own country because of the fallout.Not that that would matter because there would be no Pakistan after that anyway.Remember India is not Norway.We can afford to lose people in war,even though it sounds terrible to say so. Muslims would be as dead as Hindus.You cannot even get your ``brother`` Arab countries to support you,and you`re imagining Mughalstan,whatever that is.Dream on,like we say in Hindi(surely not in Urdu??),dreams come free.If it keeps you happy in your delusional moments and out of a straitjacket,good for you.

In response to urbashi
I did not want to discuss this anymore, but you have forced me to. First on the hyderabadi cuisine, well i would have to say bluntly that you are lying when you tell me that hyderabadi muslim cuisine is the same as the traditional hindu Andhra cuisine. And trust me all your google searches will point to the fact that the Deccani muslim cuisine originated with the Mughals. There is absolutely no question about that. Secondly, you are lying when you tell me that the Mughal cuisine is as disparate in its various derivations as the hindu cuisine found anywhere in India. Hindus have adopted the non-vegetarian Muslim cuisine, but its foreign to India. Why can`t you guys admit the fact that your country was conquered by every tom, dick and harry, from the aryan invasions to the Muslim ``INVADERS`` to the Biritish colonialists. It seems like you have this obsession with us Muslims and want to form this false sense commonality, where we are trying to disown all the corrupt hindu practises which we might have adopted after conquering your country. And let me post what the official site of Hyderabad says about its cuisine, and let me remind you this is what the Hindus of hyderabad are promoting, not what the muslims are claiming:

Hyderbadi
Umm! The mouth watering Shahi cuisine of Hyderabad. As soon as a person hears the mention of Hyderabadi Biryani, he starts whetting his appetite! The wafting aroma hits you before you set your eyes on the delicious mounds of fragrant, steaming rice with the tempting sight of a traditionally cooked chicken peaking out! It is so popular that it takes a special mention in the world of cuisine`s. A part from this king of the delicacies, the entire Shahi Nizam cuisine is very popular for its rich and aromatic taste. ``The food is a dream of deliciousness``, said the Persian Ambassador who came to the Qutub Shahi Kingdom in 1603. The elaborate Dastarkhan, on which are place steaming hot dishes of dum ka murgh, a baked chicken full of savoury herbs and spices. Lagan ke kebab, bhagare bhaingan, machili ka qualiya, mirch ka salan, haleem, and different kinds of Biryanis severed with Bhurani. Even the desserts are world renowned. Khubani ka meeta, badaam ki jaali, hub ke laoz, azam jahi meetha, etc, satiate you beyond imagination.

Another speciality eaten very early in the morning is Nahari, a curried soup of sheep`s trotters and tongue. It cooks all night, and a nothing stale is considered edible, it is served up right away in soup bowls, and you drunk in piece of spongy Sheermahal bread. And during the festival day of Id-ul-Fitr, it is traditional to serve sheer quorma, the delicious kheer, made with sevian, dried fruits and dates.

This cuisine owes its origins to the Mughalai style of cooking of the Asaf Jahi period. By carefully mellowing and nurturing the typical Mughalai flavours with a blend of spices, the cuisine of Hyderabad was born. While there is a certain exotic quality to some of the royal foods, it is also known that a true Hyderabadi will go any where in the city for a well prepared dish, however humble its origin.

For those who want a taste of the royal menu, there is a variety of Biryanis (a rice and meat preparation, seasoned with spices and flavourings); Kababs (meat pieces or minced meat cooked in many different styles such as Boti Jhammi, kalmi, Shikampur, Sheek, Lagan-ke-kababs, Dum-ke-kababs); Khormas (either meat or vegetables cooked in a rich creamy gravy) and Lukhmi (pastry). During the month of Ramzan, one gets to taste Haleem (a pounded wheat and meat preparation). For those who prefer more homely food, there is Kichri (a rice a lentil preparation); Kheema methi (minced meat with fenugreek); Nahari ( stew of tongue and lamb trotters); Rumali Rotis (bread as thin as a handkerchief) and Chakna (a spicy dish of meat).

For vegetarians there is Bagara Baingan (a rich spicy preparation of aubergines); Mirch-ka-salan (chillies in a creamy gravy); Tomato kut (aromatic puree of tomato with flavourings); and Shahi dahi vadas (lentil dumplings in youghurt sauce).

For dessert, on can have a pick from Double-ka-meetha (a bread and cashewnut pudding); Qubani-ka-meetha (stewed apricod dessert); Anday-ka-piyosi (made with eggs, mild, almonds and purified butter); Badam-ki-jhab (marzipan) and Dil-e-Firdaus ( a rich, milk-based sweet).

Good Places Firdaus (Krishna oberoi, Banjara Hills) Dhak (Gateway Hotel, Banjara Hills), Hotel Akbar (M.G.Road), Azizia Hotel (Nampally), Hotel Madina (Pattargatti), Garden Restaurant (S.D.Road), Banjara Darbar (Panjagutta), Hotel Parwez (Nampally). Many small hotels and restaurants around the Charminar area also offer some authentic Hyderabadi dishes - a few of them serve `Haleem` throughout the year. The Chaknawadi around Charminar area is famous for its `Chakna`, but one must go before 2.00 P.M.

Andhra & the South Indian
The Andhra cuisine is distinct for its hot and spicy food with a range of chutneys, curries, meat preparations and pickles. One can also taste the cuisines of Karnataka (Udipi) and Tamil Nadu - the omnipresent dosas, idlis and vadas.

Good Places Raaga (Holiday Inn, Banjara Hills), Amaravathi (Hyderguda), Abhiruchi (S.D.Road), Hotel Rajdoot (Lakdi-ka-pul), Abhilasha (R.T.C x Roads), Hotel Indu Deluxe (Saifabad). For vegetarian cuisine: Taj Mahal Hotel (Narayanguda, Koti, S.D. Road & Abids), Hotel Shanbagh (Panjagutta, Basheerbagh), Mithila (Koti), Kamat Hotel (Nampally, S.d. Road. Saifabad)

In resp to urbashi:
In reply to the idea of Mughalistan, well insha`Allah one day we will have a mughalistan, right now our ummah might be weak, but history tells us that this is not a never ending phenomenon, we will be strong once again as an ummah, and will reconquer all the lands that we have lost to the pagans. This is what our religion teaches us, and all your obsession of trying to bond with the muslims of South Asia will not change what our Quran majeed tells is, which victory over the kuffar and pagans.

Honourable_Syed, of all the articles listed in Google (the search engine) on the origin of Urdu, you would have to choose the only one that asserted the non-Indian origin of Urdu, wouldn`t you? Isn`t that being devious? No doubt you`d prefer to show that you believe this one and only article in an Iranian journal rather than impartial historians and linguisticians. Of course, there are also those Pakistani wishful thinkers who plan for what they call a ``Mughalistan`` on the net who also quote from/refer to the self-same article/``scholar``, and deliberately misintepret Khullar. Why don`t you go through Khullar`s article yourself for a change?
As for food, there are very obvious regional differences in cuisine even within language groups. For instance, there are strking variations between the cuisines of East and West Bengal. But, except for the fact that Bangladeshi Muslim cooking uses beef while Bangladeshi Hindu cooking doesn`t, there`s hardly any noticeable difference. But any Bengali, whether Hindu or Muslim, would easily tell you that a particular dish traditionally belongs to East or West Bengal but wouldn`t be able to specify whether it was Hindu or Muslim. Similarly, Hyderabadi Muslim cooking is far different from Avadhi or Mughal cuisine (or NW Frontier cuisine) and closer to Hyderabadi Hindu cooking, especially of the non-vegetarian kind. Of course, I`m talking about traditions generally, because, as someone just pointed out here, people of all regions eat all kinds of food from different areas nowadays. It`s a real pity you know so little about India, you just believe what you want to when people like the ones who`ve got up that site on ``Mughalistan`` would like to say! Why don`t you ask Indian Muslims themselves?
BTW, a Syed is my colleague in the workplace, and she happens to be much darker than I am, and I`m not even North Indian. In fact, she`s even darker than another colleague, an elderly Ansari. And it was she who explained all the ``class/caste` distinctions among South Asian Muslims to me. The average Tam Bram and the Kodavus (earlier called the Coorgis), both South Indians, and some Maharashtrian Brhamins, are also generally fairer than most North Indian Muslims. So let`s not talk about colour, shall we? Why should you think anybody who doesn`t agree with you is lying? You know nothing about India, so how can you make comments about people and their customs without any first=hand information or acquaintance?

