The Conversion Chiaroscuro
Farzana Versey June 30, 2003
#131 Posted by sparchus on June 23, 2004 1:36:54 am
farzanaji,
I THINK YOU SHOULD REALLY GO AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THE MOSLEMS HAVE DONE IN MATHURA.THE SHAMELESS ZEALOTS HAD BUILT AN UGLY MASJID RIGHT ON KRISHNA JANMABHOOMI!THE VEDANTISTS NEVER HAD A CONCEPT CALLED CONVERSION.BUT THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS BY VIRTUE OF THEIR ORIGIN BENG IN A DEPRIVED DESERT SURROUNDING HAVE ALWAYS WANTED SOMETHING TO HOLD ON TO.AND I FEEL THEREFORE CONVERSION IS THEIR WAY OF ASSERTING THEIR EXISTANCE.AS FAR AS YOUR DIDI GOES SHE HAS TAKEN THE DECISION THAT ANY SELF RESPECTING VEDANTIST WILL TAKE. SHUN THE RELIGION THAT ONLY PRODUCES TERRORISTS AND URDU POETS AND URDU WRITERS AND GRADUATES OF AMU,JAMIA MILIA,JAMIA HAMDARD ETC ETC.WAKE UP GUYS BEFORE THE CHRISTIANS ELIMINATE YOUR MEDINA AND MECCA.OF COURSE THE MOSLEMS IN INDIA WILL SURVIVE BECAUSE NO ONE HAS ANYTHING AGAINST THE VEDANTISTS.
I THINK YOU SHOULD REALLY GO AND TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THE MOSLEMS HAVE DONE IN MATHURA.THE SHAMELESS ZEALOTS HAD BUILT AN UGLY MASJID RIGHT ON KRISHNA JANMABHOOMI!THE VEDANTISTS NEVER HAD A CONCEPT CALLED CONVERSION.BUT THE SEMITIC RELIGIONS BY VIRTUE OF THEIR ORIGIN BENG IN A DEPRIVED DESERT SURROUNDING HAVE ALWAYS WANTED SOMETHING TO HOLD ON TO.AND I FEEL THEREFORE CONVERSION IS THEIR WAY OF ASSERTING THEIR EXISTANCE.AS FAR AS YOUR DIDI GOES SHE HAS TAKEN THE DECISION THAT ANY SELF RESPECTING VEDANTIST WILL TAKE. SHUN THE RELIGION THAT ONLY PRODUCES TERRORISTS AND URDU POETS AND URDU WRITERS AND GRADUATES OF AMU,JAMIA MILIA,JAMIA HAMDARD ETC ETC.WAKE UP GUYS BEFORE THE CHRISTIANS ELIMINATE YOUR MEDINA AND MECCA.OF COURSE THE MOSLEMS IN INDIA WILL SURVIVE BECAUSE NO ONE HAS ANYTHING AGAINST THE VEDANTISTS.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#130 Posted by FarzanaVersey on July 5, 2003 11:29:10 am
m_souza (#129):
Aap kahein aur hum na sunein...aise tau haalaat nahin...Thanks for replying here to my post on ana`s board...
1. I do feel empathy, but for things more recent. I cannot even identify with the partition, so how can I with Mughal rule? But you have at least tried to understand my intent, if not the content...should I mail this post to Dabur and try and get a commission??!
2. Ok...but sensitive people are sometimes touchy.
3. Hmmm...
Kabhi kabaar waqt nikaala kijiye...samajhna asaan ho jaata hai...dhanyavaad!
veeresh: will try your ruse next time...do you eat paan at all? I like the occasional one, but being a bit well-bred, I stick to magai...and eat it in little bites. The one near Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan at Chowpatty is good...
godot: I think I am happy because I am not desperately seeking happiness, as is normally defined.
``Ghum aur Khushi mein farq na mehsoos ho jahan
Main dil ko us muquaam pe laata chala gaya
Barbaadion ka sog manaana fuzool thha
Barbaadion ka jashn manaata chala gaya...``
Aap kahein aur hum na sunein...aise tau haalaat nahin...Thanks for replying here to my post on ana`s board...
1. I do feel empathy, but for things more recent. I cannot even identify with the partition, so how can I with Mughal rule? But you have at least tried to understand my intent, if not the content...should I mail this post to Dabur and try and get a commission??!
2. Ok...but sensitive people are sometimes touchy.
3. Hmmm...
Kabhi kabaar waqt nikaala kijiye...samajhna asaan ho jaata hai...dhanyavaad!
veeresh: will try your ruse next time...do you eat paan at all? I like the occasional one, but being a bit well-bred, I stick to magai...and eat it in little bites. The one near Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan at Chowpatty is good...
godot: I think I am happy because I am not desperately seeking happiness, as is normally defined.
``Ghum aur Khushi mein farq na mehsoos ho jahan
Main dil ko us muquaam pe laata chala gaya
Barbaadion ka sog manaana fuzool thha
Barbaadion ka jashn manaata chala gaya...``
#129 Posted by m_souza on July 3, 2003 9:43:19 pm
lo hum phir se bolney lagey....
#106 by FarzanaVersey on July 2, 2003 11:48am PT
m_souza (#45):
**1.This discussion is not about whether something is believable or not. It is about maintaining some decorum and civility in interactions. You say I too have violated the rules “as a serious interactor”. Please tell me in what manner, using the above-mentioned two dictums. **
You are modest but as I pointed out elsewhere…your style sometimes if not always, tends to become forthright to the extent of sounding sarcastic, esp when discussing hindu/gujrat issues. I have not read too many of your interactions but from your articles I conclude ‘you are sensitive and emotional’.
It is all right to point our any hurt that has been recently caused to your community by another one but at the same time please try to feel empathy towards any torture that the other community has gone through even if in the remote past. That’s it. And then things can be fixed up.
So, while I don’t recollect you having used any uncivil language, but the articles (esp. not so recent ones) themselves are so heavy that I have to digest them with dabur ka haajmola. Good writing anyway as you yourself would know by now.
**2.I have not stopped interacting; I merely choose who I wish to interact with. And at least you cannot complain on this score. (Yes, you did speak up for me when a nasty personal comment was made, and I thank you for it now; I did not do so then because it would amount to extending that dialogue.) Besides, when it comes to my articles, I almost always make an effort to clarify. How many writers do so? **
Yeaaah you did reply more often than not. Anyway..this place is not to be touchy about. It is to interact so as to gain some knowledge about minds.
++ 3.I have admitted in my post here that others have to put up with me as much I do with them. ++
We have to put up with others. That is what we are here for (and keep coming back to put up more..so fond of putting up we seem to be)
------
more next time, when I get time......
#106 by FarzanaVersey on July 2, 2003 11:48am PT
m_souza (#45):
**1.This discussion is not about whether something is believable or not. It is about maintaining some decorum and civility in interactions. You say I too have violated the rules “as a serious interactor”. Please tell me in what manner, using the above-mentioned two dictums. **
You are modest but as I pointed out elsewhere…your style sometimes if not always, tends to become forthright to the extent of sounding sarcastic, esp when discussing hindu/gujrat issues. I have not read too many of your interactions but from your articles I conclude ‘you are sensitive and emotional’.
It is all right to point our any hurt that has been recently caused to your community by another one but at the same time please try to feel empathy towards any torture that the other community has gone through even if in the remote past. That’s it. And then things can be fixed up.
So, while I don’t recollect you having used any uncivil language, but the articles (esp. not so recent ones) themselves are so heavy that I have to digest them with dabur ka haajmola. Good writing anyway as you yourself would know by now.
**2.I have not stopped interacting; I merely choose who I wish to interact with. And at least you cannot complain on this score. (Yes, you did speak up for me when a nasty personal comment was made, and I thank you for it now; I did not do so then because it would amount to extending that dialogue.) Besides, when it comes to my articles, I almost always make an effort to clarify. How many writers do so? **
Yeaaah you did reply more often than not. Anyway..this place is not to be touchy about. It is to interact so as to gain some knowledge about minds.
++ 3.I have admitted in my post here that others have to put up with me as much I do with them. ++
We have to put up with others. That is what we are here for (and keep coming back to put up more..so fond of putting up we seem to be)
------
more next time, when I get time......
#128 Posted by harimau on July 3, 2003 9:46:38 am
Ref Biker Chick #121
[godot: It means that even when I ``kill`` something, it does not die.]
Yeah, godot complains about his ravings not getting published, our own Mullah32 complains about his scholarly research on Indus Valley Civilization being ignored by Chowk editors and, boom, your article moves up so that godot has visible proof of favoritism at Chowk but he keeps his mouth shut and Mullah32 gets ``rewarded`` by getting his article published. But godot no longer complains about being ignored, isn`t THAT strange!
PS to Chowk editors: just ribbing you guys, don`t take it seriously!
[godot: It means that even when I ``kill`` something, it does not die.]
Yeah, godot complains about his ravings not getting published, our own Mullah32 complains about his scholarly research on Indus Valley Civilization being ignored by Chowk editors and, boom, your article moves up so that godot has visible proof of favoritism at Chowk but he keeps his mouth shut and Mullah32 gets ``rewarded`` by getting his article published. But godot no longer complains about being ignored, isn`t THAT strange!
PS to Chowk editors: just ribbing you guys, don`t take it seriously!
#127 Posted by harimau on July 3, 2003 9:11:34 am
Ref godot #123
[...and, Farzana, why do you torture yourself so much...be happy, the hell with everyone else... ]
Persecution complex. Joan of India.
[...and, Farzana, why do you torture yourself so much...be happy, the hell with everyone else... ]
Persecution complex. Joan of India.
#126 Posted by veeresh on July 3, 2003 7:23:00 am
Farzana, why cant you say ``Kya Kiam`` to the paanwallah? (or, for that matter, to the boiled baida/anda wallah?)
#125 Posted by arjun_m on July 2, 2003 9:35:36 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#124 Posted by urbashi on July 2, 2003 7:00:01 am
Thanks, harimau (#91). Although everyone knows that Krishna is worshipped in South India too - for example, notably as Lord Venkateshwara - I didn`t know that Bharat Natyam also celebrates Krishna. But I did hear about many non-Hindus performing it without any Hindu references and associations. So perhaps Farzana might remember that though it began as part of Hindu temple ritual Bharat Natyam is not confined to Hinduism, which was really my point!
My ``nitpicking`` was merely to suggest that it was strange that learning Bharat Natyan inspired Didi`s daughter to think of Krishna as her husband. Perhaps it was Amar chitra katha after all? I know that Indians in the US encourage their children to read these comics in the hope that they pick up something of their religion/culture/whatever. Why did this comment touch Farza to the quick? Did you think I was implying that you were disingenous?
And Farzana, sorry to continue this discussion, but your piece did read as though you thought Hindus were strange creatures. But I`m willing to believe that you didn`t mean that. Don`t you think you could have read over what you`d written a little more carefully to avoid that impression? No, I wasn`t influenced by anything you`d written earlier. And yes, I agree with you that Kamala Das`s so-called conversion hardly seems an authentic one, though she herself might have been quite genuine in her belief. What would you have to say about A. R. Rahman`s conversion, however?
My ``nitpicking`` was merely to suggest that it was strange that learning Bharat Natyan inspired Didi`s daughter to think of Krishna as her husband. Perhaps it was Amar chitra katha after all? I know that Indians in the US encourage their children to read these comics in the hope that they pick up something of their religion/culture/whatever. Why did this comment touch Farza to the quick? Did you think I was implying that you were disingenous?
And Farzana, sorry to continue this discussion, but your piece did read as though you thought Hindus were strange creatures. But I`m willing to believe that you didn`t mean that. Don`t you think you could have read over what you`d written a little more carefully to avoid that impression? No, I wasn`t influenced by anything you`d written earlier. And yes, I agree with you that Kamala Das`s so-called conversion hardly seems an authentic one, though she herself might have been quite genuine in her belief. What would you have to say about A. R. Rahman`s conversion, however?
#123 Posted by Godot on July 2, 2003 6:49:22 am
Re: Farzana, #121
``It means that even when I ``kill`` something, it does not die.``
Seems like you need to get a sharper knife...and, Farzana, why do you torture yourself so much...be happy, the hell with everyone else...
``It means that even when I ``kill`` something, it does not die.``
Seems like you need to get a sharper knife...and, Farzana, why do you torture yourself so much...be happy, the hell with everyone else...
#121 Posted by FarzanaVersey on July 2, 2003 1:57:33 am
Huh? How is this article still on when I took so much trouble to come in and say a few last words...
godot: It means that even when I ``kill`` something, it does not die. And ever thought about it -- agar hum iss thread ko khud maartey tau hum bhi tau mar jaatey...ahem, am in a filmi mood, so...excuse.
nb (#120):
You better agree with me about the bizarre bit, for nowhere does it come across as if I am suggesting Hindus are bizarre. About the wedding and idlis, it was a passing statement and observation by one who thought she was into some adventure, as I did. Of course my family has no problems with S. Indian food, which these days is even cooked at home, so please...
I did not question whether the Prophet would come to Kamala Das` aid, but Allah himself. What I was implying was that since she had `converted` her gods too, from a ras leela Krishna to an austere Prophet, there might be a backlash from the Muslims and then I would like to see if Allah would come to her rescue.
I hope I am clear now.
veeresh: Why are you glad this article is back?? Hey, I can`t say ``kya miyan`` to the paanwalla :( And who is the chamelion here??
godot: It means that even when I ``kill`` something, it does not die. And ever thought about it -- agar hum iss thread ko khud maartey tau hum bhi tau mar jaatey...ahem, am in a filmi mood, so...excuse.
nb (#120):
You better agree with me about the bizarre bit, for nowhere does it come across as if I am suggesting Hindus are bizarre. About the wedding and idlis, it was a passing statement and observation by one who thought she was into some adventure, as I did. Of course my family has no problems with S. Indian food, which these days is even cooked at home, so please...
I did not question whether the Prophet would come to Kamala Das` aid, but Allah himself. What I was implying was that since she had `converted` her gods too, from a ras leela Krishna to an austere Prophet, there might be a backlash from the Muslims and then I would like to see if Allah would come to her rescue.
I hope I am clear now.
veeresh: Why are you glad this article is back?? Hey, I can`t say ``kya miyan`` to the paanwalla :( And who is the chamelion here??
#120 Posted by nb on July 1, 2003 8:01:57 am
Farzana 88,
I still can`t agree with you about the article sounding like you thought Hindus were bizarre,but I can see that you may not have meant that.When you said about Kamala Das that the prophet would not come to her aid, it seemed you were saying that was because she had in essence made him another Hindu God.But that`s fine...I appreciate that you took note of what I was saying and thought about it.
Many Hindus can`t live without meat either,and I can see it would have been a letdown not to have meat at a wedding,but just the once?It seems what really happened was that it brought home again to your family how different her life was going to be,so that even if they would have normally enjoyed idlis,they couldn`t that day.Or again,at least that`s what it sounds like.All families worry about their daughters,why should yours be any exception?
I still can`t agree with you about the article sounding like you thought Hindus were bizarre,but I can see that you may not have meant that.When you said about Kamala Das that the prophet would not come to her aid, it seemed you were saying that was because she had in essence made him another Hindu God.But that`s fine...I appreciate that you took note of what I was saying and thought about it.
Many Hindus can`t live without meat either,and I can see it would have been a letdown not to have meat at a wedding,but just the once?It seems what really happened was that it brought home again to your family how different her life was going to be,so that even if they would have normally enjoyed idlis,they couldn`t that day.Or again,at least that`s what it sounds like.All families worry about their daughters,why should yours be any exception?
#119 Posted by m_souza on June 30, 2003 8:59:37 pm
Studebaker Tipu and company
Now I will compare things with the scenarios in Australia. Obviously like many others, we Indians (of all religions) are a minority here as we are in UK and America but to a lesser extent there.
So, do we Indians keep asserting ourselves all the time? Do we keep shouting at the top of our voices: “Hey ..you aussies..don’t try to change us..don’t u dare try to tell us that we be like you. Don’t expect us to speak English and our women to wear western clothes”. Now we don’t assert all this.
I know am a minority in Australia because I chose to be one. Nor do we keep reminding ourselves ‘we’re a minority, how pathetic’, ‘we’re a minority…oh, what a pity’.
But many others do all this all the time.
The Lebanese Muslims want to own Australia. Their women and kids and men too refuse to change or come out of their ghettos. They are perpetually fighting with the locals. Most of the Pakistani women also refuse to wear any western dress. One of such woman I talked to, clearly expressed her disgust with Aussie women, all the time declaring herself to be the virtuous stay-at-home mum. Why the hell do they stay in democratic countries with versatile religions and culture, if you can’t change?????
On the contrary, Indian women strike a right balance. They maintain their culture and yet are working in good organizations and dress up like any other Aussie (a bit more conservative maybe). And Indian men also adapt. We believe, now that we are a part of a different country so we are the ones who have to adjust as per the language, culture, customs and day-to-day habits of the majority. And yet we have our own groups and social functions. Nobody stops us because we assimilate as well.
Indians started migrating in Australia much later than the Chinese (who are 4 times in numbers than Indians) and also the Lebanese. Even then Indians (esp. Hindus) try to assimilate in the Aussie lifestyle. We celebrate Christmas and Easter just like everyone. My ten-year-old Hindu nephew sometimes gives Christmas greeting cards to everyone in his class just like so many others in his class do. So when he gave it to one Ali (a Lebanese Muslim), he refused saying that in his religion is different. My nephew said, so is mine..so what! At this Ali said that his mum has strictly instructed not to take part in any activity of other religions.
Not to take part in any activity is not too wrong but it isolates the minorities when the whole city is rejoicing in festivities. And the kids of the minorities develop a negative attitude of, ‘we are different they are different’. This negative attitude can clearly be seen in the Lebanese Muslim youth in Aust..as they are very aggressive and revolutionary, are less educated than even newest of Indians. They just can’t adjust in the society, they are always shouting and making a self-pitying torture-story out of every Aussie move..
India, has been a thousand years old Hindu country for most of its existence whereas Australia is a very new country of the migrants, starting from the Anglo-Saxons to the Italians, Chinese and all others. So, no one language/religion/skin color should have greater right than others but they have. Christianity, English language and culture, English ministers and politicians, white CEOs ..yes.. it is a white English country now. But we don’t mind at all.
But currently secular India denies any such greater rights to Hindus, who have had India as the ‘only land’ of their roots, their ancient history, temples Gods etc. Indian Muslims have other lands like Mecca/ Medina to go to and still adore these places as much as or more than they like India. And their prophet himself was from another land. No Hindu ever went to Arabic lands to destroy the holy Muslim places and stay there forever (nor do they want to). Hindus have India to be their only one country to fall back on, as they don’t have any other Mecca-medina to adore. So much difference in situations of both..And yet, SOME Indian Muslims whine so much instead of realizing and analyzing where and why things always go wrong with them..why they can’t strike the balance.
Now, for Parsees in India. They are a class apart, the sensible people. They are really respected by most Indians. Whatever may be the reason, they have assimilated well in the Indian society. Even though they also have their customs and rituals different from those of Hindus, no one dislikes their activities and views. Because history says, they were embraced by India when their own ones turned them out. And the grateful people like they are, they assimilated so well like sugar in milk, as per the saying. Parsees are depleting in numbers and yet we don’t want them to go, we want them to be around us like lovely fragrant roses
But Muslim invaders came via Hindu-kush as ruthless attackers with a totally different attitude. With this kind of bloody background about them, there is a general negative impression about them that can only go with time, which only they themselves can rectify and improve on. SOME Indian Muslims (as some Hindus too) have to learn to be less aggressive and more accommodating so as to win over hearts around them. And once having done that…. once they have accepted India from their inner hearts, then only life can be easy for all. But if some hearts are half in Arabic lands, and have their conspiring confidantes in Pakistan, the situation will drag on…
They also have to accept that like it or not, the reality is that Hindus ARE a majority as they always have been. India is the ‘only land for Hindus’ although not at all ‘a land for only Hindus. If they can’t accept this fact, they only harm themselves…and if Indian Muslims really want to be a majority, well....there are many ‘pure’ Islamic lands around.
Jai Hind !!
Now I will compare things with the scenarios in Australia. Obviously like many others, we Indians (of all religions) are a minority here as we are in UK and America but to a lesser extent there.
So, do we Indians keep asserting ourselves all the time? Do we keep shouting at the top of our voices: “Hey ..you aussies..don’t try to change us..don’t u dare try to tell us that we be like you. Don’t expect us to speak English and our women to wear western clothes”. Now we don’t assert all this.
I know am a minority in Australia because I chose to be one. Nor do we keep reminding ourselves ‘we’re a minority, how pathetic’, ‘we’re a minority…oh, what a pity’.
But many others do all this all the time.
The Lebanese Muslims want to own Australia. Their women and kids and men too refuse to change or come out of their ghettos. They are perpetually fighting with the locals. Most of the Pakistani women also refuse to wear any western dress. One of such woman I talked to, clearly expressed her disgust with Aussie women, all the time declaring herself to be the virtuous stay-at-home mum. Why the hell do they stay in democratic countries with versatile religions and culture, if you can’t change?????
On the contrary, Indian women strike a right balance. They maintain their culture and yet are working in good organizations and dress up like any other Aussie (a bit more conservative maybe). And Indian men also adapt. We believe, now that we are a part of a different country so we are the ones who have to adjust as per the language, culture, customs and day-to-day habits of the majority. And yet we have our own groups and social functions. Nobody stops us because we assimilate as well.
Indians started migrating in Australia much later than the Chinese (who are 4 times in numbers than Indians) and also the Lebanese. Even then Indians (esp. Hindus) try to assimilate in the Aussie lifestyle. We celebrate Christmas and Easter just like everyone. My ten-year-old Hindu nephew sometimes gives Christmas greeting cards to everyone in his class just like so many others in his class do. So when he gave it to one Ali (a Lebanese Muslim), he refused saying that in his religion is different. My nephew said, so is mine..so what! At this Ali said that his mum has strictly instructed not to take part in any activity of other religions.
Not to take part in any activity is not too wrong but it isolates the minorities when the whole city is rejoicing in festivities. And the kids of the minorities develop a negative attitude of, ‘we are different they are different’. This negative attitude can clearly be seen in the Lebanese Muslim youth in Aust..as they are very aggressive and revolutionary, are less educated than even newest of Indians. They just can’t adjust in the society, they are always shouting and making a self-pitying torture-story out of every Aussie move..
India, has been a thousand years old Hindu country for most of its existence whereas Australia is a very new country of the migrants, starting from the Anglo-Saxons to the Italians, Chinese and all others. So, no one language/religion/skin color should have greater right than others but they have. Christianity, English language and culture, English ministers and politicians, white CEOs ..yes.. it is a white English country now. But we don’t mind at all.
But currently secular India denies any such greater rights to Hindus, who have had India as the ‘only land’ of their roots, their ancient history, temples Gods etc. Indian Muslims have other lands like Mecca/ Medina to go to and still adore these places as much as or more than they like India. And their prophet himself was from another land. No Hindu ever went to Arabic lands to destroy the holy Muslim places and stay there forever (nor do they want to). Hindus have India to be their only one country to fall back on, as they don’t have any other Mecca-medina to adore. So much difference in situations of both..And yet, SOME Indian Muslims whine so much instead of realizing and analyzing where and why things always go wrong with them..why they can’t strike the balance.
Now, for Parsees in India. They are a class apart, the sensible people. They are really respected by most Indians. Whatever may be the reason, they have assimilated well in the Indian society. Even though they also have their customs and rituals different from those of Hindus, no one dislikes their activities and views. Because history says, they were embraced by India when their own ones turned them out. And the grateful people like they are, they assimilated so well like sugar in milk, as per the saying. Parsees are depleting in numbers and yet we don’t want them to go, we want them to be around us like lovely fragrant roses
But Muslim invaders came via Hindu-kush as ruthless attackers with a totally different attitude. With this kind of bloody background about them, there is a general negative impression about them that can only go with time, which only they themselves can rectify and improve on. SOME Indian Muslims (as some Hindus too) have to learn to be less aggressive and more accommodating so as to win over hearts around them. And once having done that…. once they have accepted India from their inner hearts, then only life can be easy for all. But if some hearts are half in Arabic lands, and have their conspiring confidantes in Pakistan, the situation will drag on…
They also have to accept that like it or not, the reality is that Hindus ARE a majority as they always have been. India is the ‘only land for Hindus’ although not at all ‘a land for only Hindus. If they can’t accept this fact, they only harm themselves…and if Indian Muslims really want to be a majority, well....there are many ‘pure’ Islamic lands around.
Jai Hind !!
#118 Posted by Studebaker on June 30, 2003 8:59:37 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#117 Posted by m_souza on June 30, 2003 8:59:37 pm
#108 by dost-mittar on June 30, 2003 2:02pm PT
m_souza:
When Muslims say they do not worship the Prophet, they only mean that they do not perform sajda to him; their devotion to their Prophet is much more intense than the devotion of the Christians to their Lord Jesus or of the Hindus to their Lord Ram, Krishna and other avtars. One ought to be extremely careful, which I was not, in order not to offend.
-------------
I agree..this utter devotion is nothing short of sajda..
Hindus themselves have jokes about Krishans gopis or about Lord Rama`s lack of total trust in Seeta which made her go to dharti maa
Recently there was a debate (based on someone`s research) about Jesus being gay.
Definitely, the `blind undoubting pooja` that muslims perform towards the formless idol of the Prophet ...outdoes that of any other group.
But that is `their` wish, we shouldn`t bother...maybe..even if they do about ours...
m_souza:
When Muslims say they do not worship the Prophet, they only mean that they do not perform sajda to him; their devotion to their Prophet is much more intense than the devotion of the Christians to their Lord Jesus or of the Hindus to their Lord Ram, Krishna and other avtars. One ought to be extremely careful, which I was not, in order not to offend.
-------------
I agree..this utter devotion is nothing short of sajda..
Hindus themselves have jokes about Krishans gopis or about Lord Rama`s lack of total trust in Seeta which made her go to dharti maa
Recently there was a debate (based on someone`s research) about Jesus being gay.
Definitely, the `blind undoubting pooja` that muslims perform towards the formless idol of the Prophet ...outdoes that of any other group.
But that is `their` wish, we shouldn`t bother...maybe..even if they do about ours...
#116 Posted by veeresh on June 30, 2003 8:59:37 pm
``Kyaa mian`` slips out as easily as ``yaar pandit``, when asking for a paan bidi cigrut from the neighbourhood kiosks.
``Insha-Allah`` slips out as easily as ``Jai Mata Di``, when starting the journey with a Muslim porter for Vaishno Devi as it does with a Hindu driver for Ajmer.
Good to see this article back. Chameleon?
``Insha-Allah`` slips out as easily as ``Jai Mata Di``, when starting the journey with a Muslim porter for Vaishno Devi as it does with a Hindu driver for Ajmer.
Good to see this article back. Chameleon?
#115 Posted by septran on June 30, 2003 7:03:59 pm
#71 tahmed 32,
i agree with you.GOD HAS CREATED WORLD AND IT``S UP TO US TO EXPLORE IT.
HE IS NOT OFFENDED BY ANY OF OUR ACTIONS.WHY SHOULD HE?BECOZ HE HAS GIVEN US SENSE TO ACT ACCORDINGLY.
i agree with you.GOD HAS CREATED WORLD AND IT``S UP TO US TO EXPLORE IT.
HE IS NOT OFFENDED BY ANY OF OUR ACTIONS.WHY SHOULD HE?BECOZ HE HAS GIVEN US SENSE TO ACT ACCORDINGLY.
#114 Posted by m_souza on June 30, 2003 6:55:15 pm
I remember having taken part in an Urdu Qawaali as a part of my school function..long time ago…”Parda uth ke salaam ho jaaye ..baat ban jaye kaam ho jaaye…aye habeeb mera tujh ko salaam.. aye habeeb mera tujh ko salaam”
And I loved it, the tune, lyrics, the dress(feather wali topi), the ‘adaab style’ we did. I used to hum it the whole day long that time..remembered it for all these years to come and I now taught it to some kids in my family
My cousin was a part of the team dance in India…..an Arabic one with the mouth-covering veil dress..and a ‘dafli’ type chan..chan karta Arabic instrument
….I remember vaguely the song she used to memorise..”Aye habibi khalke-gandam, jashney yaar aya”…some wording like that…And their group got an award..
(O maybe the judges were Arabic muslims…sooooo racist..hoho)
Hohoho..maybe we have become a Muslims by doing these songs/dances…ab kya karun…hare raam hare raam..tauba tauba!!!
(nonono.. tauba is also a Muslim word…hohoho..chchch……kya bolun..what Hindu word to say instead of tauba-tauba?)
And I loved it, the tune, lyrics, the dress(feather wali topi), the ‘adaab style’ we did. I used to hum it the whole day long that time..remembered it for all these years to come and I now taught it to some kids in my family
My cousin was a part of the team dance in India…..an Arabic one with the mouth-covering veil dress..and a ‘dafli’ type chan..chan karta Arabic instrument
….I remember vaguely the song she used to memorise..”Aye habibi khalke-gandam, jashney yaar aya”…some wording like that…And their group got an award..
(O maybe the judges were Arabic muslims…sooooo racist..hoho)
Hohoho..maybe we have become a Muslims by doing these songs/dances…ab kya karun…hare raam hare raam..tauba tauba!!!
(nonono.. tauba is also a Muslim word…hohoho..chchch……kya bolun..what Hindu word to say instead of tauba-tauba?)
#113 Posted by urbashi on June 30, 2003 6:25:25 pm
#110 rsridhar, Leela Samson is a Jew. Sonal Mansingh`s first husband was an Oriya - well, not exactly, but someone belonging to one of the royal families of Orissa, which was originally Rajput, like most royal families in eastern India - hence her surname. All Singhs aren`t Sikhs!
# 112 and all your other posts. Studebaker, why do you get so apoplectic when you talk about Hindus? It really seems as though you have something personal against them! If you feel they`re invariably weird and evil, there are other, and rational, calm, ways to hit out at them, aren`t there?
# 112 and all your other posts. Studebaker, why do you get so apoplectic when you talk about Hindus? It really seems as though you have something personal against them! If you feel they`re invariably weird and evil, there are other, and rational, calm, ways to hit out at them, aren`t there?
#112 Posted by Studebaker on June 30, 2003 3:29:27 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#111 Posted by Inquirer on June 30, 2003 2:50:38 pm
#108, Dost-Mittar to msouza and #102, msouza:
I agree totally with msouza, particularly, in regard to Tipu. Dost-Mittar, it is kind of you to have been sensitive about your inadvertent offence though I do not believe you did any such thing. My experience with Tipu has been replete with crudities on his part. No worthwhile interaction can take place with him so I have stopped responding to his posts.
I agree totally with msouza, particularly, in regard to Tipu. Dost-Mittar, it is kind of you to have been sensitive about your inadvertent offence though I do not believe you did any such thing. My experience with Tipu has been replete with crudities on his part. No worthwhile interaction can take place with him so I have stopped responding to his posts.
#110 Posted by rsridhar on June 30, 2003 2:44:28 pm
re:#92 by dost-mittar
Leela Samson sounds like a christian name. And, wasn`t Sonal Mansingh, the B.N dancer a sikh?
Sridhar
Leela Samson sounds like a christian name. And, wasn`t Sonal Mansingh, the B.N dancer a sikh?
Sridhar
#109 Posted by dost_mittar on June 30, 2003 2:02:21 pm
m_souza:
Tipu is upset about a brief post which he perceived to be a slight to Prophet Mohammed. In retrospect, I should have been more careful.