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

I would like to know what gives Honorable_Syed the idea he knows more about Hyderabad and Bangalore than people who belong there.By your own admission,you were brought up in the west,which means you have only seen your religion and culture in theory,not really in practice-impossible in a Western country.There is therefore a lot you cannot understand.You want religions to be judged by their scriptures not by their followers.I remember hearing the same thing about Marxism and we know how that ended.
How arrogant of you to tell somebody he is not fair skinned when he claims he is,when you wouldn`t know him from a bar of soap.What are you,the colour police,like in apartheid South Africa?Can I ask your white neighbour how fair you are?
How about trying to teach South Indians,Hindu or Muslim about their own cuisine?Food is one of my own passions,and there is no doubt there are subtle differences between Hindu and Muslim food in most areas.I know this has already been discussed,but you cannot compare Hyderabadi food with Bengali Muslim food(Rezala,anyone?) or Moplah food(which has become fashionable all of a sudden,apparently).Tamil Muslims do eat idlis and dosas(sorry for the stereotyping!) .Bengali Muslims wax as lyrical about a good hilsa as much as Bengali Hindus.You have never been to India,what gives you the right to talk about it like you`re some sort of Indologist?
Urdu`s not an Indian language,and as proof you furnish an article from the Iranian?This is just one scholar.How many more are there that do not agree with him?It`s nice for an Iranian to think his ancestors invented everything.Self-evident really.Would you mind going up to Wajid Ali Shah`s tomb(in Calcutta) and telling him that?The poor man died thinking it was Indian and completely unaware it began in the Deccan.Since you think so highly of the Iranians,would you please ask them if they have any plans of returning the Peacock Throne Nadir Shah stole from his fellow Muslims,the Mughals?

#307 by Honorable_Syed on June 12, 2003 4:29pm PT

you better belive me. Or wait till there is a India -pak entete and travel to hyderabad and bangalore.
any way even if there is a bit of difference what does it matter. Does it matter if mulsims eat masaladosa and hindus eat chettinaad chicken?

The first thing that the Honorable Syed and others should realize is that even the role of the ``scriptures`` is very different in Hinduism than it is in Islam. This is true in many dimensions.

I`d say, the word ``scriptures`` itself is a misnomer, because it has the connotation of script or writing. The most important of Indian works have been transmitted for an enormous part of their history orally.

Second, the scripture is not final. It can only lead one initially towards moksha, nirvana, but ultimately, the spiritual aspirant must transcend the instructions. It does not take precedence over observed reality. As Adi Sankara said, a hundred pronouncements of the shruti cannot make fire cold. It is not a subject of belief, as belief is prescribed for the Quran or Bible. There is no even psychological equivalent to the ``La illaha illallah`` in Hindu practice. If Islam, Judaism and Christianity are religions, and we find the essential elements of them, then ``Hinduism`` ``Buddhism``, ``Jainism``, etc., are simply not religions, they are something else.

If you look at it historically, both Muslims and Christians came to India, imposed their own pre-conceptions on the people, even to the extent of giving them the name ``hindus``, and the category of religion on them and utterly ignoring what is actually there. There is little evidence, for instance, that anyone actually lived under the much maligned Manusmriti, until the British came along; and seeking to standardize Indian law in its bewildering per-village complexity, *imposed* the Manusmriti as the standard law. And this arrogance continues to this day. Hindus have absorbed and internalized much of this during the millenium of constantly being attacked. As Hindus climb out of this trough, please recognize Hindutva is only a fringe of this changing self-knowledge and attitude; shed your arrogance, and find out what the Indictraditions are really about.

-Arun Gupta

To all people who have indulged in this dialogue. It was a good discussion, and I have learnt a lot, and hopefully everyone has too. I didn`t intend on offending others, but its a price you have to pay sometimes, and the good that came out of it, surely outweighs the bad. I hope there are no hard feelings.

#306 by Honorable_Syed on June 12, 2003 1:56pm PT

`` If any pakistani female did marry a caucasion white male, without the male embracing islam, then she has left the fold of islam, hence not considered a muslim anymore. ``

How do you think you are ? You have no right to decide who is a Muslim or who is not.
Strictly speaking Islam calls for death for people who renounce their faith.

`` As to the question of whether Quran prohibits a 60 year from marrying a 20 year old, well there is a provision, and important one at that, which clearly states that a woman`s consent is absolutely necesssary in marriage. Hence, if my daughter or sister refuses to marry a 60 year old, then i can`t force her, and if she wants to marry a 60 year old, again i can`t stop her. ``

Hostorically what percent of Muslim women have had the right to decide their own spouses ? May be you start preaching to all those Muslim men who do not follow this rule of Islam ?

How come you never see Islamic fundamentalists enforcing this rule ? Funny they always talk about veils, hijab, beards, namaz etc.

Honorable_Syed #304

`` Actually i do live in a western country, and have been born and raised in the West. I am glad atleast i got you to admit, that Muslim culture atleast initially was foreign to India, which is a start. And i am not obsessed by fair skin, but i wanted to get the point across to you about the foreign descent of atleast some people in India, most evident in the Deccan areas.
And concerning the cuisine and music, sure it is considered Indian now, but it takes roots from foreign lands, and you would be lying if you tell me that this MUSLIM indian cuisine is the same as hindu cuisine. There is a big difference between them ``

I can put 100 photos of Hindus and Muslims each on a web site without their names. You would have a hard time telling who is Muslim and who is Hindu. Your stereotype of fair skinned Urdu Muslim is as far away from reality as I know. Overwhelming majority of all Muslims do not meet your stereotype,

The food Indian Muslims eat have the same ingredients as what Hindus eat. Muslims eat beef most Hindus don`t. Some Hindus are pure vegeterian. Beyond that you won`t find too many differences. Cusine is a dynamic part of culture. Indians eat dishes that they never heard of 40-50 years ago. What may be a traditionally Muslim dish 50 years ago can be a mainstream dish now. Nobody in America considers pizza as Italian food. It is American.

Honorable_Syed #306

`` First, which part of ``GIVEN A CHOICE`` don`t you understand. ``

Your choice is not a real option for 99.99% of Bengali Muslims. It is easy to be indulging in hypothetical activities and spewing out hyperbole sitting in your couch in USA. Let us play in the real world for a change.

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

This article is in response to the hindus claim of how urdu is an indian language. Sure it developed in India, starting off with the Deccans as the center of urdu learning and gradually moving in to Delhi and ultimately Lucknow, however it is not native to India, and was brought to india by the muslim armies. This article should clarify all the hindu misconceptions.
Language of the armies
Urdu: A Derivative of Persian and Avestan

By Dr. Samar Abbas
June 11, 2002
The Iranian

Most Iranians are aware of the fact that Pashto and Tajik are members of the Iranian family of languages. Few, however, are aware of the likelihood of Urdu also being a member of the Iranic branch of tongues.

The purpose of this article is to prove that Urdu is derived from Ghaznavid Persian, which is in turn derived from Avestan via Sassanid Pahlavi. It shall thence be evident that the ultimate ancestor of Urdu is Avestan, making it a member of the Iranian family of languages.

The first and most basic evidence which strikes an observer is the Persian-Islamic script of Urdu, as well as the extremely high percentage of Persian words in Urdu vocabulary. In fact, even in Musalmani (Muslim Bengali) an eastern dialect of Urdu spoken mainly Bangladesh and influenced by Bengali, one finds a significant proportion of Persian words. At least 60% of the vocabulary of Punjabi, a rustic western dialect of Urdu, is of also Persian origin:

``If more than 60% of the words are common in Punjabi and Urdu (Shriram 1928:67) it is due to the influence of Persian.`` [1]

More detailed investigations only confirm the precurosry impressions. Indeed, several researchers have traced the origin of Urdu to the camps of Mahmud-e-Ghazni. Thus, K.K.Khullar notes:

``The birth of Urdu language was the direct result of the synthesis between the invading armies of Mahmud of Ghazni with the civilian population of the Indian cities. The word Urdu itself means Lashkar, derived from the Turkish language meaning armies.`` [2]

Indeed, the Ghaznavid origin of Urdu follows from the very name of the language - Zaban-e-Urdu, or ``Language of the Armies``. The word ``Urdu`` is derived from the Turkic ``Oordou``, meaning ``camps`` or, as Khullar notes above, ``armies``.

Urdu was thus self-evidently the language of the soldiers of the armies of Mahmud-e-Ghazni, the only militarist sovereign of the era who maintained a large enough army for a considerable period to provide sufficient time for a new language to develop. It is for this same reason that the earliest surviving Urdu literature is that of Sufi saints who accompanied the Ghaznavids during their expeditions.

Noted Iranologist Dr.E.C.Sachau, translator of al-Beruni`s India, further elucidates the Ghaznavid origin of Urdu:

``Tilak, the son of Jai Sen ... studied in Kashmir, [then worked as an] interpreter first to Kadi Shirazi Bulhasan Ali, a high civil officer under Mahumd and Masud (Elliott ii.117,123), then to Ahmad Ibn Hasan of Maimand, who was grand vizier, 1007 AD-25 ... and then 1030-1033 under Mahmud and Masud, and rose afterwards to be a commanding officer in the army (Elliott ii.125-127). This class of men spoke and wrote Urdu (of course with Arabic characters) and Persian (perhaps also Turkish, as this language prevailed in the army), and it is probably in these circles that we must look for the origin of Urdu.`` [3]

Dr.E.C.Sachau also notes the existence in the 1850s of remarkable Urdu manuscripts surviving from the Ghaznavid era:

``The first author who wrote in this language, the Dante of Muhammedan India, is one Masud, who died a little more than a century after the death of King Mahmud (525AH=1131 AD), cf A.Springer, Catalogue of the Arabic, Persian and Urdu manuscripts of the libraries of the King of Oudh, Calcutta, 1854 pp.407,485. If we had any of the Hindi writings of those times, they would probably exhibit the same kind of Indian speech as found in Alberuni`s book.`` [4]

Having traced the origin of Urdu to the camps of Mahmud-e-Ghazni, the identification of the ``mother language`` becomes the next necessity. The question of the origin of Urdu thus becomes linked to the language spoken by the soldiers of Mahmud. It is proposed that this source language for Urdu was Ghaznavid Dari.

Several facts support this view:

1. Ghazni is geographically located within the traditional Dari-speaking area of Afghanistan. Hence Dari was likely to have been spoken by many of Mahmud`s soldiers.

2. The ``Ghaznavi`` dialect of Dari is still spoken [5].

3. Mahmud-e-Ghazni was a patron of Dari literature, hence he would have encouraged its usage amongst his soldiers.

4. Most soldiers in the Ghaznavid armies were of East Iranic stock, consisting of the local population of eastern Eranshahr, along with a substantial Turkic contribution.

5. Mahmud traced his descent to the Sassanids and Achaemenids:

``Subooktugeen [Ameer Nasir-Ood-Deen Subooktugeen Ghiznivy] is said to be lineally descended from Yezdijerd (the last of the Persian monarchs) who, when flying from his enemies during the Caliphate of Uthman, was murdered at a water-mill near the town of Merv. His family being left in Toorkistan formed connections among the people, and his decsndants became Toorks.

His genealogy is as follows: Subooktugeen, the son of Jookan, the son of Kuzil Hukum, the son of Kuzil Arslan, the son of Ferooz, the son of Yezdejird, the King of Persia.`` [6]

Mahmud was thus proud of his Iranian heritage - the blood of Cyrus the Great which flowed in his veins - and deliberately fashioned his empire in the mould of his Achaemenid and Sassanid ancestors. The Later Timurid Mughal Empire of Akbar and Aurangzeb was in turn the direct successor state of the Ghaznavid Empire, implying a direct historical parallel for the derivation of Urdu from Dari. For the lay Urdu speaker of today, the traditional descent of the Mughal Empire from the Ghaznavid Dynasty and thence from the Achaemenid Empire is the simplest historical proof of the Iranic origin of his language.

According to Ibn al-Muqaffa (translator of the Book of Kalila and Dimna) towards the end of the Sassanian Empire, three Iranic languages had developed in Eranshahr: ``Parsi`` (Avestan), ``Pahlavi`` and ``Dari`` [7].

Dari is generally viewed as ``Vulgar Pahlavi``, the vernacular spoken by the masses which developed as an offshoot of Sassanid Pahlavi. Dari is thus analogous to the ``Vulgar Latin`` stage in the development of Romance languages. Old East Iranic languages such as Bactrian (Bahlika of the Prakrit grammarians), Sogdian, Sakan (the Sacara of the Prakrit writers) and Tokharian (perhaps the ancestor of the Takki Apabhramsa of the Punjab) provided a substratum for Dari (a West Iranic language), while Turkic and Altaic provided a later superstratum.

Urdu, like all Iranic languages, is thus linguistically and historically derived from Avestan, which is for Iranian languages what Latin is for Romance languages. It should be considered a member of the Iranian branch of languages. A short language tree would be:

Avestan -> Pahlavi -> Dari -> Urdu.

This article should remove all doubts about the real origin of Urdu.

References

[1] Studies in Urdu Linguistics by S.Zaidi, Bahri Publishers New Delhi 1989, pp.103,116.

[2] The Essentials of Indian Culture by K.K.Khullar, Employment News, New Delhi, 21-27 Jan. 1995, p.1

[3] Alberuni`s India, ed Dr. E.C.Sachau, vol.II, p.258, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. London 1888.

[4] Dr. E.C.Sachau, ibid., vol.II, p.258.

[5] Ethnologue: Languages of the World, ed. Barbara F. Grimes, Summer Institute of Linguistics, 14th Edition 2002, www.sil.org.

[6] History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India, M.K.Ferishta, transl. Col. John Briggs, first pub. 1829, R.Cambray and Co, Calcutta 1908, reprrt. 1997 Low Price Publications, Delhi Vol. I. p.8.

[7] The Origins of Literary Persian, by Gilbert Lazard, Noruz Lecture by a Distinguished Scholar of Iranian Studies, Foundation for Iranian Studies, 1993, Bethesda (fis-iran.org/lazar.htm); cf. G.Lazard, ``Pahlavi, parsi, dari: les langues de l`Iran d`apres Ibn al-Muqaffa``, in Iran and Islam, ed. C. E. Bosworth, Edinburg, 1971, pp. 361-391.

In resp to brother ali
Brother Ali i would respectfully disagree with you, as we are not discussing subtle variations, which might exisit within the various derivations of the Mughal cuisine, but if you tell me that the difference between the banglori cuisine and the hyderabadi cuisine is as disparate as the banglori hindu cuisine and the banglori muslim cuisine, then i will not believe you.

In resp to babu:
First, which part of ``GIVEN A CHOICE`` don`t you understand.

``I know a lot of Pakistani American females married to Caucasian White males. There is nothing anyone can do about it. The Quran does not prohibit a 60 year from marrying a 20 year old. I am sure you would not marry your sister or daughter to a 60 year old Muslim man. It is called common sense``
If any pakistani female did marry a caucasion white male, without the male embracing islam, then she has left the fold of islam, hence not considered a muslim anymore.

As to the question of whether Quran prohibits a 60 year from marrying a 20 year old, well there is a provision, and important one at that, which clearly states that a woman`s consent is absolutely necesssary in marriage. Hence, if my daughter or sister refuses to marry a 60 year old, then i can`t force her, and if she wants to marry a 60 year old, again i can`t stop her.

#304 by Honorable_Syed on June 12, 2003 10:25am PT

Well I guess that it depends on who sees the differnce. For a Hyderabadi Muslim the cusine of a Bangalorei Muslims is quite diffrent. A westerner will be able to make out only the slightest difference between all the cusines of India even if they were observant.

so it is essentially a matter of perception. Sure there is difference. How much or less depends on ones perception. There are muslims in China too. I have eaten chinese muslim food which is very unlike the food in India or other muslim countries. At the same time chinise people are able to make a distinction between the food of Muslim Chinese and other Chinese. So essentially it is a matter of perception.