You and I belong to a tradition where people are not mindful of criticism or jokes about avtars as if they were mere mortals even though they are worshipped as incarnations of God . I have been on chowk long enough to have known that this is not so with the Muslims and Prophet Mohammed, even though he is supposed to be a mere mortal. When Muslims say they do not worship the Prophet, they only mean that they do not perform sajda to him; their devotion to their Prophet is much more intense than the devotion of the Christians to their Lord Jesus or of the Hindus to their Lord Ram, Krishna and other avtars. One ought to be extremely careful, which I was not, in order not to offend.
Tipu is upset about a brief post which he perceived to be a slight to Prophet Mohammed. In retrospect, I should have been more careful.
You and I belong to a tradition where people are not mindful of criticism or jokes about avtars as if they were mere mortals even though they are worshipped as incarnations of God . I have been on chowk long enough to have known that this is not so with the Muslims and Prophet Mohammed, even though he is supposed to be a mere mortal. When Muslims say they do not worship the Prophet, they only mean that they do not perform sajda to him; their devotion to their Prophet is much more intense than the devotion of the Christians to their Lord Jesus or of the Hindus to their Lord Ram, Krishna and other avtars. One ought to be extremely careful, which I was not, in order not to offend.
#108 Posted by Godot on June 30, 2003 2:02:21 pm
Farzana, it`s too bad you killed it so quickly. It`s a good debate...oh, well, maybe some other time. Be well.
#107 Posted by FarzanaVersey on June 30, 2003 12:32:07 pm
godot (#99):
If one has a pre-meditated destination in mind, then a path works. But if discovery is the goal, then one cannot walk on the straight road and count milestones. One would veer towards unknown territory. Since one has chosen it, it cannot make you miserable. Does it bring solace? That depends on what one finds. Sometimes, what we have and that we call stability causes us more misery.
This thread will be out soon...so thank you for engaging me in an `off-the-beaten-track` dialogue:)
If one has a pre-meditated destination in mind, then a path works. But if discovery is the goal, then one cannot walk on the straight road and count milestones. One would veer towards unknown territory. Since one has chosen it, it cannot make you miserable. Does it bring solace? That depends on what one finds. Sometimes, what we have and that we call stability causes us more misery.
This thread will be out soon...so thank you for engaging me in an `off-the-beaten-track` dialogue:)
#106 Posted by harimau on June 30, 2003 9:45:14 am
Ref Meen-kari-kuzhambu #100
[Harimau:
I cannot decide which is worse: your reading comprehension or your crudeness in refering to Farzana the you have been.]
EVERYBODY, at least mostly everybody, gets a moniker from me. Farzana, depending on the context, is FartsAnna, Impacted Wisdom Tooth, etc. I myself have been called HaramiOu and I accept that with a smile.
As to deciding which is worse, you might want to refer to Doctor Artist Leader`s latest publication, an explanation of Tolkappiyam. If that book on Tamil grammar doesn`t explain everything in the universe as it is supposed to, you should then consult Father Big Man`s political writings for the sneakiness and snake-iness of brahmins.
[You`re a coward to hide behind the anonymity of the board while making fun of her name.]
Are we to presume that your parents named you Soysauce? That is entirely within the realm of possibility and I presume your sister is named Ketchup. That would be a tough choice, wouldn`t it; having to choose between Ketchup and Tamil Arasi?
[Harimau:
I cannot decide which is worse: your reading comprehension or your crudeness in refering to Farzana the you have been.]
EVERYBODY, at least mostly everybody, gets a moniker from me. Farzana, depending on the context, is FartsAnna, Impacted Wisdom Tooth, etc. I myself have been called HaramiOu and I accept that with a smile.
As to deciding which is worse, you might want to refer to Doctor Artist Leader`s latest publication, an explanation of Tolkappiyam. If that book on Tamil grammar doesn`t explain everything in the universe as it is supposed to, you should then consult Father Big Man`s political writings for the sneakiness and snake-iness of brahmins.
[You`re a coward to hide behind the anonymity of the board while making fun of her name.]
Are we to presume that your parents named you Soysauce? That is entirely within the realm of possibility and I presume your sister is named Ketchup. That would be a tough choice, wouldn`t it; having to choose between Ketchup and Tamil Arasi?
#105 Posted by harimau on June 30, 2003 9:45:14 am
Ref Karuvattu-kuzhambu #100
[#78 rsridhar
... Since even a student could observe the apparent effects of close marriage, it surely must have been studied with respect to tamils & brahmins. Why don`t you post something to that effect?]
Hey, you are the one who said that consanguinous marriages are common among Tamil brahmins. It is up to you to prove it.
Clue for the Clueless: Try a google search and see what you can find.
[#78 rsridhar
... Since even a student could observe the apparent effects of close marriage, it surely must have been studied with respect to tamils & brahmins. Why don`t you post something to that effect?]
Hey, you are the one who said that consanguinous marriages are common among Tamil brahmins. It is up to you to prove it.
Clue for the Clueless: Try a google search and see what you can find.
#104 Posted by Studebaker on June 30, 2003 8:55:02 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#103 Posted by Tipu on June 30, 2003 7:04:53 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#102 Posted by Tipu on June 30, 2003 7:04:43 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#101 Posted by m_souza on June 30, 2003 7:04:43 am
dost mittar ji
I feel no amount of your rational thinking or your polite explanations will go into the heads like Tipu etc..because they don`t want it to. They just can`t see what you are trying to say
If you give an example of some nice Indira Rehman and how she balanced her life with her secualar attitude..then this Tipu assumes you are telling all muslims to do bharatnatyam..
This is the major `defect` in their attitude..as long as it remains..nothing can be done about anything..
Anyway..keep trying..
I feel no amount of your rational thinking or your polite explanations will go into the heads like Tipu etc..because they don`t want it to. They just can`t see what you are trying to say
If you give an example of some nice Indira Rehman and how she balanced her life with her secualar attitude..then this Tipu assumes you are telling all muslims to do bharatnatyam..
This is the major `defect` in their attitude..as long as it remains..nothing can be done about anything..
Anyway..keep trying..
#100 Posted by Godot on June 30, 2003 7:04:42 am
Re: Farzana, 98
Yes, but it`s also known and predictable. There are enough problems in life as it is. Why
make life miserable? At times boring is good and healthy, skipping a beat means you have a deadly heart poblem. Straying off the beaten path does not necessarily brings solace. The path has emerged for good reasons.
Yes, but it`s also known and predictable. There are enough problems in life as it is. Why
make life miserable? At times boring is good and healthy, skipping a beat means you have a deadly heart poblem. Straying off the beaten path does not necessarily brings solace. The path has emerged for good reasons.
#99 Posted by soysauce on June 30, 2003 7:04:42 am
#78 rsridhar
Traditions are just that. They are not based on need. You probably didn`t know anyone who died a ``dowry death`` or was sexually molested or abused. Does that mean these things don`t exist? As they say, the cat closed its eyes and thought it was night time...
Since even a student could observe the apparent effects of close marriage, it surely must have been studied with respect to tamils & brahmins. Why don`t you post something to that effect?
Harimau:
I cannot decide which is worse: your reading comprehension or your crudeness in refering to Farzana the you have been. You`re a coward to hide behind the anonymity of the board while making fun of her name.
Traditions are just that. They are not based on need. You probably didn`t know anyone who died a ``dowry death`` or was sexually molested or abused. Does that mean these things don`t exist? As they say, the cat closed its eyes and thought it was night time...
Since even a student could observe the apparent effects of close marriage, it surely must have been studied with respect to tamils & brahmins. Why don`t you post something to that effect?
Harimau:
I cannot decide which is worse: your reading comprehension or your crudeness in refering to Farzana the you have been. You`re a coward to hide behind the anonymity of the board while making fun of her name.
#98 Posted by FarzanaVersey on June 30, 2003 1:02:26 am
godot:stability leashes you; homogeneity is linear and boring - it makes you take slow calculated steps when you want to skip (a beat?)...
#97 Posted by Tipu on June 30, 2003 12:03:08 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#96 Posted by Tipu on June 30, 2003 12:03:08 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#95 Posted by Tipu on June 30, 2003 12:03:08 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#94 Posted by Tipu on June 30, 2003 12:03:08 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#92 Posted by dost_mittar on June 29, 2003 4:28:14 pm
bharat natyam and conversion:
Back in the 1950s the name most associated with Bharat Natyam was Indrani Rehman. From the name it would appear that she was a Hindu married to a Muslim. If so, her devotion to Hindu gods did not prevent her from marrtying a muslim.
Back in the 1950s the name most associated with Bharat Natyam was Indrani Rehman. From the name it would appear that she was a Hindu married to a Muslim. If so, her devotion to Hindu gods did not prevent her from marrtying a muslim.
#91 Posted by rsridhar on June 29, 2003 8:05:38 am
re: bharata-natyam versus religion
Talking of sheema Kirmani, she is both a Kathak and bharata-natyam dancer.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010822/edit.htm#8
``Kirmani studied classical dance forms in India with Leela Samson of the Kalakshetra, Mayadhar Raut at the Bhartiya Kala Kendra in Delhi and returned in 1990 on a one-year scholarship to train under Guru Aloka Pannikar at Art Kendra, also in New Delhi.``
Leela Samson is a bharata-natyam dancer. Kala Kshetra is the institute set up by Rukmini Arundale and is kind of a trend setter in this form of dance tho` there are other dance institutes and exponents who do not necessarily like Kalakshetra.
Ms Kirmani faced the classic charge which one would expect a Pakitani artist to face. Her dance was dubbed unislamic by Zia-ul-Haq. Her`s is an epic struggle against all odds. How did Bharata-natyam become unislamic? How was Zia qualified to say what is islamic and what is not? One has to ask Zia but unfortunately he is not around. Meanwhile art scenario suffered a lot in Pak.
A lot of Krishna imagery and symbolism exists in both Kathak and Natyam mainly because Krishna as an icon is very popular. Krishna the playboy, krishna the truant child who breaks pots and steals butter and so on. All these have been sung into songs and woven into dance forms in the past. In Islam, symbolism is discouraged,so it is impossible to get any islamic theme into a dance form. Christianity is waking up recently but it too had discouraged symbolism in the past. Dance is a way of artistic expression and has nothing to do with religion.
Sridhar
Talking of sheema Kirmani, she is both a Kathak and bharata-natyam dancer.
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010822/edit.htm#8
``Kirmani studied classical dance forms in India with Leela Samson of the Kalakshetra, Mayadhar Raut at the Bhartiya Kala Kendra in Delhi and returned in 1990 on a one-year scholarship to train under Guru Aloka Pannikar at Art Kendra, also in New Delhi.``
Leela Samson is a bharata-natyam dancer. Kala Kshetra is the institute set up by Rukmini Arundale and is kind of a trend setter in this form of dance tho` there are other dance institutes and exponents who do not necessarily like Kalakshetra.
Ms Kirmani faced the classic charge which one would expect a Pakitani artist to face. Her dance was dubbed unislamic by Zia-ul-Haq. Her`s is an epic struggle against all odds. How did Bharata-natyam become unislamic? How was Zia qualified to say what is islamic and what is not? One has to ask Zia but unfortunately he is not around. Meanwhile art scenario suffered a lot in Pak.
A lot of Krishna imagery and symbolism exists in both Kathak and Natyam mainly because Krishna as an icon is very popular. Krishna the playboy, krishna the truant child who breaks pots and steals butter and so on. All these have been sung into songs and woven into dance forms in the past. In Islam, symbolism is discouraged,so it is impossible to get any islamic theme into a dance form. Christianity is waking up recently but it too had discouraged symbolism in the past. Dance is a way of artistic expression and has nothing to do with religion.
Sridhar
#90 Posted by subroto on June 29, 2003 8:05:38 am
Convert shanvert who gives a .... oops my apologies a lot of people apparently - judging from the responses. Well all I care is that this time when I go to India my muslim cousin better get married (preferable at the same place where his elder brother did)....Ah the food..Yummm..
#89 Posted by harimau on June 29, 2003 8:05:38 am
Ref FarzanaVersey on #87
[Some people have been nitpicking that if my niece learned Bharat Natyam then why did she talk about Krishna, who is celebrated in Kathak.]
Tales of Krishna are told in Bharatha Natyam too; Krishna is not the sole possession of North Indians. ``Krishna Nee Begane Baro`` (``Krishna, Come Quickly``) , ``Thaye Yasodha`` (O, Mother Yasodha``), ``Theeratha Vilayattu Pillai`` (``Endlessly Playful Child``) are all songs to which Bharatha Natyam dancers dance.
I think I have mentioned earlier that there was a dance ``arangetram`` (first public performance) by a male Muslim dancer in Chennai who chose songs dedicated to Nature to avoid any possibility of paying obeisance to Hindu gods.
Alarmel Valli performed in the US recently. Except for the invocatory piece, all songs were selected from the Tamil anthology Pura Nanooru (400 Poems of the External World) which don`t reference any gods. It is entirely possible to dance Bharatha Natyam without reference to any Hindu gods, though personally I think it will be fun to see how may seconds a dancer can balance himself/herself on one foot when dancing to a song about Siva Nataraja such as ``Natanam Adinar`` (He Danced``).
PS. Zafar Al-Talib, Valli fan, eat your heart out.
[Some people have been nitpicking that if my niece learned Bharat Natyam then why did she talk about Krishna, who is celebrated in Kathak.]
Tales of Krishna are told in Bharatha Natyam too; Krishna is not the sole possession of North Indians. ``Krishna Nee Begane Baro`` (``Krishna, Come Quickly``) , ``Thaye Yasodha`` (O, Mother Yasodha``), ``Theeratha Vilayattu Pillai`` (``Endlessly Playful Child``) are all songs to which Bharatha Natyam dancers dance.
I think I have mentioned earlier that there was a dance ``arangetram`` (first public performance) by a male Muslim dancer in Chennai who chose songs dedicated to Nature to avoid any possibility of paying obeisance to Hindu gods.
Alarmel Valli performed in the US recently. Except for the invocatory piece, all songs were selected from the Tamil anthology Pura Nanooru (400 Poems of the External World) which don`t reference any gods. It is entirely possible to dance Bharatha Natyam without reference to any Hindu gods, though personally I think it will be fun to see how may seconds a dancer can balance himself/herself on one foot when dancing to a song about Siva Nataraja such as ``Natanam Adinar`` (He Danced``).
PS. Zafar Al-Talib, Valli fan, eat your heart out.
#88 Posted by FarzanaVersey on June 29, 2003 2:22:16 am
I have no idea where some of the stuff is coming from, but as people have been honest enough to admit that they are going by my previous articles, I suppose I should have expected this.
My position is against conversions, and I have stated it in an earlier post. That is the crux. And it applies to Kamala Das’ to Islam as much as Didi’s to Hinduism. And yes, there will be two sides, two warm stories, a lot of twos in life. I was/am clear about this. If anyone wants to probe and impute motives, it reveals more about them than about me.
Re. this article: One has been born, bred and lived in India all along, and I am fairly confident about Indian mythology not to confuse my culture with religion. However, Bharat Natyam was a temple dance form.(The Pakistani, Sheema Kirmani, is a Kathak dancer.) People are learning it (and if my mother had my way, I would have too…so why did I not? Was I ‘communal’ even as a child? Heck, I did not want anything to intrude into my playtime…). But it does have a religious base – invoking certain gods. Some people have been nitpicking that if my niece learned Bharat Natyam then why did she talk about Krishna, who is celebrated in Kathak. I don’t see how it is assumed that every member of my family walks only on one track! She was obviously being taught about various deities, and anyone with access to even Amar Chitra Katha comics can gather enough information. Besides, Kamala Das, a South Indian, too speaks about
Krishna…For that matter, we have been provided an enlightened reason here itself: “Perhaps your Didi didn`t want her daughter to think of herself as a child bride to Prophet Muhammad. Sometimes, reality is too harsh to contemplate.” So there…
Was Didi forced into Hinduism? I wrote in post #38: “In India, even among educated urban families, the girl is always co-opted, whether she converts or not. Didi probably converted to fulfill her mother-in-law’s wish, but having never lived in the joint family and in fact in an open society, I could not understand her attitude. It does not appear that she resents it at all. In fact, she is clearly anti-Islamic as seen from the Western point of view.”