Actually i do live in a western country, and have been born and raised in the West. I am glad atleast i got you to admit, that Muslim culture atleast initially was foreign to India, which is a start. And i am not obsessed by fair skin, but i wanted to get the point across to you about the foreign descent of atleast some people in India, most evident in the Deccan areas.
And concerning the cuisine and music, sure it is considered Indian now, but it takes roots from foreign lands, and you would be lying if you tell me that this MUSLIM indian cuisine is the same as hindu cuisine. There is a big difference between them.

#302 by urbashi on June 12, 2003 7:43am PT

right on many points especially about contemporary India... However you seem to be discounting the caste factor in India. Urban educated people find some degree of leeway Usually this is not automatic in terms of marriage etc. Reality for other people is quite different of course there are exceptions which are highlighted by media.
I think a honest interaction with Dalits will rest may of your doubts about caste system and how it affects them. I would like to point out that on this board there has no one who has claimed that he is a Dalit or even one of the lower castes. If you take a poll you will find that most of the people on this board are Brahimin a few viash with may be a couple of Kshatryias.
So what you say about caste may not be the viewpoint of those worst affected by the caste system
Pakistani posters too suffer from the same problem. I think most of them are from fedual background with a couple of militarty background(ie where there is a possiblity of non feduals being there)
So the views and opinons of majority of the people of both India and Pakistan are not reflected here on this forum.
There is also another angle to this. let me explain it this way.
Even in the unitedsates people dont have proper access to information and exact knowledge about people elsewhere(especially about eastern people and muslims). I think you will agree with this. Similarly Pakistanis dont have the pulse of contemporary India. India being engaged with military and political rivalry and with the press earlier broadly in suppourt of at least soft Hindtuva of congress and the slighter harder of BJP (I wonder if you have read Dileep Padganonkar TOI cheif editor in a slip in a interview recalls the point when he saw how the his and the other press acceptnce and suppourt of BJP hindutva was so dangerous when gujrat happend).
Such being the case where every country(this includes media, and other public institutitions) indulges in some sort of propoganda about the other competitor country leading to wrong impressoins do you think that we in India are the only ones in the world who are getting to know the pakistani reality with any more accuracy than the Americans got about Iraq?

Studebaker, I agree with u, that the so-called ``hindutva`` forces are making a mockery of Hinduism. They hardly represent the spirit of Hinduism or the feelings of the majority of Hindus. If they continue to get elected it`s because the other political parties offer no viable alternative. Also, I`m afraid that there`s a considerable backlash among Hindus who are simply fed up of the way politicians play around with religious sentiments, and so they try to punish them by voting for/agreeing with people who at least are not hypocrites, hideous though they may be.

Hon. Syed, who are the ``we`` who ruled over India for over 1,000 years? If you`re talking about the Slave dynasty, the Mughals, etc., remember that they were all Indians even if the founders of each line did come from abroad.

Secondly, you seem to have no idea about the food, music, etc of India. Go through the stats again, more Indians are non-vegetarian than vegetarian. Who told you that Mughal/Hyderabadi/Lucknavi (Avadh) cuisine is not Indian? BTW, the very few Pakistani restauranteurs here where I live advertise their cooking as ``Indian``. There is only one restaurant here which serves what they call Pakistani food, which is just Lucknavi, not even Punjabi. Sufi music, qawalis, etc, are as much Indian as bhajans! I think you`re confusing Muslim with foreign. The Muslims may have been foreigners to India about 1000 years ago or so, but would you call someone who is a part of your family/culture for so long an outsider or a foreigner? Then you`d have to call most of the white British foreigners to Great Britain, since such a large number of them have Norman ancestry, while the Anglo-Saxons themselves originally came from Northern Europe . Indian Muslims would be most indignant and horrified if they were told they didn`t belong here. They do, most emphatically. This is their ``mulk``. This is just what the ``Hindutva`` people were trying to say to them at one time, which upset everyone completely. They don`t say it any more. It seems that you in Pakistan try to define yourselves only by contrast with India. But your contrast simply doesn`t hold good. It gives me no pleasure to admit to sharing a culture with Pakistanis, but I have no choice. And yes, we have a lot in common culturally with the NWFP, even though we may not share a common boundary with them. Who in India can ever forget Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan? There are many people of Pathan descent in India.

UP, Bihar and MP are full of Urdu-speaking Muslims, who also happen to be descendants of converts. As you apparently don`t know, Urdu isn`t a Muslim language alone. Many Hindus and Christians not only speak it, they write great literature in it too. Have you ever seen Muslims from these regions - how ``fair-skinned`` are they? How about your own Mohajirs from Bihar and UP- how ``fair`` are they now? And if you`re so worshipful about ``fair`` skins, why don`t you call the British back to rule you? At least they were really white, even if they couldn`t (and still can`t) make out the differences in the colouring of South Asians. It`s amazing how obsessed you are by colour. If you`ve ever been to the West, or lived in a Western country, I wonder how you`ve survived!

I haven`t said that the smritis are ``crap``, I said they weren`t the Hindu scriptures. Nor are the Puranas. As they`ve been orally transmitted through the centuries there`s bound to be the occasional distortion. (The same goes for Muslim traditions!) When you write about Daksha you are talking about myth, not scripture or religion. And I repeat, you don`t seem to recognize symbolism. The four varnas, which later became the basis of the caste system as it exists today, meant to symbolize the different roles in society that people play. Each varna is essential to society and is closely connected to the others. Society cannot function without any one of them. They are all equal in importance though they may have different functions. Caste became hereditary as feudalism entrenched itself. This is all primarily a matter of power, not religion. But even as late as the epic Mahabharata, when social norms had already become fossilized, we are told not only of intercaste unions which are acceptable but also that it is a person`s actions and thoughts that determine his caste.

Once again, try not to make comments about things, especially about contemporary India, of which you know nothing. Try to find out the facts, the reality, the statistics, not as they are taught in your school books. Remember your Qaid e Azam Jinnah instead!

Studebaker #296

I cannot believe the stupidy of some of you when it comes to arranged marriages.

`` You are making grave error .Govt of India or itsLaw is neither Hindu religion nor it can be compared to Christian or Islam religion. ``

Laws of India are based on Aglo-Saxon legal system. The implementation is a different issue. There is a definite Hindu ethos to the enforcement of laws in India.

`` Would it not be convenient for a Brahmin girl to mary a shudra next door instead (of to a brahmin will mary a brahmin boy 100 miles od seperation away) . ``

Use the word Dalit. It is the politically correct term. I could also use terms like Mohammedian etc.

The key to successful arranged Indian marriages is how well do the groom and bride families know each other. This applies to both Hindus and Muslims. Most Hindus avoid marrying close relatives and cousins. If the groom belong to some other caste how do get to know them ? It is a practical problem to investigate people living in big cities. In my case the only choice for inter-caste marriage would be well known colleagues of my dad and uncles. This is assuming all my uncles/aunts support the idea. This is assuming that the colleagues have a daughter whom I like. This is assuming that the colleagues are willing to accept me as a groom.

The usual questions are
How well do I know the groom family ? Are there other grooms available in the city ? Are they vegeterian/non-vegeterian ? Do they speak the same language ? Does the horoscope match ? What is the dowry ? What is the character of the groom ? Does the education/professional profiles match ? Is the age difference acceptable ? Is the difference/similarity in complexion fine ? Does the groom/bride look nice ? Does the other side share the same values ? (If dad is a honest civil servant you would not want an alliance with a corrupt civil servant). Is there someone who helped my family a lot ? If so do they have a son/daughter to make an alliance with ?

It may be convenient to marry a next door neighbor. Is 100 miles too far ? 100 miles is 2-3 hour journey in most parts of India.

`` More over Bengali muslim never goes to mary in other FAR places..If more suitable in desirability has larger pool b/c thereis no barrier of Caste conversionhe or she can marry 99% of eligible within the available pool.... ``

A lot of Bangladeshi Muslim workers in Malaysia try to marry Malay Muslim females to settle down in Malaysia. The Malays being the chavunists they are imposed a ban on Malay females marrying ``outsiders``

`` Well actually the Muslims have not done this since the existence of Islam, and in India, where we have ruled for over 1,000 years, this has not occured, so what makes you think this will happen in the next 5-10 years. And actually we were referring to a hypothetical situation. But the fact remains that Muslims will only marry amongst muslims, because our greatest bond is our religion. As to the article you posted, as it clearly states, there are justifications for imposing such a rule, but it has absolutely nothing to do with our religion. ``

The rules of marriage have nothing to do with Islam. You cannot marry any Muslim. Deal with it. A blue collar Pakistani worker who tries to marry feudal`s daughter is going to have his bones broken. The Mohajhir who married the Afridi female was gunned down in a Karachi courthouse. I know a lot of Pakistani American females married to Caucasian White males. There is nothing anyone can do about it. The Quran does not prohibit a 60 year from marrying a 20 year old. I am sure you would not marry your sister or daughter to a 60 year old Muslim man. It is called common sense.