I believe that cross-cultural marriages should result in osmosis, and that is why I am disappointed with my cousin. And her alone. In her absence, we stay in touch with her in-laws and share a warm relationship with them. Please understand, with them it is understood that they are the ‘other’ as we are for them, so the expectations are not fuzzy.
When I mentioned the family’s attempt at trying to appreciate idlis etc as delicacies, it was not arrogance. Come on, I don’t know many Muslims who can do without meat and if anything I was looking on wryly at my family and not at the other family or their food, which I personally relish. But all those many years ago, the only avenue for such food was in homes of people or Udipi restaurants…it is a matter of exposure. If a Brahmin were to look at a plate of biryani with disgust I would perfectly understand it. So, stop implying that “you seem to be saying that Hindus are bizarre, whether born or made!” There has been no reference about my pulling up Kamala Das and wondering whether Allah would ever come to her rescue. It is not kosher to acknowledge this from me, right?
Re. author: She is touched that Chowk interactors ‘know’ her so well. She writes about the ills in Indian society, and she is seen as a pro-Pakistani jihadi; she writes about being an Aga Khani and she is said to be an “aadha mussalman”; and she writes about her Hindu connection and we get the great analysis, “But what Farzana is really looking for is approval from the Hindu side of audience. Or, more accurately a proof that she cannot get approval ever from the ‘other’ side.” So, taking all this into account, the author will never get approval from any side and spend the rest of her life rearranging spoons. (Never mind that author occasionally likes to use her fingers while eating…she will rearrange her hands, no problem….)
Btw, “obsessional neurotic” is tautology. Just neurotic or obsessive would do. Thank you.
My position is against conversions, and I have stated it in an earlier post. That is the crux. And it applies to Kamala Das’ to Islam as much as Didi’s to Hinduism. And yes, there will be two sides, two warm stories, a lot of twos in life. I was/am clear about this. If anyone wants to probe and impute motives, it reveals more about them than about me.
Re. this article: One has been born, bred and lived in India all along, and I am fairly confident about Indian mythology not to confuse my culture with religion. However, Bharat Natyam was a temple dance form.(The Pakistani, Sheema Kirmani, is a Kathak dancer.) People are learning it (and if my mother had my way, I would have too…so why did I not? Was I ‘communal’ even as a child? Heck, I did not want anything to intrude into my playtime…). But it does have a religious base – invoking certain gods. Some people have been nitpicking that if my niece learned Bharat Natyam then why did she talk about Krishna, who is celebrated in Kathak. I don’t see how it is assumed that every member of my family walks only on one track! She was obviously being taught about various deities, and anyone with access to even Amar Chitra Katha comics can gather enough information. Besides, Kamala Das, a South Indian, too speaks about
Krishna…For that matter, we have been provided an enlightened reason here itself: “Perhaps your Didi didn`t want her daughter to think of herself as a child bride to Prophet Muhammad. Sometimes, reality is too harsh to contemplate.” So there…
Was Didi forced into Hinduism? I wrote in post #38: “In India, even among educated urban families, the girl is always co-opted, whether she converts or not. Didi probably converted to fulfill her mother-in-law’s wish, but having never lived in the joint family and in fact in an open society, I could not understand her attitude. It does not appear that she resents it at all. In fact, she is clearly anti-Islamic as seen from the Western point of view.”
I believe that cross-cultural marriages should result in osmosis, and that is why I am disappointed with my cousin. And her alone. In her absence, we stay in touch with her in-laws and share a warm relationship with them. Please understand, with them it is understood that they are the ‘other’ as we are for them, so the expectations are not fuzzy.
When I mentioned the family’s attempt at trying to appreciate idlis etc as delicacies, it was not arrogance. Come on, I don’t know many Muslims who can do without meat and if anything I was looking on wryly at my family and not at the other family or their food, which I personally relish. But all those many years ago, the only avenue for such food was in homes of people or Udipi restaurants…it is a matter of exposure. If a Brahmin were to look at a plate of biryani with disgust I would perfectly understand it. So, stop implying that “you seem to be saying that Hindus are bizarre, whether born or made!” There has been no reference about my pulling up Kamala Das and wondering whether Allah would ever come to her rescue. It is not kosher to acknowledge this from me, right?
Re. author: She is touched that Chowk interactors ‘know’ her so well. She writes about the ills in Indian society, and she is seen as a pro-Pakistani jihadi; she writes about being an Aga Khani and she is said to be an “aadha mussalman”; and she writes about her Hindu connection and we get the great analysis, “But what Farzana is really looking for is approval from the Hindu side of audience. Or, more accurately a proof that she cannot get approval ever from the ‘other’ side.” So, taking all this into account, the author will never get approval from any side and spend the rest of her life rearranging spoons. (Never mind that author occasionally likes to use her fingers while eating…she will rearrange her hands, no problem….)
Btw, “obsessional neurotic” is tautology. Just neurotic or obsessive would do. Thank you.
#87 Posted by FarzanaVersey on June 29, 2003 2:22:16 am
If anyone is interested, this is an excerpt from an old column of mine in Rediff (http://www.rediff.com/style/jun/16farz.htm):
``Secularism, in our contemporary context, is not a virtue. It is a Necessity. It should be propagated in the same way as family planning, self-reliance, ecology, health care and adult education, instead of a morally right position.
Those who marry across religions must be given similar privileges as those reserved for the scheduled castes and tribes. Their offspring should be provided state backup, whether in education, health or taxation. In fact, the state must encourage private elite institutions where these children can be educated without being tainted by our national obsession with party vengeance.``
``Secularism, in our contemporary context, is not a virtue. It is a Necessity. It should be propagated in the same way as family planning, self-reliance, ecology, health care and adult education, instead of a morally right position.
Those who marry across religions must be given similar privileges as those reserved for the scheduled castes and tribes. Their offspring should be provided state backup, whether in education, health or taxation. In fact, the state must encourage private elite institutions where these children can be educated without being tainted by our national obsession with party vengeance.``
#86 Posted by einsteinwallah on June 28, 2003 3:06:45 pm
[#69 by AlephNull on June 27, 2003 7:05pm PT
...One cannot restrict the activity of persuasion – in any domain - without limiting the right to free speech, which underlies all free societies. ]
I think so some restriction on acts of persuasuion should be put. They should not be coercive or terroristic. I would certainly not want to live in fear if I ask a proselytizing priest (accosting me on road or pestering me at my own home) to go away. I think so all preaching on public roads should be banned. I do not see such bans as limiting free speech. A preacher may preach on TV or private halls, he may advertise in newspaper but should never be allowed to be public nuisance.
...One cannot restrict the activity of persuasion – in any domain - without limiting the right to free speech, which underlies all free societies. ]
I think so some restriction on acts of persuasuion should be put. They should not be coercive or terroristic. I would certainly not want to live in fear if I ask a proselytizing priest (accosting me on road or pestering me at my own home) to go away. I think so all preaching on public roads should be banned. I do not see such bans as limiting free speech. A preacher may preach on TV or private halls, he may advertise in newspaper but should never be allowed to be public nuisance.
#85 Posted by einsteinwallah on June 28, 2003 3:06:45 pm
[#83 by rsridhar on June 28, 2003 10:58am PT
Thanx for posting the lyrics. Simply beautiful. Goes to show how versatile Sahir was. He had good command of Hindi despite being a Urdu poet.
Only one correction. I believe (if my memory serves me well) the song is from Sariswatichandra and not Chitralekha. I may be wrong. ]
The song is from Chitralekha. That much I am very very sure. Besides the credit info was from the website from where I got the lyrics. So it was not like I was making an error in recalling. I found same credits elsewhere also.
Probably Saraswatichandra song you are confusing this with is probably following:
Chhod De Saari Duniya Kissi Ke Liye
Thanx for posting the lyrics. Simply beautiful. Goes to show how versatile Sahir was. He had good command of Hindi despite being a Urdu poet.
Only one correction. I believe (if my memory serves me well) the song is from Sariswatichandra and not Chitralekha. I may be wrong. ]
The song is from Chitralekha. That much I am very very sure. Besides the credit info was from the website from where I got the lyrics. So it was not like I was making an error in recalling. I found same credits elsewhere also.
Probably Saraswatichandra song you are confusing this with is probably following:
Chhod De Saari Duniya Kissi Ke Liye
#84 Posted by einsteinwallah on June 28, 2003 11:31:19 am
Ultimately conversion represents ``separation anxiety``. Person converting is thought as leaving children of her former religion. Like a mother abondoning her children.
All communications which are by design and intention ``kind of, sort of`` broadcast communications are unltimately communication to mother. All show of maturity is like saying to mother: ``Look ma, no hands`` like you would say when you perform a magic trick to impress your mother. In this piece also Farzana makes a show of maturity. She knows Brat, Saminsha etc will declare her piece as great, enlightening, interesting blah blah. But what Farzana is really looking for is approval from the Hindu side of audience. Or, more accurately a proof that she cannot get approval ever from the ``other`` side.
Also here is a half hearted attempt to combine two stories which fails. They are becoming ``two warm stories`` instead. Farzana will continue writing such pieces for ever and ever attempting to combine two stories but like an obsessional neurotic who keeps rearranging spoons on dining table and who becomes disturbed when slightest disorder is percieved when entire rearranging must re-begin... Just like that neurotic she will continue writing such ``two stories``.
All communications which are by design and intention ``kind of, sort of`` broadcast communications are unltimately communication to mother. All show of maturity is like saying to mother: ``Look ma, no hands`` like you would say when you perform a magic trick to impress your mother. In this piece also Farzana makes a show of maturity. She knows Brat, Saminsha etc will declare her piece as great, enlightening, interesting blah blah. But what Farzana is really looking for is approval from the Hindu side of audience. Or, more accurately a proof that she cannot get approval ever from the ``other`` side.
Also here is a half hearted attempt to combine two stories which fails. They are becoming ``two warm stories`` instead. Farzana will continue writing such pieces for ever and ever attempting to combine two stories but like an obsessional neurotic who keeps rearranging spoons on dining table and who becomes disturbed when slightest disorder is percieved when entire rearranging must re-begin... Just like that neurotic she will continue writing such ``two stories``.
#83 Posted by rsridhar on June 28, 2003 10:58:00 am
re: # 75
Did in that post should read as ``Didi`` meaning sister. Sorry for the error.
Sridhar
Did in that post should read as ``Didi`` meaning sister. Sorry for the error.
Sridhar
#82 Posted by rsridhar on June 28, 2003 10:58:00 am
re:#73 by einsteinwallah
Thanx for posting the lyrics. Simply beautiful. Goes to show how versatile Sahir was. He had good command of Hindi despite being a Urdu poet.
Only one correction. I believe (if my memory serves me well) the song is from Sariswatichandra and not Chitralekha. I may be wrong.
Sridhar
Thanx for posting the lyrics. Simply beautiful. Goes to show how versatile Sahir was. He had good command of Hindi despite being a Urdu poet.
Only one correction. I believe (if my memory serves me well) the song is from Sariswatichandra and not Chitralekha. I may be wrong.
Sridhar
#81 Posted by tahmed32 on June 28, 2003 9:03:04 am
dost mittar #77 ``What true believer would use `he` for `Him`?) ``
God does not sweat the small stuff. :-)
God does not sweat the small stuff. :-)
#80 Posted by einsteinwallah on June 28, 2003 9:03:03 am
[#77 by dost-mittar on June 28, 2003 8:15am PT
...
That song is attributed to Sahir but I dont think it was actually written by him. Some of Sahir`s `shudh` hindi songs were rumoured to be written by his buddy Prakash Pandit (some people claimed he was more than a buddy!).
Your translation could perhaps stand a little improvement. Anyway, it`s a brave attempt. ]
Thanks for the info and appreciation. I also suspected that it is probably not Sahir`s work. In the least he must have got help on Hindi. I translated to convey meaning, and agree that it was badly done.
...
That song is attributed to Sahir but I dont think it was actually written by him. Some of Sahir`s `shudh` hindi songs were rumoured to be written by his buddy Prakash Pandit (some people claimed he was more than a buddy!).
Your translation could perhaps stand a little improvement. Anyway, it`s a brave attempt. ]
Thanks for the info and appreciation. I also suspected that it is probably not Sahir`s work. In the least he must have got help on Hindi. I translated to convey meaning, and agree that it was badly done.
#79 Posted by rsridhar on June 28, 2003 9:03:03 am
#re: Bharata-natyam
I am intrigued. How did an art form like Bharata-natyam get associated with religion? This is just art. A lot of westerners are learning it. One Pakistani woman has made a career out of it (Ms Kirmani?).
However, it is a fact that Bharata-natyam has been resurrected to art form by the likes of Rukmini Arundale, Balasaraswati who were all hindus. I read an article in one of the Indian magazines how this art form has been completely taken over by brahmins. As if this is a sin! Brahmins have sanctified an artform that was the preserve of Devdasis. Now, middle class brahmin girls are learning it with gusto. There are umpteen number of dance schools run by brahmin dancers in Madras itself. So, the inevitable has happened. Because brahmins were so closely associated with this dance form, it has taken a religious hue. Who is preventing the muslims or christians from learning this dance form?
I also read somewhere that the Christian churches are now recommending bharata natyam to be used as a form of worship to Jesus Christ, much like it is for Krishna or Rama. How much more stupid can one get!
Here is one Tambrahm`s (for the uninitiated, Tambrahm means ``tamil brahmin``) take on the dance scenario on the cultural capital of India viz Chennai (Madras, for the uninitiated). I liked the concluding para of this article.
url:
http://www.indianexpress.com/columnists/renuka/20020129.html
``The performing arts are demanding taskmasters. Individuals have to come forward and make an effort. Whoever does, according to talent, invariably gets noticed, because the concert scene in Chennai is structured to give newcomers a chance. And the neo-classical beat goes on, be it a steel-spined Malavika Sarukkai (TamBrahm) or a pure-lined Alarmel Valli, Meenakshi Chitharanjan and Urmila Satyanarayanan (not). Can you tell? Do you care? Lots of people, whatever their caste, may learn an art. But only a very few make it to the magic league. For the untalented and the parasitic to distort history and conveniently blame their mediocrity on “TamBrahm monopoly” is a peculiar degree of silliness. Or is it like how Bal Thackeray needs Muslims and Pakistan needs India, to define personal identity?``.
Sridhar
sridhar
I am intrigued. How did an art form like Bharata-natyam get associated with religion? This is just art. A lot of westerners are learning it. One Pakistani woman has made a career out of it (Ms Kirmani?).
However, it is a fact that Bharata-natyam has been resurrected to art form by the likes of Rukmini Arundale, Balasaraswati who were all hindus. I read an article in one of the Indian magazines how this art form has been completely taken over by brahmins. As if this is a sin! Brahmins have sanctified an artform that was the preserve of Devdasis. Now, middle class brahmin girls are learning it with gusto. There are umpteen number of dance schools run by brahmin dancers in Madras itself. So, the inevitable has happened. Because brahmins were so closely associated with this dance form, it has taken a religious hue. Who is preventing the muslims or christians from learning this dance form?
I also read somewhere that the Christian churches are now recommending bharata natyam to be used as a form of worship to Jesus Christ, much like it is for Krishna or Rama. How much more stupid can one get!
Here is one Tambrahm`s (for the uninitiated, Tambrahm means ``tamil brahmin``) take on the dance scenario on the cultural capital of India viz Chennai (Madras, for the uninitiated). I liked the concluding para of this article.
url:
http://www.indianexpress.com/columnists/renuka/20020129.html
``The performing arts are demanding taskmasters. Individuals have to come forward and make an effort. Whoever does, according to talent, invariably gets noticed, because the concert scene in Chennai is structured to give newcomers a chance. And the neo-classical beat goes on, be it a steel-spined Malavika Sarukkai (TamBrahm) or a pure-lined Alarmel Valli, Meenakshi Chitharanjan and Urmila Satyanarayanan (not). Can you tell? Do you care? Lots of people, whatever their caste, may learn an art. But only a very few make it to the magic league. For the untalented and the parasitic to distort history and conveniently blame their mediocrity on “TamBrahm monopoly” is a peculiar degree of silliness. Or is it like how Bal Thackeray needs Muslims and Pakistan needs India, to define personal identity?``.
Sridhar
sridhar
#78 Posted by dost_mittar on June 28, 2003 8:15:24 am
Alephnull#68&69
When I said that religious beliefs should not be an irreversible process and that people`s religious affliation should be similar to their political affliation, I also implied that people should be able to publicly discuss and promote their ideas regarding spirituality and philosophy of afterlife. But I would like to make a distinction between propagation and prosleytisation. I do not mind a TV evangelist doing his thing on the TV where I have the option to switch him on or off or in a church or a public place where I have the option to go or not to go, but I do object to someone pestering me at home all the time or to missionaries going to Iraq to trade in the miseries of the unfortunate people and sell religion in the garb of humanitarian aid.
As regards identities and unmerited recognition and protection, this is not true of all socieites. In countries like Japan, Korea (Rev. Moon notwithstanding!) and China, one`s identity is not tied to one`s religious beliefs. In the West the protection now seems to matter less and less. I think this protection may have been due to a historical link between religion and morality; this link is becoming weaker and weaker - for better or for worse, the society does not seem to shirk from questioning traditional morality based on religion on issues such as abortion, sodomy, homosexuality or euthanasia. Everything is now up for discussion. The West has once again fullly rediscovered its Greek roots of debate on the great issues not only of matter but also of spirit.
When I said that religious beliefs should not be an irreversible process and that people`s religious affliation should be similar to their political affliation, I also implied that people should be able to publicly discuss and promote their ideas regarding spirituality and philosophy of afterlife. But I would like to make a distinction between propagation and prosleytisation. I do not mind a TV evangelist doing his thing on the TV where I have the option to switch him on or off or in a church or a public place where I have the option to go or not to go, but I do object to someone pestering me at home all the time or to missionaries going to Iraq to trade in the miseries of the unfortunate people and sell religion in the garb of humanitarian aid.
As regards identities and unmerited recognition and protection, this is not true of all socieites. In countries like Japan, Korea (Rev. Moon notwithstanding!) and China, one`s identity is not tied to one`s religious beliefs. In the West the protection now seems to matter less and less. I think this protection may have been due to a historical link between religion and morality; this link is becoming weaker and weaker - for better or for worse, the society does not seem to shirk from questioning traditional morality based on religion on issues such as abortion, sodomy, homosexuality or euthanasia. Everything is now up for discussion. The West has once again fullly rediscovered its Greek roots of debate on the great issues not only of matter but also of spirit.
#77 Posted by dost_mittar on June 28, 2003 8:15:24 am
tahmed32#73:
Assuming there is a God, I agree with you.
I sometimes wonder if you are a true believer. (What true believer would use `he` for `Him`?)
einsteinwalla#73
That song is attributed to Sahir but I dont think it was actually written by him. Some of Sahir`s `shudh` hindi songs were rumoured to be written by his buddy Prakash Pandit (some people claimed he was more than a buddy!).
Your translation could perhaps stand a little improvement. Anyway, it`s a brave attempt.
Assuming there is a God, I agree with you.
I sometimes wonder if you are a true believer. (What true believer would use `he` for `Him`?)
einsteinwalla#73
That song is attributed to Sahir but I dont think it was actually written by him. Some of Sahir`s `shudh` hindi songs were rumoured to be written by his buddy Prakash Pandit (some people claimed he was more than a buddy!).
Your translation could perhaps stand a little improvement. Anyway, it`s a brave attempt.
#76 Posted by rsridhar on June 28, 2003 8:15:24 am
re:#61 by soysauce
South Indian brahmins (especially Tamilians) are scattered across the country and outside. Most of the professional Tamilians in USA are brahmins. With mobilisation and better education, marriage practices have changed over the years. There is no need to marry one`s cousin or uncle or whatever. These practices probably existed in the past when society had not advanced and mobilisation was difficult. So, a bride or a bridegroom did not have to look far for a partner.
I do not know even one Tamil brahmin who has married his/her cousin or uncle. Lack of progress in many non-brahmin communities in T.N as well as glorification of this practice (as pointed out by Harimou) in movies etc ensured that the practice survives among non-brahmins. When i was doing my post-graduate studies in Madras (ICH, Egmore) many years ago, i used to be baffled by the number of consaguinous marriages in the non-brahmin communities. Consequently, the number of medical disorders related to consanguinity (genetic, metabolic etc) were much more common among such communities.
Sridhar
South Indian brahmins (especially Tamilians) are scattered across the country and outside. Most of the professional Tamilians in USA are brahmins. With mobilisation and better education, marriage practices have changed over the years. There is no need to marry one`s cousin or uncle or whatever. These practices probably existed in the past when society had not advanced and mobilisation was difficult. So, a bride or a bridegroom did not have to look far for a partner.
I do not know even one Tamil brahmin who has married his/her cousin or uncle. Lack of progress in many non-brahmin communities in T.N as well as glorification of this practice (as pointed out by Harimou) in movies etc ensured that the practice survives among non-brahmins. When i was doing my post-graduate studies in Madras (ICH, Egmore) many years ago, i used to be baffled by the number of consaguinous marriages in the non-brahmin communities. Consequently, the number of medical disorders related to consanguinity (genetic, metabolic etc) were much more common among such communities.
Sridhar
#75 Posted by Studebaker on June 28, 2003 8:15:23 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#74 Posted by rsridhar on June 28, 2003 8:15:23 am
re: this article
So, this writer`s Didi (sister? cousin?) married a hindu, a South Indian brahmin? at that. Big deal. I hope she married out of love. I also hope that her conversion to hindu religion was done out of true understanding of what Hindu religion is all about and not just to please her future husband. South Indian brahmins (i being one) are very conservative. But many are also very broad minded. I am sure my parents would have had no problem if i had married a muslim girl (that is, after the initial shock phase is over). But a lot of culture and practices come as baggage, which no doubt this author`s sister inherited. Did she like it initially enough to embrace it? Looks like she did, well enough to learn how to make Upma and visit temples whenever she visited India!
It also seems to me that this author`s sister has migrated with her husband to U.S sometime ago. I am only guessing this from her statement that her niece has learnt bharata natyam in U.S.
So, after embracing another religion, author`s sis has been tormented off and on by her conscience. This is human nature. Despite being brought up in a liberal enviorn (author herself says her mom was liberal and dad spiritual), it is painful to give up one`s religion. But the question is: did her Did have to give up Islam completely? Was she forced to do so by her husband? her in-laws? Author gives no clues in her article about any of this.
If her Did is in U.S today, where is the problem? US is one place where you do not have to flaunt your religion. Her Did can continue to visit both mosques and temples or just mosques or whatever it is that gives her happiness. Religon is just a facade. The true thing is spirituality. People who have understood spirituality would not be bothered by the relgious customs, beliefs which are all just outer trappings. I hope author`s sis is more appreciative of this fact and does not end up resenting any particular religion.
Author has done well to publish this article. It gives some of us a glimpse of her state of mind. I knew author was rebellious by nature thr` her previous articles. I now know the reason why.
Sridhar
P.S: this is off the topic but i always thought that religious conversion to hinduism does not exist except among Arya samajis. More recently we hear of VHP goons reconverting some chrisitian tribals back to the Hindu fold but how they do it is beyond me. Hinduism, like Judaism, does not allow for conversions. A muslim can shed every trappings of being a muslim, adopt hindu way of life and say he/she is a hindu but that is another matter. Did author`s Didi have a formal conversion ceremony. I bet she did not.
So, this writer`s Didi (sister? cousin?) married a hindu, a South Indian brahmin? at that. Big deal. I hope she married out of love. I also hope that her conversion to hindu religion was done out of true understanding of what Hindu religion is all about and not just to please her future husband. South Indian brahmins (i being one) are very conservative. But many are also very broad minded. I am sure my parents would have had no problem if i had married a muslim girl (that is, after the initial shock phase is over). But a lot of culture and practices come as baggage, which no doubt this author`s sister inherited. Did she like it initially enough to embrace it? Looks like she did, well enough to learn how to make Upma and visit temples whenever she visited India!
It also seems to me that this author`s sister has migrated with her husband to U.S sometime ago. I am only guessing this from her statement that her niece has learnt bharata natyam in U.S.
So, after embracing another religion, author`s sis has been tormented off and on by her conscience. This is human nature. Despite being brought up in a liberal enviorn (author herself says her mom was liberal and dad spiritual), it is painful to give up one`s religion. But the question is: did her Did have to give up Islam completely? Was she forced to do so by her husband? her in-laws? Author gives no clues in her article about any of this.
If her Did is in U.S today, where is the problem? US is one place where you do not have to flaunt your religion. Her Did can continue to visit both mosques and temples or just mosques or whatever it is that gives her happiness. Religon is just a facade. The true thing is spirituality. People who have understood spirituality would not be bothered by the relgious customs, beliefs which are all just outer trappings. I hope author`s sis is more appreciative of this fact and does not end up resenting any particular religion.
Author has done well to publish this article. It gives some of us a glimpse of her state of mind. I knew author was rebellious by nature thr` her previous articles. I now know the reason why.
Sridhar
P.S: this is off the topic but i always thought that religious conversion to hinduism does not exist except among Arya samajis. More recently we hear of VHP goons reconverting some chrisitian tribals back to the Hindu fold but how they do it is beyond me. Hinduism, like Judaism, does not allow for conversions. A muslim can shed every trappings of being a muslim, adopt hindu way of life and say he/she is a hindu but that is another matter. Did author`s Didi have a formal conversion ceremony. I bet she did not.
#73 Posted by einsteinwallah on June 28, 2003 12:00:51 am
Film: Chitralekha
Lyricist: Sahir Ludhiyanvi
Singer: Lata Mangeshkar
Music: Roshan
Song:
sansar sey bhagey phirtey ho, bhagwan ko tum kya paogey
iss lok ko bhi apna na sakey, uss lok me bhi pachhataogey
You are running away from world (which is but his creation)
And you have audacity to seek God (what loser)
You could not live even this life decently,
and you claim you are seeking life here after? (What bull)
ye paap hey kya, ye punnya hey kya, reeto.n par dharma kee mohare hey.n
har yug mey badaltey dharmo.n ko kaisey adarsh banaogey
What is good and what is bad, why bother?
These are but labels Dharma has put on our deeds
And Dharma changes! So, why be obsessed with (one version of) it!!
For what is good by today will be bad tomorrow
ye bhog bhi ek tapasya hey, tum tyag ke marey kya jano
apaman racheyta ka hoga, rachana ko agar thukaraogey
You are snubbing creator who created you
For I too am his creation, come lets have some good times
Fun too is a way that leads to him
You are pathetic loser, who has rejected fun so completely.
So, what would you know what the fun is?
ham kahate hai ye jag apna hai, tum kahate ho jhutha sapana hai
ham janam beeta kar jaengey, tum janam ga.nwaakar jaogey
I say this world belongs us,
you say it is all hallucination (Maya)? Come on!
We will spend time having fun of our lives,
you will just waste your time,
you loser (who dreams his fine fiction of the other world)
(Acknowledgement: Lyrics taken from: http://www.geetmanjusha.com/hindi/lyrics/1590.html. Translation my own. Also some correction to lyrics. Also I have not verified credits as accurate)
Lyricist: Sahir Ludhiyanvi
Singer: Lata Mangeshkar
Music: Roshan
Song:
sansar sey bhagey phirtey ho, bhagwan ko tum kya paogey
iss lok ko bhi apna na sakey, uss lok me bhi pachhataogey
You are running away from world (which is but his creation)
And you have audacity to seek God (what loser)
You could not live even this life decently,
and you claim you are seeking life here after? (What bull)
ye paap hey kya, ye punnya hey kya, reeto.n par dharma kee mohare hey.n
har yug mey badaltey dharmo.n ko kaisey adarsh banaogey
What is good and what is bad, why bother?
These are but labels Dharma has put on our deeds
And Dharma changes! So, why be obsessed with (one version of) it!!
For what is good by today will be bad tomorrow
ye bhog bhi ek tapasya hey, tum tyag ke marey kya jano
apaman racheyta ka hoga, rachana ko agar thukaraogey
You are snubbing creator who created you
For I too am his creation, come lets have some good times
Fun too is a way that leads to him
You are pathetic loser, who has rejected fun so completely.
So, what would you know what the fun is?
ham kahate hai ye jag apna hai, tum kahate ho jhutha sapana hai
ham janam beeta kar jaengey, tum janam ga.nwaakar jaogey
I say this world belongs us,
you say it is all hallucination (Maya)? Come on!
We will spend time having fun of our lives,
you will just waste your time,
you loser (who dreams his fine fiction of the other world)
(Acknowledgement: Lyrics taken from: http://www.geetmanjusha.com/hindi/lyrics/1590.html. Translation my own. Also some correction to lyrics. Also I have not verified credits as accurate)
#72 Posted by tahmed32 on June 27, 2003 10:03:03 pm
dost mittar #63 i doubt if God`s ego is so weak that he needs all these 6 billion pathetic little termites walking around on this inconspicuous speck of sand in the vast ocean that is the universe to believe that he exists. but the termites certainly seem to think otherwise - in fact they think God is so desperate that the termites should believe in his existence that he will accept this belief even if they really dont mean it. and if the termites kill one another to prove that their way of believing in his existence is the only way, then i suppose that gives God even greater thrills (at least that is what the termites believe). well, i suppose it keeps the termites happy that they are so important.
meanwhile God probably has important conferences to attend, new universes of 11 dimensions to create, and so forth and assumes the termites he left behind on planet earth are happily enjoying all the good stuff he gave them - blue skies, clear springs, rainforests, and eyes and ears and brains and an entire universe and an entire microcosm to explore using them. he must be wondering why these termites ignore all this and instead keep trying to seek his favors. he has already given them all these favors...
meanwhile God probably has important conferences to attend, new universes of 11 dimensions to create, and so forth and assumes the termites he left behind on planet earth are happily enjoying all the good stuff he gave them - blue skies, clear springs, rainforests, and eyes and ears and brains and an entire universe and an entire microcosm to explore using them. he must be wondering why these termites ignore all this and instead keep trying to seek his favors. he has already given them all these favors...
#71 Posted by asmay30 on June 27, 2003 10:03:03 pm
assalamoalaikum h r u ? i think fine!
the passage with refrence of HOLY PROPHET( P B U H ) is best of all
the passage with refrence of HOLY PROPHET( P B U H ) is best of all
#70 Posted by einsteinwallah on June 27, 2003 7:05:54 pm
[#28 by dost-mittar on June 25, 2003 7:35am PT
...
In my ideal world, religious conversion would be like voting in an election, one could change one`s mind about one`s religion several times in one`s life as one`s thinking evolves ]
1 pack of Silk Cut Ultra, 1 pack of Hinduism and 1 pack of Islam
may I see your id please
what for?
you need to be 18 plus for Cigarettes, 36 plus for Hinduism, 72 for Islam
...