In response to urbashi:
Actually it is a lengthy reply, so i will try to gather my thoughts and reply to as much as i can.
``Honourable_Syed, now when did I disagree that there are many Indians (and many Muslims who might have left India, too) who are the descendants not of converts but of people who had come from Turkey/Arabia/wherever in West Asia? My point, simply, was that Indian Muslims who don`t have converts for ancestors are very much in the minority and in the South in particular form part of the erstwhile aristocracy. Now are you going to say that the aristos outnumber the plebs``
I would have to agree with you on this, but what i was trying to emphasize was that the Urdu speaking population of India, Pakistan, and even Bangladesh, has around 60-65% population who are of foreign descent. These urdu speaking people are found in U.P., Bihar, M.P. and the Deccan areas. Now these statistics might not be very accurate if you strictly look at the population of current india, as a large chunk have migrated to pakistan, and if you read one of my posts, it gives you the exact percentages along with the various parts of india they migrated from. They certainly do not form a majority, because in Punjab and Sindh (non-urdu speaking provinces) there are a lot of people who could have possibly reverted to Islam.

``I just don`t understand why Pakistanis should want to assert their ``pure-blooded`` West Asian identity. If you believe in the concept of the ummah, as you say, surely there should be no problems about accepting your status as converts or the descendants of converts?``
Well if they are originally west asian, then do you want them to lie about their ancestory, to make you happy. You see, i just don`t understand why the hindus want to enforce their view of these so called conversions, and the sharing of culture on each and every pakistani, and lets not forget that pakistan has four provinces NWFP, Baluchistan, Sindh and Punjab. And from these 4 provinces only sindh and punjab might share some of your cultural values, NWFP and Baluchistan are very far away from your culture.

``Yes, culturally we ARE the same, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, etc, etc. We eat the same kind of food, enjoy the same kind of music, share the same social norms , and so on.``
This again is incorrect, historically our cultures have been quite different, and we don`t have the same kind of food, most of our foods are different from yours, because our cuisine A) is non-vegetarian B) is Mughal cuisine - foreign to India. As to our music, again our music took root from the sufis, who although might use some of your instruments, is heavily influenced with religious fervor, i.e. Qawallis, naaths, etc.. whereas your music is more in the tones of bhajans. Look lets be honest and not try to be buddy-buddy, by invoking this sense of false commonality.

``You know, Islam isn`t the only religion that says there`s no difference between people from different regions, colours, etc. As m_souza has pointed out, all religions say that. And may I point out that no Hindu SCRIPTURE - mind you, scripture, not myth, legend, smriti, or fascist-minded people like Manu - has ever praised, or even accepted the caste system...``
This is where you are wrong my friend. Actually i will quote stuff from the vedas, puranas, since you say the smritis are a bunch of bull crap.
LORD SIVA CONDEMNED FOR ALLOWING A LOW-CASTE (A SUDRA) TO READ VEDAS

Women & Sudras (& outcastes) are not allowed to study the Vedas; this is one reason this ``God`` Siva is denounced for allowing a Sudra the Vedic teachings. Daksa`s curse is as follows:

``The Brahmins will not sacrifice to you along with the other gods, for Siva has defiled the path followed by good men; he is impure, an abolisher of rites and demolisher of barriers, [who gives] the word of the Vedas to a Sudra. He wanders like a madman, naked, laughing, the lord of ghosts, evil-hearted. Let Siva, the lowest of the gods, obtain no share with Indra and Visnu at the sacrifice; let all the followers of Siva be heretics, opponents of the true scriptures, following the heresy whose god is the king of ghosts.`` -- Brahma Purana 2:13:70-73; Garuda Purana 6:19; Bhagavata Purana 4:2:10-32.

``His (Purusa`s) mouth became the Brahmin; his arms were made into the Ksatriya, his thighs the Vaisya, and from his feet the Sudra was born.`` -- Rig Veda 10:90:12.

In comparison, Sudras are as low as feet & Outcastes (avarna) are even below that status of course.

``If in the process of negotiating betrothal there are first ten suitors of the non-Brahmana varna for a woman (the marriageable girl), all of them lose their claims of marriage and, only the Brahmin, the learned one, if he grasps her hand would be her husband and only he. Not even the man of Ksatriya varna and not even the man of Vaisya varna but only the Brahmin is the husband of the bride in such cases of claimants of betrothal, and the sun, as it appears, revealing this fact to the people of five classes (4 varnas and the fifth avarna) rises up.`` -- Atharva Veda 5:17:8-9.

``People here whose behaviour is pleasant can expect to enter a pleasant womb, like that of a woman of the Brahmin, the Ksatriya, or the Vaisya caste. But people of foul behaviour can expect to enter the foul womb, like that of a dog, a pig, or an outcaste woman.`` -- Chandogya Upanisad 5:10:7.

In resp to bbabu:
If you force the Bengali Muslim to choose between the two options he will initially pick a Muslim from Malaysia, Philipines, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. Pretty soon in 5-10 years I will assure you that the educated Bengali Muslims will switch to Bengali Hindu grooms. What is the point of sending your daughter to a far off place where you cannot see her. I would not expect a you to know such civilities.
Well actually the Muslims have not done this since the existence of Islam, and in India, where we have ruled for over 1,000 years, this has not occured, so what makes you think this will happen in the next 5-10 years. And actually we were referring to a hypothetical situation. But the fact remains that Muslims will only marry amongst muslims, because our greatest bond is our religion. As to the article you posted, as it clearly states, there are justifications for imposing such a rule, but it has absolutely nothing to do with our religion.

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

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

Honorable_Syed #292

``Oh My God, it seems like i am speaking to walls.``

`` If you read my post closely, I am not discussing the laws of a certain country, i am talking strictly talking on an individual basis. What i said was GIVEN A CHOICE, a muslim would rather accept his/her daughter marrying another muslim, regardless of nationality, where a Muslim would never marry his/her daughter to another hindu, regardless of how much he feels akin to that person, because the strongest bond is our religion ``ISLAM``. The question still remains, which is would a bengali muslim marry his/her daughter to a bengali hindu or a muslim from any other place, i.e. Malaysia, Philipines, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia?`` Until you don`t answer this question, all your arguments fall flat. ``

Your question is a dumb one. Because 99.99% of Bengali Muslim women marry Bengali Muslim males. You are discussing a hypothetical situation. Most Bengali Muslims would not have thought about this issue because it is a non-existent problem. They have more serious survival issues to deal about it.

If you force the Bengali Muslim to choose between the two options he will initially pick a Muslim from Malaysia, Philipines, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. Pretty soon in 5-10 years I will assure you that the educated Bengali Muslims will switch to Bengali Hindu grooms. What is the point of sending your daughter to a far off place where you cannot see her. I would not expect a you to know such civilities.

I am not sure what the uneducated ones will do. But then they is always a need for road kill for American laser guided bombs.

Even Hyderabadi Muslims who used to sell their teenage daughters to rich Arabs have wised up and stopped doing so.

`` As to your claim of the ban, first i have never heard of it, and second even if it were true, there might be a reason for it, which you cunningly did not explain. In any case, our religion doesn`t pose any such conditions, which hinduism does, hence if one is to follow the hindu religion, a shudra can not marry a brahmin, yet the brahmins can engage in prostitution with these poor shudras, by terming them as devdasis. ``

There is no law in India that prohibits inter-caste marriage. There are no barriers in urban India against inter-caste marriage. Devadasi is not practised actively anymore.


Look at the Malaysian article
----------------
Malaysia Curbs Intermarriage, Tightens Migration Policies
By Iqbal Ragataf

KUALA LUMPUR (IslamOnline) - Malaysia again showed that if it needs a scapegoat for its failures and misgivings, immigrants make the perfect black sheep. Locals are now being asked not to marry foreign spouses due to the difficulties they have in getting residency visas.

``The people should consider the problems they and their children may face in the future when they marry non-Malaysians,`` said Deputy Home Minister Zainal Abidin Zin, during a discussion on youth marital problems organized by the Malaysian Indian Muslim Youth Movement.

Migrant workers or immigrants who just want a change of life and place find it difficult to adjust in Malaysia as a result of a strict regime imposed by the country`s leaders on immigration in Malaysia.

The country recognizes it has a dire need for imported workers and possibly new citizens if it wants to compete in the global world. Yet the authorities are at crossroads and are finding it difficult to admit they might have missed the train of migration changes that has touched the world of today.

``The country that claims itself to be the most modern Muslim nation on earth, thanks to its impressive infrastructural base, tolerance and acceptance has given way to pride and prejudice,`` wrote Fatin Nurhan in an e-mail.

Many Malaysians believe the authorities have gone too far in preventing locals from having foreign spouses. Many women believe that they are free to choose who to marry and where to stay, in defiance of the current ruling that wives should follow their spouses to their respective countries.

Such rulings apply mostly to migrant workers from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and Myanmar. Malaysia has ruled out the possibility of any such workers to be married to local people of both sexes, in a bid to prevent an influx of demand for citizenship or permanent residence from these workers.

The constitution of Malaysia guarantees freedom of choice and of expression of the citizens of Malaysia. According to Malay heritage, confined in a series of by-laws enacted by the Malay forefathers of Malaysia, anyone marrying a Malay is deemed to become a Malaysian citizen by right and enjoy full Malay rights.

Malays have special rights to try to make up for their lagging behind in economic and educational sectors. The country`s Malay-dominated government offers facilities to the Malays to upgrade their living standards. But it also trampled and squashed other rights that Malays used to enjoy. One such right includes the freedom to choose any spouse.

The current administration is making it difficult for anyone marrying a local to have either an extended stay, permanent residence or national citizenship. They do not take into consideration the rights of the individuals, the wives or the children, and impose strict regimes on migrant spouses.

Since 1997, a new ruling allows the immigration department in Malaysia to grant a special temporary working visa to spouses married to locals. This visa is granted only if the wedding is locally registered and if the couple show proof they have children of their own, born in Malaysia and registered as Malaysian citizens.

The spouses must support the application for this visa with registration of a business. This ruling has been in place since the 1997 crackdown on foreign workers, who were by the millions in Malaysia. They were mostly Bengalis and Indonesians, most of them without a valid visa. Most have been deported or given amnesty if they were ready to leave Malaysia.

Foreigners have been the recent target of official criticism on the rate of divorce and single motherhood in the country. Recently a minister argued that locals should marry more locals and restrain from marrying foreign immigrant workers or ``imported`` spouses due to the difficulties in getting visas and other permits for them. He added that Malay women should give birth to their babies locally.

Foreigners have also been blamed for the increase in violence in the country since the economic downturn. They have also been blamed for occupying jobs illegally, thus preventing locals from obtaining sufficient income for survival. A recent crackdown in the sophisticated city Cyber Jaya carried by several agencies lead to the cleaning up of illegal Indonesian migrants from Aceh who had occupied government lands in the vicinity.

A former deputy prime minister and several chief ministers have been blamed in the past for allowing foreign nationals, mostly from Indonesia and Pakistan, to have Malaysian citizenship. In the 1970s several hundred thousand Indonesian nationals were granted Malaysian nationality under the tenure of Musa Hitam, the first deputy prime minister under Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.

Several thousand Pakistanis were also granted the famous ``blue identity card`` in the states of Sabah and Sarawak, though in Sarawak most of the migrants-turned-Malaysians were of Filipino Christian origins. Since then, the tap has been tightened and there seems to be no way for it to be released soon. There seems to be an effort to clean the states of Sabah and Sarawak of the Filipino migrants.

``It seems that the authorities in this country are lost in their priorities. The people know what they want, but the government agencies are living in an age of tribalism and sectarianism, an age of dinosaurs I would say,`` lamented Zurina Abdullah, who runs a matrimonial agency in Kuala Lumpur.

She says that hundreds of migrant workers, especially from Bangladesh, found Malay girls who are willing to marry them but not to follow them back to their country of origin, as required by immigration rulings, which do not have the force of law at any rate.

In the past, the government accused the Bangladeshis of being responsible for the increased number of abandoned infants. The babies were said to be the children of male Bangladeshi migrant workers who had affairs with their local girlfriends.

``Figures show that a great number of newborns found dead or alive, abandoned in forests, dustbins or street canals, are of purely local origin. Many of them have been abandoned by local youngsters who had illicit sex, and those suspected of being of Bengali fathers were the cause of restrictions on marriages between local girls and the Bengalis,`` Zurina said.

Many Bengali nationals who came to Malaysia on three-year contracts in the past found a rich niche of local Malay and Indian girls who were ready to marry them. One reason was looks. ``Oh my God! Some of the Bengali`s are so handsome, they look like Shah Rukh Khan or Amir Khan [Indian movie stars],`` said a young Malay woman working in the Ministry of Education.

Mirana Manap insisted that she would have married her Bengali boyfriend if the authorities had not refused them the permission to be married. They contacted a local agency for their marriage registration, but the officials were adamant and refused to entertain them. They were told to leave the country if they married.

``I wonder where is the right of females in this country?`` asked a disgusted Mirana. Basically, Malaysian authorities have failed to understand how their society works. They seem to have overlooked the major problems faced by ``imported spouses,`` mostly women from Singapore, Indonesia or Thailand and India.

``The country`s policy makers seem to give more importance to racism than to the tolerance of marriage in Islam,`` Mirana added.

It is sensibly easier for local males to marry a foreign spouse as it is possible for them to sponsor their wives for an entry visa, which is granted on a monthly basis first and then later extended to a six-month visa.

Malaysian females are treated differently. They are grossly discouraged from marrying foreigners. ``This is because the policy makers fear the Malays will be overrun in numbers by foreign husbands,`` says Zurina. ``Local women find it very difficult to have their spouse to stay in Malaysia. This shows that they are treated as second-class citizens,`` she added, saying that women`s rights groups should join forces to fight off these challenges.

The opposition party, PAS, believes that foreign spouses should be allowed to stay in Malaysia, and at least be granted permanent resident status, and believes it is the right of citizens to marry any one they want. Upholding its Islamic principles, the opposition party says that Muslims must be allowed to intermarry regardless of race or origin.

Yet the government seems in total disagreement on this issue, as on many other issues indeed. ``Things will only change if the local non-government organizations and other social service agencies join forces to tell the government that things are changing and that they should adapt to the realities of the global world,`` Zurina said.

Honourable_Syed, Hinduism per se does NOT prohibit such marriages. It`s only fedualism that imposed these ideas on Hindu society. And didn`t someone on chowk just say that you shouldn`t judge a religion by the worst of its practitioners but by its scriptures? Given a chance, wouldn`t you prefer that your son marry a girl from your own region/language group? Why was there so much of anguish when Imran Khan married a Jewish girl, though he made her convert to Islam? One can`t change human nature, which is what I`ve been stressing all along.
and please try to learn a little bit more about Hinduism and India before you write such venom.
Because I`m a Hindu I respect Islam and Christianity. Hinduism believes that all ways to God should be respected. If you`re a good Muslim or Christian - or atheist or agnostic or follower of any religious belief - you`re a good Hindu.