In my ideal world, religious conversion would be like voting in an election, one could change one`s mind about one`s religion several times in one`s life as one`s thinking evolves ]
1 pack of Silk Cut Ultra, 1 pack of Hinduism and 1 pack of Islam
may I see your id please
what for?
you need to be 18 plus for Cigarettes, 36 plus for Hinduism, 72 for Islam
#69 Posted by AlephNull on June 27, 2003 7:05:46 pm
Dost-mittar #28
{{I believe my right to convert myself to another religion is a fundamental human right, but not my right to convert others.}}
If you are talking about what should be permitted to adult members of a free society, rather than to what you will permit yourself, I beg to disagree. A religion as I see it is primarily a complex of ideas, notions, beliefs (with associated rituals and traditions, I suppose). The boundary between the religious domain and all others is fuzzy. Converting someone to a particular point of view involves persuading him that that point of view is sound. It is for each individual to decide claims of soundness of a particular system of ideas. One cannot restrict the activity of persuasion – in any domain - without limiting the right to free speech, which underlies all free societies.
The mere fact that many faiths – particularly the revealed Judaic religions, Christianity and Islam – are ill-founded and involve strongly-held beliefs for which no tangible evidence exists, is no reason to limit the right to preach these faiths. Free people ought to be permitted to make their own mistakes – if someone wants to buy snake-oil, or accept a blank cheque drawn on a non-existent bank, it’s his problem. At the same time, those who are opposed to a specific complex of religious ideas, or to the worth of religious ideas in general, should be as free as religionists to make their pitches. Let them all fight it out in the free marketplace of ideas.
{{I believe my right to convert myself to another religion is a fundamental human right, but not my right to convert others.}}
If you are talking about what should be permitted to adult members of a free society, rather than to what you will permit yourself, I beg to disagree. A religion as I see it is primarily a complex of ideas, notions, beliefs (with associated rituals and traditions, I suppose). The boundary between the religious domain and all others is fuzzy. Converting someone to a particular point of view involves persuading him that that point of view is sound. It is for each individual to decide claims of soundness of a particular system of ideas. One cannot restrict the activity of persuasion – in any domain - without limiting the right to free speech, which underlies all free societies.
The mere fact that many faiths – particularly the revealed Judaic religions, Christianity and Islam – are ill-founded and involve strongly-held beliefs for which no tangible evidence exists, is no reason to limit the right to preach these faiths. Free people ought to be permitted to make their own mistakes – if someone wants to buy snake-oil, or accept a blank cheque drawn on a non-existent bank, it’s his problem. At the same time, those who are opposed to a specific complex of religious ideas, or to the worth of religious ideas in general, should be as free as religionists to make their pitches. Let them all fight it out in the free marketplace of ideas.
#68 Posted by AlephNull on June 27, 2003 7:04:55 pm
Dost-mittar #28
{{In my ideal world, religious conversion would be like voting in an election, one could change one`s mind about one`s religion several times in one`s life … In such a world, religion would be no big deal but metaphysics/philosophy would be. …. It seems to me that India did, in fact, have approximately such a system until the advent of Islam in the country which made us all Hindus. …. Faith was the opium the masses needed and philosophy the nourishment for the minds of the scholars. But with the advent of Islam, faith became a one-way street which shut down all debates about metaphysics with the concept of blasphemy.
Unfortunately, we are not living in an ideal world and religion means more, a LOT more than just one`s faith. It`s a force that divides people into mutually antagonistic and potentially hostile identities. It changes people`s worldview, resulting in divisions of countries or creating new ones. … }}
I agree with your assessment of the grave harm caused by religion as a basis of crude tribal identity. I assert that a lot of the harm this continues to cause is a consequence of the unmerited recognition, special treatment and protection granted, not just to specific religions, but to religious beliefs and practices more generally – thereby allowing them to wield far more influence than they merit. The putrid notions of blasphemy and apostasy are predictable consequences of this special treatment. If there is a permanent way out, it is for free societies to cease to regard religion as a special category of belief, to be singled out for respect or even recognition. The only protections that ought to be accorded to religious notions or religious expression are those accorded to any thought or expression, no matter how foolish or ill-founded. Religious beliefs ought to wield no special authority where issues of demonstrable truth arise. The only rights religious communities ought to have are those derived from the rights of their current individual members. Religious communities should be regarded like ad hoc societies, associations and clubs, at liberty to form, grow, shrink, coalesce, split, or cease to exist; not permanent civic fixtures with an eternal life of their own or temporal authority over their members.
Cutting religion loose from institutionalised civic support and forcing it to survive on its own in the free marketplace of ideas, fighting for public mind-share with all other ideas, will in the long term force various religions to clean up their act and come to terms with the modern world. I don’t believe this change will be easy. In particular many of the charlatans who now make a fat living off religion, be they mullahs, priests, shamans or witch-doctors, and their fellow-travellers including politicians, will oppose it tooth and nail.
{{In my ideal world, religious conversion would be like voting in an election, one could change one`s mind about one`s religion several times in one`s life … In such a world, religion would be no big deal but metaphysics/philosophy would be. …. It seems to me that India did, in fact, have approximately such a system until the advent of Islam in the country which made us all Hindus. …. Faith was the opium the masses needed and philosophy the nourishment for the minds of the scholars. But with the advent of Islam, faith became a one-way street which shut down all debates about metaphysics with the concept of blasphemy.
Unfortunately, we are not living in an ideal world and religion means more, a LOT more than just one`s faith. It`s a force that divides people into mutually antagonistic and potentially hostile identities. It changes people`s worldview, resulting in divisions of countries or creating new ones. … }}
I agree with your assessment of the grave harm caused by religion as a basis of crude tribal identity. I assert that a lot of the harm this continues to cause is a consequence of the unmerited recognition, special treatment and protection granted, not just to specific religions, but to religious beliefs and practices more generally – thereby allowing them to wield far more influence than they merit. The putrid notions of blasphemy and apostasy are predictable consequences of this special treatment. If there is a permanent way out, it is for free societies to cease to regard religion as a special category of belief, to be singled out for respect or even recognition. The only protections that ought to be accorded to religious notions or religious expression are those accorded to any thought or expression, no matter how foolish or ill-founded. Religious beliefs ought to wield no special authority where issues of demonstrable truth arise. The only rights religious communities ought to have are those derived from the rights of their current individual members. Religious communities should be regarded like ad hoc societies, associations and clubs, at liberty to form, grow, shrink, coalesce, split, or cease to exist; not permanent civic fixtures with an eternal life of their own or temporal authority over their members.
Cutting religion loose from institutionalised civic support and forcing it to survive on its own in the free marketplace of ideas, fighting for public mind-share with all other ideas, will in the long term force various religions to clean up their act and come to terms with the modern world. I don’t believe this change will be easy. In particular many of the charlatans who now make a fat living off religion, be they mullahs, priests, shamans or witch-doctors, and their fellow-travellers including politicians, will oppose it tooth and nail.
#67 Posted by ana_dobarah on June 27, 2003 9:54:27 am
ferzoo,
oye...the bimbo must be added on as well, foran! but not being entirely sure who the bimbo was at the time, twas not done then. i will ask one of the laundas how to do so, or zee bimbette could get me info from the bapu of the laundas!
love, ana xo
oye...the bimbo must be added on as well, foran! but not being entirely sure who the bimbo was at the time, twas not done then. i will ask one of the laundas how to do so, or zee bimbette could get me info from the bapu of the laundas!
love, ana xo
#66 Posted by urbashi on June 27, 2003 8:55:40 am
Farzana, could it be that your Didi`s renewed (no matter if you think it was only cursory?) interest in Islam was a genuine desire not to lose an integral part of her own personal heritage? She could want to retain it while still remaining a Hindu, you know. Perhaps it`s nothing about confused identity, more about wanting to keep to the best parts of one`s past. A Hindu is supposed to, and until recent times invariably did, respect all ways of reaching to God, call Him/Her by whatever name and follow whatever path. I would have thought it`s good that she doesn`t want to forget Islam.
Also, I found that bit about her daughter, who was learning Bharata Natyam, declaring Krishna was her husband was all a bit strange. (a) Learning Bharata Natyam has nothing to do with any one particular religion, as you should know - Indian Christians and Jews, as you know, perform this, and a Catholic priest has even suggested its use as a mode of worship. (b) Surely it`s Kathak that`s associated with Krishna? (c) Your little niece must have been the only child in the world who learned to call herself a bride of Krishna because she learned Bharata Natyam. Children of Indian parents everywhere in the West try to learn some of the arts and graces of their homeland, but to think of herself as a latter-day Mirabai?
Also, I found that bit about her daughter, who was learning Bharata Natyam, declaring Krishna was her husband was all a bit strange. (a) Learning Bharata Natyam has nothing to do with any one particular religion, as you should know - Indian Christians and Jews, as you know, perform this, and a Catholic priest has even suggested its use as a mode of worship. (b) Surely it`s Kathak that`s associated with Krishna? (c) Your little niece must have been the only child in the world who learned to call herself a bride of Krishna because she learned Bharata Natyam. Children of Indian parents everywhere in the West try to learn some of the arts and graces of their homeland, but to think of herself as a latter-day Mirabai?
#65 Posted by harimau on June 27, 2003 7:59:20 am
Ref soysauce #61
[A very common practice among south indian brahmins (harimau iyer`s community) is for girls to marry their maternal uncles or cousins on the maternal side.]
How did this issue come about? How is it relevant to FartsAnna`s article?
But anyway, not true at all. It is very rare among Tamil brahmins to marry a first cousin or an uncle. It is usually someone from the same village or one of the neighboring villages so that the closest you can trace a relationship would be second cousin or third cousin, except that it may be through multiple relationships. Any EXCEPTION of marrying a first cousin or an uncle would be primarily to keep property within the family or would be a peculiar custom of that single family. In fact, I know of only one uncle-niece marriage and the family is from the land-owning class in Tanjore district.
On the other hand, what Sangilikaruppan wants to hide is the fact that it is MANDATORY among Tamils to marry their sister`s daughters, that is, their nieces. The other is for first cousins to marry. In fact, the uncle or uncle`s son has the RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL over the girl. This is vigorously enforced by tribal customs despite high education and higher wealth. I know of a Duke MBA coming from a filthy rich family marrying his uncle`s daughter (first cousin). The father of the girl refused the girl`s hand in marriage and, lo and behold, the girl walks out of her father`s home to marry her first cousin! Because that is the True Tamil Tadition! True to the blood feuds that these sh!theads carry on when crossed, the parents of the girls didn`t attend the wedding and haven`t spoken to her since the wedding several years ago but at least haven`t attempted any honor killing so far.
Just watch any Tamil movie made up to the 1980s and you will find that the lovers are first cousins. Even the family feuds depicted would be where the uncle wants to marry the niece but the girl has different ideas, the dad supports the girl and the mom supports her brother. This has been the standard story line involving hundreds of MGR movies.
Sudalaikkannu, don`t blame your mental retardation brought on by thousands of years of in-breeding on somebody else. Now you will be telling me that the Tamils borrowed this tradition or were imposed this tradition by the invading Aryans from the North!
Tell me, did you marry your niece or uncle`s daughter? I know you are not going to give us any answer just like you refused to answer the question of how much dowry you got on the basis that the answer would incriminate you!
By the way, if you have any reading comprehension at all, you would have figured out that FartsAnna`s Didi likely married a South Indian brahmin (here is a clue: the food included idli, dosa, sambar, payasam, etc.) Tell me that the couple were first cousins!
Oh, what an utter fool! Please do leave your vestigial brain stem for medical research. Science would like to find out how anencephalic cretins like you are able to wander around freely. They may find that the remainder of your brain is located in your colon.
[A very common practice among south indian brahmins (harimau iyer`s community) is for girls to marry their maternal uncles or cousins on the maternal side.]
How did this issue come about? How is it relevant to FartsAnna`s article?
But anyway, not true at all. It is very rare among Tamil brahmins to marry a first cousin or an uncle. It is usually someone from the same village or one of the neighboring villages so that the closest you can trace a relationship would be second cousin or third cousin, except that it may be through multiple relationships. Any EXCEPTION of marrying a first cousin or an uncle would be primarily to keep property within the family or would be a peculiar custom of that single family. In fact, I know of only one uncle-niece marriage and the family is from the land-owning class in Tanjore district.
On the other hand, what Sangilikaruppan wants to hide is the fact that it is MANDATORY among Tamils to marry their sister`s daughters, that is, their nieces. The other is for first cousins to marry. In fact, the uncle or uncle`s son has the RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL over the girl. This is vigorously enforced by tribal customs despite high education and higher wealth. I know of a Duke MBA coming from a filthy rich family marrying his uncle`s daughter (first cousin). The father of the girl refused the girl`s hand in marriage and, lo and behold, the girl walks out of her father`s home to marry her first cousin! Because that is the True Tamil Tadition! True to the blood feuds that these sh!theads carry on when crossed, the parents of the girls didn`t attend the wedding and haven`t spoken to her since the wedding several years ago but at least haven`t attempted any honor killing so far.
Just watch any Tamil movie made up to the 1980s and you will find that the lovers are first cousins. Even the family feuds depicted would be where the uncle wants to marry the niece but the girl has different ideas, the dad supports the girl and the mom supports her brother. This has been the standard story line involving hundreds of MGR movies.
Sudalaikkannu, don`t blame your mental retardation brought on by thousands of years of in-breeding on somebody else. Now you will be telling me that the Tamils borrowed this tradition or were imposed this tradition by the invading Aryans from the North!
Tell me, did you marry your niece or uncle`s daughter? I know you are not going to give us any answer just like you refused to answer the question of how much dowry you got on the basis that the answer would incriminate you!
By the way, if you have any reading comprehension at all, you would have figured out that FartsAnna`s Didi likely married a South Indian brahmin (here is a clue: the food included idli, dosa, sambar, payasam, etc.) Tell me that the couple were first cousins!
Oh, what an utter fool! Please do leave your vestigial brain stem for medical research. Science would like to find out how anencephalic cretins like you are able to wander around freely. They may find that the remainder of your brain is located in your colon.
#64 Posted by Romair on June 27, 2003 7:08:49 am
dost-mittar #60: Yes I did not pick up the reply correctly. My apologies. Now I understand it better. Still don`t know where you stand on religious and athiesm, though.....
The joke is funny. Makes a lot of sense also. Either one is in religion or out. Being an athiest could be a lot of fun. But even athiests have to follow some rules. They follow the rules of ethics, I guess. As well as the law of the land they live in. The trend amongst the Western nations seems to be becoming non-religious, but not athiest.
I think the poorer or less fortunate a person is, the more he/she believes in religion. It is the only thing he/she has to hold on to to justify his/her bad fortune, i.e. I got a bad deal here, but it will be much better in the afterlife. This is why when people with athiestic or secularistic tendencies try to persuade poor Pakistanis, that religion is the cause of their poverty and backwardness, they never have much success. If a poor person becomes athiest or even secularistic, he still remains poor. At the same time, he loses his one hope of getting a good deal in the afterlife. After that he has nothing to hold on to and no way to satisfy him/herself and justify his poverty in his/her present day life.
All I can say is that if there is no religion and no after life, then the world is an extremely unfair place, with such massive differences between rich and poor, and strong and weak, and fortunates and unfortunates. At the very least, religion gives people a hope (even if turns out to be a false hope) of continuing to struggle on in life.
So athiesism is for rich folks, and secularism will probably only succeed in rich societies.
The joke is funny. Makes a lot of sense also. Either one is in religion or out. Being an athiest could be a lot of fun. But even athiests have to follow some rules. They follow the rules of ethics, I guess. As well as the law of the land they live in. The trend amongst the Western nations seems to be becoming non-religious, but not athiest.
I think the poorer or less fortunate a person is, the more he/she believes in religion. It is the only thing he/she has to hold on to to justify his/her bad fortune, i.e. I got a bad deal here, but it will be much better in the afterlife. This is why when people with athiestic or secularistic tendencies try to persuade poor Pakistanis, that religion is the cause of their poverty and backwardness, they never have much success. If a poor person becomes athiest or even secularistic, he still remains poor. At the same time, he loses his one hope of getting a good deal in the afterlife. After that he has nothing to hold on to and no way to satisfy him/herself and justify his poverty in his/her present day life.
All I can say is that if there is no religion and no after life, then the world is an extremely unfair place, with such massive differences between rich and poor, and strong and weak, and fortunates and unfortunates. At the very least, religion gives people a hope (even if turns out to be a false hope) of continuing to struggle on in life.
So athiesism is for rich folks, and secularism will probably only succeed in rich societies.
#63 Posted by dost_mittar on June 27, 2003 7:08:48 am
tahmed32:
I was also poking fun at the whole idea of insurance, whether single or multiple policies.
I don`t think insurance principle will work in the faith business. You take insurance because you are uncertain about God (or in case of Hindus, maybe gods). But if there is a God, you are only fooling yourself because He knows All and He will certainly know that you are skeptical about Him. And He does not like skeptics any more than He likes non-believers.
So, if you are a believer, you don`t need insurance, and if you are a skeptic, the insurance doesn`t work. Catch 22, eh?
I was also poking fun at the whole idea of insurance, whether single or multiple policies.
I don`t think insurance principle will work in the faith business. You take insurance because you are uncertain about God (or in case of Hindus, maybe gods). But if there is a God, you are only fooling yourself because He knows All and He will certainly know that you are skeptical about Him. And He does not like skeptics any more than He likes non-believers.
So, if you are a believer, you don`t need insurance, and if you are a skeptic, the insurance doesn`t work. Catch 22, eh?
#62 Posted by soysauce on June 26, 2003 7:51:11 pm
Farzana,
A very common practice among south indian brahmins (harimau iyer`s community) is for girls to marry their maternal uncles or cousins on the maternal side. Paternal cousins, on the other hand, are supposed to be as close as blood brothers or sisters. The blood line does not extend on the mother`s side.
A very common practice among south indian brahmins (harimau iyer`s community) is for girls to marry their maternal uncles or cousins on the maternal side. Paternal cousins, on the other hand, are supposed to be as close as blood brothers or sisters. The blood line does not extend on the mother`s side.
#61 Posted by tahmed32 on June 26, 2003 7:51:11 pm
dost mittar #60 LOL. That was a good one. The moral I picked was that if you want decisions, pray that there is no bureaucracy.
#60 Posted by dost_mittar on June 26, 2003 3:49:31 pm
Romair#57
You obviously had a little trouble understanding my post. If anything, I was trying to poke a little gentle fun at the Hindu characteristic of `bey-painde-ka-lauta`. You obviously haven`t heard of the following joke:
During an earthquake, a Muslim, a Christian and a Hindu neighbour prayed to their respective gods. The Muslim prayed to the Allah, the Christian to Lord Jesus, and the Hindus to Ram, Krishna and Hanuman. The Muslim and the Christian were saved but the roof fell upon the Hindu`s house who died and went to meet his gods. He first met Hanuman and asked him why he did not save him; Hanuman replied that when he had invoked Ram, how could he, a mere bhagat of Ram dare to supercede him. He then went with the same question to Krishna who replied that since he had invoked Ram first, he left it to Ram to save him. At last he went to Ram and repeated the same question. Ram replied that by the time he found out that Krishna and Hanuman had not come to his assistance, it was too late and the roof had already fallen.
The moral of the story is that you either have complete faith or you don`t.
You obviously had a little trouble understanding my post. If anything, I was trying to poke a little gentle fun at the Hindu characteristic of `bey-painde-ka-lauta`. You obviously haven`t heard of the following joke:
During an earthquake, a Muslim, a Christian and a Hindu neighbour prayed to their respective gods. The Muslim prayed to the Allah, the Christian to Lord Jesus, and the Hindus to Ram, Krishna and Hanuman. The Muslim and the Christian were saved but the roof fell upon the Hindu`s house who died and went to meet his gods. He first met Hanuman and asked him why he did not save him; Hanuman replied that when he had invoked Ram, how could he, a mere bhagat of Ram dare to supercede him. He then went with the same question to Krishna who replied that since he had invoked Ram first, he left it to Ram to save him. At last he went to Ram and repeated the same question. Ram replied that by the time he found out that Krishna and Hanuman had not come to his assistance, it was too late and the roof had already fallen.
The moral of the story is that you either have complete faith or you don`t.
#59 Posted by tahmed32 on June 26, 2003 9:32:03 am
Harimau #53 ``You are telling me that in Pakistan Hindu girls willingly marry Muslim men and that the girls are allowed to remain Hindus? And their children can be raised as Hindus?``
What I wrote is clear enough. Dont try to make a song and dance story out of a plain and simple sentence.
PS: I think it is only on chowk that one runs into grown up men who start calling names the moment they are stressed. Is this all you got out of attending the Jay Thakeray School for Maturity-Challenged Hindutvas?
What I wrote is clear enough. Dont try to make a song and dance story out of a plain and simple sentence.
PS: I think it is only on chowk that one runs into grown up men who start calling names the moment they are stressed. Is this all you got out of attending the Jay Thakeray School for Maturity-Challenged Hindutvas?
#58 Posted by AlephNull on June 26, 2003 9:32:03 am
Romair #56
I actually did read your post in its entirety. Your argument is not exactly complex or subtle or profound; it doesn’t take much to follow it, or refute it. So spare me that bilge about ‘not understanding what you wrote’, etc. etc. ad amusem. Here is what you wrote.
{{Being an athiest is actually a very poor business proposition. It`s all risk, with no potential for long-term profit. Believing in a religion has no risks or chance of loss, but does have potential for profit.}}
i.e. invocation of the profit motive, which, together with the ensuing case analysis, is the essence of Pascal’s assertion about potential profit contingent on religious belief. Your added wrinkle of ‘subway station’ changes very little and does not protect the argument from refutation along the familiar lines of Pascal’s wager.
To spell it out even more concretely, the refutation of the ‘subway station’ hack is to posit that the ‘real’ state of affairs is a deity who rewards only those who DO NOT believe in ‘him’ or in any deity or combination of deities, and who savagely punishes everyone else. Not a pleasant eventuality for believers of any flavour. Pleading that you only got to the subway station, didn`t board the train, isn`t going to save you here. This is a specific case where believing in a religion - any religion - runs risks and chance of loss, whereas the atheist alone stands to `profit`, contrary to your claim.
I actually did read your post in its entirety. Your argument is not exactly complex or subtle or profound; it doesn’t take much to follow it, or refute it. So spare me that bilge about ‘not understanding what you wrote’, etc. etc. ad amusem. Here is what you wrote.
{{Being an athiest is actually a very poor business proposition. It`s all risk, with no potential for long-term profit. Believing in a religion has no risks or chance of loss, but does have potential for profit.}}
i.e. invocation of the profit motive, which, together with the ensuing case analysis, is the essence of Pascal’s assertion about potential profit contingent on religious belief. Your added wrinkle of ‘subway station’ changes very little and does not protect the argument from refutation along the familiar lines of Pascal’s wager.
To spell it out even more concretely, the refutation of the ‘subway station’ hack is to posit that the ‘real’ state of affairs is a deity who rewards only those who DO NOT believe in ‘him’ or in any deity or combination of deities, and who savagely punishes everyone else. Not a pleasant eventuality for believers of any flavour. Pleading that you only got to the subway station, didn`t board the train, isn`t going to save you here. This is a specific case where believing in a religion - any religion - runs risks and chance of loss, whereas the atheist alone stands to `profit`, contrary to your claim.
#57 Posted by temporal on June 26, 2003 8:24:58 am
Ferz:
forgot to mention earlier…interesting heading:
[chiaroscuro n:
the disposition of highlight and shadow in a painting chiaro=bright, oscuro=dark]
and interesting discussions shaping up…my khota paisas:
(…being wired as we are…allegedly as human beings…we profess to follow or not follow the faith we were born into as we grow up…the degree of adherence and questioning varies…and this is lifelong…the only individuals who consciously suppress this questioning and follow blindly are the die-hards and they are condemned harshly by all good and thinking individuals world wide…after this long preamble this is what i wanted to say..)
…in the end only this matters: if you feel good and if you spread goodness
…this simple temporal test is applicable to all of us…those who are born in any faith or system and those who later in life reject it, modify it, or accept another faith or set of beliefs…you must feel good and spread goodness (happiness) around…
...this is the best set of core values available now...local franchise enquiries welcome:)
peace
t
forgot to mention earlier…interesting heading:
[chiaroscuro n:
the disposition of highlight and shadow in a painting chiaro=bright, oscuro=dark]
and interesting discussions shaping up…my khota paisas:
(…being wired as we are…allegedly as human beings…we profess to follow or not follow the faith we were born into as we grow up…the degree of adherence and questioning varies…and this is lifelong…the only individuals who consciously suppress this questioning and follow blindly are the die-hards and they are condemned harshly by all good and thinking individuals world wide…after this long preamble this is what i wanted to say..)
…in the end only this matters: if you feel good and if you spread goodness
…this simple temporal test is applicable to all of us…those who are born in any faith or system and those who later in life reject it, modify it, or accept another faith or set of beliefs…you must feel good and spread goodness (happiness) around…
...this is the best set of core values available now...local franchise enquiries welcome:)
peace
t
#56 Posted by Romair on June 26, 2003 8:24:58 am
AlphaNull #47: I suggest you read my whole reply before commenting. Otherwise, you will end up wasting your time, typing, and commenting on something that wasn`t stated.
``The argument relies on the supply of after-life goodies being contingent on holding specific religious beliefs during one`s life.``
This is not what I was arguing. I was arguing quite the opposite. Apparently, you seemed too hooked on providing us with your knowledge about Pascal`s wager, and thus went of on a tangent, associating what I stated with something you had read up on. So, I accept that you are familiar with ``Pascal Wager,`` however, please do not associate anything related with that to what I stated.
If you don`t understand what I stated, please go ahead and ask me, before declaring it asanine.
I am not stating that after-life goodies are contingent on holding specific religious beliefs. That is why I said, ``If it turned out he believed in the wrong religion, it would mean he got on the wrong train. But at least he is in the subway station.`` Though a bit tongue in cheek, but it is inclusive of all religious beliefs and not exclusive of them. It differentiates all religious beliefs from athiesm. Not any one religious belief from another.
Once again, if you don`t understand something, ask a question for clarification, before commenting
``The argument relies on the supply of after-life goodies being contingent on holding specific religious beliefs during one`s life.``
This is not what I was arguing. I was arguing quite the opposite. Apparently, you seemed too hooked on providing us with your knowledge about Pascal`s wager, and thus went of on a tangent, associating what I stated with something you had read up on. So, I accept that you are familiar with ``Pascal Wager,`` however, please do not associate anything related with that to what I stated.
If you don`t understand what I stated, please go ahead and ask me, before declaring it asanine.
I am not stating that after-life goodies are contingent on holding specific religious beliefs. That is why I said, ``If it turned out he believed in the wrong religion, it would mean he got on the wrong train. But at least he is in the subway station.`` Though a bit tongue in cheek, but it is inclusive of all religious beliefs and not exclusive of them. It differentiates all religious beliefs from athiesm. Not any one religious belief from another.
Once again, if you don`t understand something, ask a question for clarification, before commenting
#55 Posted by Romair on June 26, 2003 8:24:58 am
Dost-mittar #50: ``I think that the Hindus are the true believer in the insurance principle; they will go not only to their temples but also to the gurudwaras, mazars, churches, etc.
But the Hindus are fools in doing so, since they do not know that the `other gods` don`t look with favour upon anyone seeking favours from anyone else except themselves.``
Are you suggesting that Hinduism is superior to all other religions? This makes your argument contradictory. It initially implies that Hindus are great since they give equality to all religions. It then denigrates other religions by stating that, ``other gods`` aren`t as good as Hindu gods. Hence implying that Hindus and their gods are superior and more reasonable than other gods. Which is exactly the opposite of the initial assumption you made.
On a side-note: I am curious why there is always a knee-jerk defensive reaction from our Indian colleagues (including otherwise reasonable ones like yourself), whenever a Pakistani makes a remark about religion in general. I did not mention Islam anywhere in my reply. I never stated Islam (or any other religion) is superior to any other. I differentiated between, ``all faiths,`` i.e. a belief in any faith, on one side, and the concept of athiesm on the other. After all, if one has a faith (any faith), or if one is an athiest, they must be some reasoning behind it.
Yet, your reply specifically was related to Hinduism. You jumped up to defend Hinduism, for no reason, as if it had been attacked. And in the process attempted to put down, ``other gods.`` I could understand if you had jumped up to defend athiesm, or to provide logic for being an athiest, since I had provided logic for being of religion (any religion). But why this sudden urge to defend specifically Hinduism?
But the Hindus are fools in doing so, since they do not know that the `other gods` don`t look with favour upon anyone seeking favours from anyone else except themselves.``
Are you suggesting that Hinduism is superior to all other religions? This makes your argument contradictory. It initially implies that Hindus are great since they give equality to all religions. It then denigrates other religions by stating that, ``other gods`` aren`t as good as Hindu gods. Hence implying that Hindus and their gods are superior and more reasonable than other gods. Which is exactly the opposite of the initial assumption you made.
On a side-note: I am curious why there is always a knee-jerk defensive reaction from our Indian colleagues (including otherwise reasonable ones like yourself), whenever a Pakistani makes a remark about religion in general. I did not mention Islam anywhere in my reply. I never stated Islam (or any other religion) is superior to any other. I differentiated between, ``all faiths,`` i.e. a belief in any faith, on one side, and the concept of athiesm on the other. After all, if one has a faith (any faith), or if one is an athiest, they must be some reasoning behind it.
Yet, your reply specifically was related to Hinduism. You jumped up to defend Hinduism, for no reason, as if it had been attacked. And in the process attempted to put down, ``other gods.`` I could understand if you had jumped up to defend athiesm, or to provide logic for being an athiest, since I had provided logic for being of religion (any religion). But why this sudden urge to defend specifically Hinduism?
#54 Posted by nazarhayatkhan on June 26, 2003 7:13:26 am
Maybe, we are coming to the end of this thread. My observation is that almost all Chowkies are liberal and share almost the same value system. Give or take minor difference in the shade or angle. This value system is quite different from what is on the street - at least in Pakistan.
Few Chowkies having sharp edges or ideosyncracies find that their edges and protrusions are gradually smoothened out by the chipping and clipping by the defty interacters.
#53 Posted by dost_mittar on June 26, 2003 7:13:25 am
Alephnull:
Well said!
I think that the Hindus are the true believer in the insurance principle; they will go not only to their temples but also to the gurudwaras, mazars, churches, etc.
But the Hindus are fools in doing so, since they do not know that the `other gods` don`t look with favour upon anyone seeking favours from anyone else except themselves.
Well said!
I think that the Hindus are the true believer in the insurance principle; they will go not only to their temples but also to the gurudwaras, mazars, churches, etc.
But the Hindus are fools in doing so, since they do not know that the `other gods` don`t look with favour upon anyone seeking favours from anyone else except themselves.
#52 Posted by nb on June 26, 2003 7:13:25 am
Farzana,you seem to be saying that Hindus are bizarre,whether born or made!I don`t agree with people who say that your Didi needs to see a psychiatrist.You do hear of converts who take to their new religion with a ferocity unseen in those born to it.Only,they`re usually Hindus who have converted to Islam or Christianity.You do not mention that her husband ever demanded this level of dedication from her,so I wouldn`t blame him.If she is happy,why bother?
Why would your relatives have to pretend idlis were a delicacy?Good,soft,fluffy idlis are better than an average biryani any day-or maybe I think so because it`s so much easier to cook a biryani than idlis from scratch.No competition between a good biryani and good idlis though-but greedy me,I`d want a bit of both!I think the young woman you saw was asserting her Muslim identity-that`s a large part of what wearing a headscarf is about-but as Seinfeld would say,there`s nothing wrong with that.Before you jump on me about the scarf,I`d like to tell you about two of my friends.With one of them,his sister who had never worn a headscarf in her life sudenly started wearing one just after the first riots in Bombay in early 1993.With another one,his wife,born and brought up in London,suddenly told him a few months after September 11 that she was going to start wearing the scarf and generally being more observant.