This is in response to the posts by the Honourable_Syed about my comments.
1. I`m afraid neither history nor linguistics bears you out about Urdu. Both confirm that Urdu was born of the marriage - all right, interaction - between one or more of the numerous dialects of Hindi (there was no standard dialect then) and the court language of Persian, with perhaps a few touches of Arabic. (Hindustani, which Gandhi wanted as the national language of India, is a blend of spoken Hindi and Urdu.) Perhaps you are not aware that the Sanskritized form of Hindi much patronized by Doordarshan/All India Radio and Hindi schoolroom lessons is not really the spoken language of the ordinary people. And a language belongs to the people, not to textbooks. Urdu was not an artificially created language like Esperanto to fulfil the needs of Indian Muslims but, like all natural languages, grew on its own, the child of the languages of North India. No language is ``pure`` and free of influence, not English, not French, Latin, not even Sanskrit. In fact, the last language was called Sankrit because the grammarians tried to ``purify`` it, and the result was a dead language that exists only in books. (It`s another matter that attempts are being made in India to make it a living language once again.) The sign of a living language is that it is capable of changing and growing.
As for the Urdu words you mention, and several others you haven`t, of course they`re derived from Arabic and Persian - didn`t I say that Urdu is the product of the marriage of Persian and Arabic on the one hand and Hindi on the other? That doesn`t stop them from being words that belong to the Indian languages. And, btw, they`re all an integral part even of the formal Hindi that is being taught in our schools. In fact, they`re also very much a formal part of several North Indian languages (since I don`t have much acquaintance with South Indian languages I can`t say anything about that) My point is that Urdu is very much an Indian language and symbolizes our syncretic culture and civilization. No doubt in Pakistan, in a desperate bid to distance yourselves from the larger Hindustan (I am referring, of course, to the geographical and cultural entity called Hindustan, not to a religion) from which your leaders tried to detach you, there is an ongoing attempt to Arabicize (interestingly, not Persianize) Urdu, but there`s still much more in common between the two kinds of Urdu, the ``original`` one and the ``Arabicized`` one, than you`d care to admit.
2. I just don`t understand why Pakistanis should want to assert their ``pure-blooded`` West Asian identity. If you believe in the concept of the ummah, as you say, surely there should be no problems about accepting your status as converts or the descendants of converts?
3. You know, Islam isn`t the only religion that says there`s no difference between people from different regions, colours, etc. As m_souza has pointed out, all religions say that. And may I point out that no Hindu SCRIPTURE - mind you, scripture, not myth, legend, smriti, or fascist-minded people like Manu - has ever praised, or even accepted the caste system. This terrible and iniquitous social system does NOT have the sanction of Hinduism. It is absolutely the product of feudalism and colonialism (colonialism, as you know, isn`t just a Western concept that took root four or five centuries ago in Europe). Neither do our laws in India permit it. All our Govts say that they are committed to rooting it out. They haven`t succeeded so far because it`s something deeply rooted in the human psyche.
4. Yes, culturally we ARE the same, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, etc, etc. We eat the same kind of food, enjoy the same kind of music, share the same social norms , and so on. You`ll realize the truth of this statement if you live abroad, especially in a Western society, and you`ll see that we - and that includes even Pakistanis! - have much more in common than with Westerners. And if you say that a South Asian Muslim has more in common with a West Asian one than an Anglo-Saxon, of course I`ll agree, so would a South Asian Hindu or Buddhist!
As regards marriage, I would agree with you there. There is too much of distrust between Hindus and Muslims for traditional families in particular to accept interreligious marriages. But I think this goes for all interreligious marriages, or indeed all intercommunity marriages - even in the so-called liberal West, just see how a white takes to the idea of a child marrying a colored person, or even a WASP marrying an Irish Catholic When it comes to marriage, we like to find more things in common than not. Just as all Hindus have a lot in common with each other regardless of region, so also do Muslims. It`s much easier to prefer that one`s children marry people belonging to one`s religion.
5. Regardless of what all religions teach, we human beings are made of common clay and can`t help differentiating among themselves. That`s why ALL of us, Hindu, Muslim, etc., etc., constantly and continuously discriminate, differentiate, etc. This has nothing to do with Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc, but with human nature itself, which doesn`t seem to change no matter how many prophets, holy men, etc., come down on earth.
BTW, ali 87`s story about the Hindu man marrying at the age of 17 a girl of the age of 13 seems quite weird. Is it possible that they came from a village? Unfortunately India`s laws regarding the permissible age of marriage hasn`t always been effective in practice in our remotest villages.
The average age of marriage in India, according to the last census (and that includes villages too), is now 19 for women.
6. Honourable_Syed, now when did I disagree that there are many Indians (and many Muslims who might have left India, too) who are the descendants not of converts but of people who had come from Turkey/Arabia/wherever in West Asia? My point, simply, was that Indian Muslims who don`t have converts for ancestors are very much in the minority and in the South in particular form part of the erstwhile aristocracy. Now are you going to say that the aristos outnumber the plebs? (a) That`s factually inaccurate. (b) Aren`t you going against the spirit of Islam by implying that the ordinary people of India weren`t attracted by Islam`s message of brotherhood and preferred to cling on to their Hindu faith(s)?
I like the way you referred to all Muslims as your brothers. That no doubt explains the way you treated the Bangladeshi Muslims during their freedom struggle. Muslim rulers in India have had a long history of patricide and fratricide and all sorts of butchery in order to gain the throne/power. That`s the way you treat your family members, no doubt? Now I don`t have any Muslims as family members, but I do have very dear Indian Muslim friends, and I`m sure that would be shocked to hear your feelings about Hindus. This is what happens when you`re so ignorant.
You seem to labour under a weird misconception that India is a seething caludron of evil and will disintegrate any day. That won`t happen. You`ll see that Pakistan will disintegrate before that. There are no doubt all sorts of weirdos in India as well of all faiths and political beliefs, but because they have the freedom to say and do what they want -- that is, a thriving democracy -- that India will lurch along. Haven`t you seen what happens whenever there`s an external threat to India -- like when Pakistan betrayed us over Kargil? We stopped fighting amongst ourselves and gave you a thrashing. So don`t you think you should stop imagining things about people you don`t know about.

In response to Post #289
Oh My God, it seems like i am speaking to walls.
``Malayasia has imposed a ban on Bangladeshi Muslim men marrying Malay Muslim women. Try marrying a Gulf Arab female without her family permission. See what they do to your head. Try getting their permission. See what they do to your head.``
If you read my post closely, I am not discussing the laws of a certain country, i am talking strictly talking on an individual basis. What i said was GIVEN A CHOICE, a muslim would rather accept his/her daughter marrying another muslim, regardless of nationality, where a Muslim would never marry his/her daughter to another hindu, regardless of how much he feels akin to that person, because the strongest bond is our religion ``ISLAM``. The question still remains, which is would a bengali muslim marry his/her daughter to a bengali hindu or a muslim from any other place, i.e. Malaysia, Philipines, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia?`` Until you don`t answer this question, all your arguments fall flat.
As to your claim of the ban, first i have never heard of it, and second even if it were true, there might be a reason for it, which you cunningly did not explain. In any case, our religion doesn`t pose any such conditions, which hinduism does, hence if one is to follow the hindu religion, a shudra can not marry a brahmin, yet the brahmins can engage in prostitution with these poor shudras, by terming them as devdasis.

#290 by bbabu on June 11, 2003 10:53am PT

thanks..

I dont want to either. Ill watch myself on with you.

Naqshbandi #248

I get a chuckle when Talibanites like you talk about human rights.
Is there anything done to the Indian Dalits that Pakistani feudals don`t do to their underclass ?

Hindus and Hinduism in India will solve their problems sometime in this century. It will be interesting when Muslims especially Pakistanis solve their problems.

Honorable_Syed #274

`` This is again where you are wrong. Muslims from even far off places like the mindano, have far more in common with us than you people, the reason being the concept of Ummah, which the hindus can not accept, because it alienates them, this is a fact which sincere people will not deny. The most important bond shared by all muslims is their religion, hence given a choice if a muslim had to marry his daughter, i ask you would a bengali muslim marry his/her daughter to a bengali hindu, or would he/she prefer a flipino muslim? This is a question which i pose to you. ``

Malayasia has imposed a ban on Bangladeshi Muslim men marrying Malay Muslim women. Try marrying a Gulf Arab female without her family permission. See what they do to your head. Try getting their permission.
See what they do to your head.

ali87 #266

I had no intention of getting into a fight over religion.

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

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

You see, you can not differentiate between things that are sanctioned by a religion, and things which are practiced by the followeres of that religion. To quote a cliche `` Do not judge a religion by its people, but judge it by its scriptures.`` This is were you lose the argument. If certain arabs don`t reat pakistanis well, thats a sin in Islam, because it goes against the basic fundamentals of our great religion, and they will be punished for it, whereas in hinduism, if a brahmin or upper caste discriminates with a shudra by various ways, for eg. pouring molten lead in the ears of any shudra who hears the vedas, that brahmin is rewarded and is following hinduism. Do you see the difference?

``On the one hand you totally disown any links you ever had with Hinduism by saying that Islam tells its followers to start afresh and totally forget your past. And you totally ridicule all Hindu rituals-obsolete or current ones..SO WHY THE HELL DO YOU HAVE THIS INFLUENCE OF HINDUISM??? Wasn’t it this very ‘societal hierarchy’ that you disliked when you converted to Islam? ``
How absurd an argument is this. Is it possible that after we have conquered and have been living in this country for a thousand years, where we have married amongst their women, where we have several people who have converted to our great religion, that we won`t be influenced by their religion. Sure there have been hindu influences, because not every human being is a scholar of islam and will not know how to decipher truth from absurdity. This is where our ulema come in and stop these hindu influenced practises.

``You have superiority complex and look down upon teh `converted muslims` of the subcontiment. So you believe in class/caste system.``
This again is a false accusation, since you cant answer my questions you attack my character, I dont look down upong any muslim, as they are all my brothers, and i would sacrifice my life for them if i had to, but i certainly look down upon hindus, because it defies basic human intellect, to see them worshipping male and female organs of procreation and believing in bull crap, which is found aplenty in their scriptures.

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

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

#276 by m_souza on June 10, 2003 0:34am PT

But Hindus ..I feel ..just because of their previous non-violent set of beliefs.

.. that is a myth which probably people like you belive. Have you forgetten your school history. Remember the remorse that Ashoka felt after the battle of Kalinga. In the commentary he thinks about the needless wars that take place. Which means that wars were taking place.

I hope you dont call the treatment of dalits non-voilent. Dalit was subject to inhuman subjugation under the threat of voilence not the threat of peace.


.... Only thing that I have just started HATING so much is the arrogance..the superior attitude shown by Muslims at chowk.

very amusing your post starts is full of superior attitude and you find fault with others.

YOu can hate muslims just for the heck of it dont bother to justify dear.

In this case the latest affirmation of hate (is the same words as you have done many time earlier) comes because we were discussing Aishyas marriage.

Dont be kind enough to spare my religon Im all for taking it head on. As our previous encounters have shown that you run out of arguments eventually and call me hindu hater or paki lover.

Each case is individual. If your son wants to marry my daughter before I even consider his personal merits or dismerits he has to become a muslim first. then lets see.

The first conditon is the girl should have reached puberty which typically in our country is about 12-15 years. I dont have any need to marry my daughter at this age because the life of today is quite differnent from hundereds of years back it requires a more investment in education than before. However there is nothing shocking at marrying a girl at a small age with a older man if the man is caring etc. However it is better if men and women have similar age groups. There can be exceptions though. I personally know a few people both hindu as well as muslim who have married their very young daughters to older men as old as 38. Its been more than two decades I find their lives very good. My own friend a hindu was married to his wife at the age of 15 and his wife was 13 at the time of marriage. My friend attended college with us and was remarkably stable person and never strayed from his marriage even though he was very handsome and object of affection of quite a few girls. We never knew about all this until we were in our fourth year when there was particularly very desperate girl clamouring after him that he reaveled that he was married upon being teased by us.

He has two kids now and I interact with his family on a very regular basis for a number of years and I find no problem with his wife or him or his marriage at all. I fact by the time he was 27 his kid was 10 years old.

All these ages are for rough guidance only and each case has to be evaluated indiviudaly depending upon the individials involved and the conditions prevaling. Islams stand is also such.

refer to another discussion(for better or worse) right now for a more detailed discussion on this topic.

#272 by urbashi on June 9, 2003 5:03pm PT

im with you

#278 by Honorable_Syed on June 10, 2003 10:42am PT

++Let me first start off with what Islam says:
``O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honourable of you with Allaah is that (believer) who has al-taqwa [i.e., is one of the muttaqoon or pious]. Verily, Allaah is All-Knowing, All-Aware”
[al-Hujuraat 49:13] ++

Nothing very special about the fact that God is all knowing and that we should be pious. All religions say that

++The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “O people! Verily your Lord is One and your father [Adam] is one. An Arab is no better than a non-Arab, and a non-Arab is no better than an Arab; a red man is no better than a black man and a black man is no better than a red man – except if it is in terms of taqwa (piety)…” (Reported by Imaam Ahmad, 22391; al-Silsilat al-Saheeh, 2700). ++

Do Arabs treat you pakis well?? Think about it. They don’t even think that Paki Muslims are true Muslims. This itself is discrimination on the basis of nation (if not class and caste)

You Pakis very much believe in color discrimination…you are extremely obsessed with your fair skin/handsome looks and you really look down upon anyone who is darker in skin shade even if he/she has more qualities that you.
So what is so great about some book quoting ‘a red man is no better than a black man’..when in reality, you pakis feel u are superior to Indians on the basis of skin colour, even though most of you had Hindu ancestors…


++This is what is prescribed in Islam. Now as to the situation in the subcontinent. Due to the heavy influence of Hinduism in the subcontinent, the Muslims have created a societal hierarchy, where certain people are venerated due to their ancestry.++

On the one hand you totally disown any links you ever had with Hinduism by saying that Islam tells its followers to start afresh and totally forget your past. And you totally ridicule all Hindu rituals-obsolete or current ones..SO WHY THE HELL DO YOU HAVE THIS INFLUENCE OF HINDUISM??? Wasn’t it this very ‘societal hierarchy’ that you disliked when you converted to Islam?

++In the subcontinent we have also distinguished people based upon their ancestry, i.e. the Ashrafs (i.e. Syeds, Pathans, Shaikhs, etc..) and the non ashrafs, but this practise was institutionalized by the British, who divided the Muslims into two classes, and this is evident in their records. But let me emphasize, spiritually they are equal, unlike Hinduism the concept of untouchability does not exist, even after all the corruption Hinduism has brought to our religion.++

Mahashai…of all the chowk muslims…you are the one who has been constantly bragging about your Syed ancestory. You have superiority complex and look down upon teh `converted muslims` of the subcontiment. So you believe in class/caste system.

And in Pakistan-a totally Islamic state, there is hardly any influence of Hinduism. But you guys have more of feudal and class consciousness.
I read a book ‘Saat Aasman’ by Asgar Wajahat…it describes how the upper class muslims, always discriminated against the lower caste & class…how they had a wife just as a child-bearing keepsake and other so many lower caste(mostly hindu) women as `rakhails`..and these rakhails had kids who were not treated equally…
So, where is the concept of equality????? I am sure the generations illegitimate kids are very much hanging around in India/Pak. And most of them now say ’I come from a Syed khaandan’. Why do they feel ashamed to say that they have lower caste blood in their veins, if as per you..Islam doesn’t discriminate??? Why so scared???

You blame it on others…Only other religions are bad as per you. Islam is perfect. Anything bad in Islam is due to bad influence of others. Heights of arrogance….

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

``I`d like to hear your comments on the class/caste(?) distinctions observed by Muslims of our subcontinent. Now what would you attribute these to``
Let me first start off with what Islam says:
``O mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another. Verily, the most honourable of you with Allaah is that (believer) who has al-taqwa [i.e., is one of the muttaqoon or pious]. Verily, Allaah is All-Knowing, All-Aware”
[al-Hujuraat 49:13]

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “O people! Verily your Lord is One and your father [Adam] is one. An Arab is no better than a non-Arab, and a non-Arab is no better than an Arab; a red man is no better than a black man and a black man is no better than a red man – except if it is in terms of taqwa (piety)…” (Reported by Imaam Ahmad, 22391; al-Silsilat al-Saheeh, 2700).
This is what is prescribed in Islam. Now as to the situation in the subcontinent. Due to the heavy influence of Hinduism in the subcontinent, the Muslims have created a societal heirarcy, where certain people are venerated due to their ancestory. In the subcontinent we have also distinguished people based upon their ancestory, i.e. the Ashrafs (i.e. Syeds, Pathans, Shaikhs, etc..) and the non ashrafs, but this practise was institutionalized by the British, who divided the Muslims into two classes, and this is evident in their records. But let me emphasize, spiritually they are equal, unlike hinduism the concept of untouchability does not exist, even after all the corruption hinduism has brought to our religion.