Kamala Das never struck me as a particularly likely candidate to become a Muslim,but it`s some years now,and she hasn`t changed her mind,so maybe it wasn`t just for shock value.I remember when she converted she said she could no longer deal with the freedom and flexibility of Hinduism-she felt she wanted to be confined.And I thought then,Hinduism can be as flexible or as confining as you want it to be.I remember hearing rumours in certain literary circles that she had fallen in love with a Muslim man who had turned her down(I didn`t hear why) and this was just before her conversion.
Meanwhile,Studebaker,what on earth are you on about?Those views on Hindus and on women-what a diabolical combination!!
Why would your relatives have to pretend idlis were a delicacy?Good,soft,fluffy idlis are better than an average biryani any day-or maybe I think so because it`s so much easier to cook a biryani than idlis from scratch.No competition between a good biryani and good idlis though-but greedy me,I`d want a bit of both!I think the young woman you saw was asserting her Muslim identity-that`s a large part of what wearing a headscarf is about-but as Seinfeld would say,there`s nothing wrong with that.Before you jump on me about the scarf,I`d like to tell you about two of my friends.With one of them,his sister who had never worn a headscarf in her life sudenly started wearing one just after the first riots in Bombay in early 1993.With another one,his wife,born and brought up in London,suddenly told him a few months after September 11 that she was going to start wearing the scarf and generally being more observant.
Kamala Das never struck me as a particularly likely candidate to become a Muslim,but it`s some years now,and she hasn`t changed her mind,so maybe it wasn`t just for shock value.I remember when she converted she said she could no longer deal with the freedom and flexibility of Hinduism-she felt she wanted to be confined.And I thought then,Hinduism can be as flexible or as confining as you want it to be.I remember hearing rumours in certain literary circles that she had fallen in love with a Muslim man who had turned her down(I didn`t hear why) and this was just before her conversion.
Meanwhile,Studebaker,what on earth are you on about?Those views on Hindus and on women-what a diabolical combination!!
#51 Posted by harimau on June 26, 2003 7:13:25 am
Ref Field Marshal-turned-Religious-Affairs-Correspondent #47
By the same logic, pinning your enire hope on Allah is a poor business proposition. What if Allah isn`t the right God? That would mean you also have to worship Yahweh/Jehovah but then both Allah and Jehovah require that they be relied upon to the exclusion of others. The better solution would be to become a polytheist so that you are spreading your risk among several gods, all of whom may or may not have some power to rescue your soul.
Thus the only logical religion is Hinduism where you can choose Rama, Krishna, Vishnu, Siva, Brahma, Lakshmi, Kali, Saraswathi, Ganesh, Kartik, Harihar, and a thousand manifestations of these gods/goddesses. Not AMONG them but ALL of them. For good measure, you can throw in Karuppannasamy, Madurai Veeran, Mariamman, Bhagawathi, etc. Somebody is bound to help you somewhere!
By the same logic, pinning your enire hope on Allah is a poor business proposition. What if Allah isn`t the right God? That would mean you also have to worship Yahweh/Jehovah but then both Allah and Jehovah require that they be relied upon to the exclusion of others. The better solution would be to become a polytheist so that you are spreading your risk among several gods, all of whom may or may not have some power to rescue your soul.
Thus the only logical religion is Hinduism where you can choose Rama, Krishna, Vishnu, Siva, Brahma, Lakshmi, Kali, Saraswathi, Ganesh, Kartik, Harihar, and a thousand manifestations of these gods/goddesses. Not AMONG them but ALL of them. For good measure, you can throw in Karuppannasamy, Madurai Veeran, Mariamman, Bhagawathi, etc. Somebody is bound to help you somewhere!
#50 Posted by harimau on June 26, 2003 7:13:25 am
Ref Mullah321 #48
[as for your presumption that muslim men dont marry nonmuslim women unless they convert - let me just say (i am tired of trying to reason with brainwashed people like you from india) that that is just a presumption.]
You are telling me that in Pakistan Hindu girls willingly marry Muslim men and that the girls are allowed to remain Hindus? And their children can be raised as Hindus?
Find someone else who might buy the Brooklyn Bridge from you.
[as for your presumption that muslim men dont marry nonmuslim women unless they convert - let me just say (i am tired of trying to reason with brainwashed people like you from india) that that is just a presumption.]
You are telling me that in Pakistan Hindu girls willingly marry Muslim men and that the girls are allowed to remain Hindus? And their children can be raised as Hindus?
Find someone else who might buy the Brooklyn Bridge from you.
#49 Posted by AlephNull on June 25, 2003 11:16:18 pm
Romair #47
{{Being an athiest is actually a very poor business proposition. .... How, you may ask?}}
That asinine line of argument is known as Pascal`s Wager. It is as good a demonstration as any of the brain-rotting effects of religious mania. Poor Blaise Pascal can be excused for coming up with this tripe in the 17th century after he got religion - he lived in a protoscientific age where the notion of a personal god along Judaic lines still held some residual plausibility. Today there is no excuse for recycling this bilge.
The argument relies on the supply of after-life goodies being contingent on holding specific religious beliefs during one`s life. The refutation is to consider, for any specific sytem of religous beliefs R, its negation R`, which moreover guarantees eternal hellfire and damnation for those perverse enough to believe in R. The R-believer has no way of knowing that R` is not the `true` religion. No specific system of religious beliefs R, out of the infinity of possible systems, is immune to this argument; consequently none is privileged with `better` expected prospects in the `afterlife`. Might as well be an atheist.
(The original refutation was to present the wannabe theist with the choice between two jealous desert gods, called, say, Allah and Yahweh, with each of these deities specifically threatening the most exquisite torments for belief in the other. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don`t).
{{Being an athiest is actually a very poor business proposition. .... How, you may ask?}}
That asinine line of argument is known as Pascal`s Wager. It is as good a demonstration as any of the brain-rotting effects of religious mania. Poor Blaise Pascal can be excused for coming up with this tripe in the 17th century after he got religion - he lived in a protoscientific age where the notion of a personal god along Judaic lines still held some residual plausibility. Today there is no excuse for recycling this bilge.
The argument relies on the supply of after-life goodies being contingent on holding specific religious beliefs during one`s life. The refutation is to consider, for any specific sytem of religous beliefs R, its negation R`, which moreover guarantees eternal hellfire and damnation for those perverse enough to believe in R. The R-believer has no way of knowing that R` is not the `true` religion. No specific system of religious beliefs R, out of the infinity of possible systems, is immune to this argument; consequently none is privileged with `better` expected prospects in the `afterlife`. Might as well be an atheist.
(The original refutation was to present the wannabe theist with the choice between two jealous desert gods, called, say, Allah and Yahweh, with each of these deities specifically threatening the most exquisite torments for belief in the other. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don`t).
#48 Posted by tahmed32 on June 25, 2003 10:38:29 pm
harimau #43 i think what i wrote is clear enough. as for your presumption that muslim men dont marry nonmuslim women unless they convert - let me just say (i am tired of trying to reason with brainwashed people like you from india) that that is just a presumption.
#47 Posted by Romair on June 25, 2003 9:42:35 pm
hamidm #37: `` i have never met anyone who could rationally explain to me why they believe in what they believe in``
All right. I will take a shot at this one.
Being an athiest is actually a very poor business proposition. It`s all risk, with no potential for long-term profit. Believing in a religion has no risks or chance of loss, but does have potential for profit. How, you may ask?
Well, an athiest says, everything is over after death. No afterlife, no heaven, no hell. Everyone turns into carbon and oxygen and nitrogen and what not. Let`s say the athiest dies, and it turns out their is no afterlife, what does he gain? Nothing. No profit. He just doesn`t lose anything, that`s all. Now lets say, he dies, and finds out there is an afterlife. He`s more than a little bit screwed. Wouldn`t you agree? He denounced religion his whole life. His bet turned out to be wrong and now may end up in a loss.
Now, let`s say a guy who believes in religion dies. It turns out their is no afterlife. What does he lose, for believing in religion? Nothing. He makes no profit, but is still as well off as the athiest guy. However, let`s say it turns out their is an afterlife, after all. The religious guy`s belief in religion, will now pay off. He is in a potential profitable situation. If it turned out he believed in the wrong religion, it would mean he got on the wrong train. But at least he is in the subway station. Still a much better situation than the athiest guy, who doesn`t even believe in subways.
I am assuming you are an athiest. I would be highly disappointed to find out you are not. Since you may be correct is stating that it is idiotic to believe in a religion and follow it. But wouldn`t it be even more idiotic to not believe in a religion and still follow it.........
All right. I will take a shot at this one.
Being an athiest is actually a very poor business proposition. It`s all risk, with no potential for long-term profit. Believing in a religion has no risks or chance of loss, but does have potential for profit. How, you may ask?
Well, an athiest says, everything is over after death. No afterlife, no heaven, no hell. Everyone turns into carbon and oxygen and nitrogen and what not. Let`s say the athiest dies, and it turns out their is no afterlife, what does he gain? Nothing. No profit. He just doesn`t lose anything, that`s all. Now lets say, he dies, and finds out there is an afterlife. He`s more than a little bit screwed. Wouldn`t you agree? He denounced religion his whole life. His bet turned out to be wrong and now may end up in a loss.
Now, let`s say a guy who believes in religion dies. It turns out their is no afterlife. What does he lose, for believing in religion? Nothing. He makes no profit, but is still as well off as the athiest guy. However, let`s say it turns out their is an afterlife, after all. The religious guy`s belief in religion, will now pay off. He is in a potential profitable situation. If it turned out he believed in the wrong religion, it would mean he got on the wrong train. But at least he is in the subway station. Still a much better situation than the athiest guy, who doesn`t even believe in subways.
I am assuming you are an athiest. I would be highly disappointed to find out you are not. Since you may be correct is stating that it is idiotic to believe in a religion and follow it. But wouldn`t it be even more idiotic to not believe in a religion and still follow it.........
#46 Posted by m_souza on June 25, 2003 8:13:50 pm
#23 by Tipu on June 25, 2003 0:02am PT
Tipu...I never have any problem what soever with the muslim friends who grew up with me in India ever since my childhood. Neither did they have any problem with me or any other Hindu.
These problems are a recent trend. Maybe due to internet.
Especially at chowk...the atmosphere is such that Indians and Pakis seem to be more freindly as they have same religion. And that makes me think again. What is the truth? Is it the `muslim brotherhood`? Is it what I grew up with?
Tipu...I never have any problem what soever with the muslim friends who grew up with me in India ever since my childhood. Neither did they have any problem with me or any other Hindu.
These problems are a recent trend. Maybe due to internet.
Especially at chowk...the atmosphere is such that Indians and Pakis seem to be more freindly as they have same religion. And that makes me think again. What is the truth? Is it the `muslim brotherhood`? Is it what I grew up with?
#45 Posted by m_souza on June 25, 2003 8:13:50 pm
And the conversion issue is complex. The party that converts doesn`t seem to mind. But the one that is left behind so as to embrace the new one, is the one who is left surprised and wondering. Oh! what was wrong with us that we were ditched.
Actually there might not have been anything wrong. People convert because `grass is greener on the other side of the pasture` and also because they just hope there is salvation around. Or they don`t see any difference in this God or that new God but like the new life style offered by the new religion(Like some people may find it modern to be Christian..sitting suited-booted on the chairs in a church...sipping wine than to sit on a desi `dari` in a mandir`)...just joking.. a conversion has to be deeper than that..I feel .. I don`t know.
But what V.S Naipaul wrote does seem to be true:
..`Converts are a confused lot..they don`t belong anywhere ...they have to reject their previous religion in order to like that new religon else they are scared of going back to the old one`
Probably it is this mentality that made Farzana`s converted Didi behave in an overtly religious fashion. Otherwise I haven`t seen many Hindu girls bothering too much about going to the temples of the every city they visit..or learning Bharatnatyam just because they happen to be Hindu girls...(anyone can learn it not just hindus)...
Especially...I haven`t heard anyone saying that they want to marry Krishna(although marrying krishna has spiritual connotations not the lusty ones..it means ..a marriage of the human soul with the supreme soul). So, probably..this part has been taken by Farzana from Meera`s story. It was Meera who was Krishna`s diwani(spiritually again)...and she as a little girl used to say she want to marry Krishna...so maybe Farzy got mixed up (or maybe her didi`s little girls got mixed up)..
Actually there might not have been anything wrong. People convert because `grass is greener on the other side of the pasture` and also because they just hope there is salvation around. Or they don`t see any difference in this God or that new God but like the new life style offered by the new religion(Like some people may find it modern to be Christian..sitting suited-booted on the chairs in a church...sipping wine than to sit on a desi `dari` in a mandir`)...just joking.. a conversion has to be deeper than that..I feel .. I don`t know.
But what V.S Naipaul wrote does seem to be true:
..`Converts are a confused lot..they don`t belong anywhere ...they have to reject their previous religion in order to like that new religon else they are scared of going back to the old one`
Probably it is this mentality that made Farzana`s converted Didi behave in an overtly religious fashion. Otherwise I haven`t seen many Hindu girls bothering too much about going to the temples of the every city they visit..or learning Bharatnatyam just because they happen to be Hindu girls...(anyone can learn it not just hindus)...
Especially...I haven`t heard anyone saying that they want to marry Krishna(although marrying krishna has spiritual connotations not the lusty ones..it means ..a marriage of the human soul with the supreme soul). So, probably..this part has been taken by Farzana from Meera`s story. It was Meera who was Krishna`s diwani(spiritually again)...and she as a little girl used to say she want to marry Krishna...so maybe Farzy got mixed up (or maybe her didi`s little girls got mixed up)..
#44 Posted by Godot on June 25, 2003 8:13:50 pm
Re: Farzana, #39
Yes, Farzana, I`m pretty good at getting to the core of it all!
Naive questions, you ask?
``Aren`t you mistaking the acts of humans to divine intervention?``
``but did you ever perform a surgery on your own life?``
``When a maulvi will perform a conversion ritual, will you be able to exorcise the Radha in you?``
``Where? Where? Where?...???``
Missing me? That *is* naïve! I`m like a wind...or a ship at night...
Yes, Farzana, I`m pretty good at getting to the core of it all!
Naive questions, you ask?
``Aren`t you mistaking the acts of humans to divine intervention?``
``but did you ever perform a surgery on your own life?``
``When a maulvi will perform a conversion ritual, will you be able to exorcise the Radha in you?``
``Where? Where? Where?...???``
Missing me? That *is* naïve! I`m like a wind...or a ship at night...
#43 Posted by harimau on June 25, 2003 4:43:51 pm
Ref FarzanaVersey #39
[temporal (#10):
A while ago when I was in Kochy I tried to get in touch with her (Kamala Das/Sorayya), and she sounded very confused and suspicious. She tried to stall the meeting, and after a couple of calls, I thought it was a waste of time. I was more interested in her because she used to be this grande dame who had an open house, where people would gather, drink and recite poetry…so I was told by friends in Mumbai. She has updated her autobiography and is continuing with her columns. I do not know what major change has come about in her life.]
Wears a burqa. Doesn`t go out without a male escort who is mehram to her. Stopped drinking/offering drinks to visitors.
Just guessing.
[temporal (#10):
A while ago when I was in Kochy I tried to get in touch with her (Kamala Das/Sorayya), and she sounded very confused and suspicious. She tried to stall the meeting, and after a couple of calls, I thought it was a waste of time. I was more interested in her because she used to be this grande dame who had an open house, where people would gather, drink and recite poetry…so I was told by friends in Mumbai. She has updated her autobiography and is continuing with her columns. I do not know what major change has come about in her life.]
Wears a burqa. Doesn`t go out without a male escort who is mehram to her. Stopped drinking/offering drinks to visitors.
Just guessing.
#42 Posted by harimau on June 25, 2003 4:43:51 pm
FarzanaVersey writes
[Children were born. When my niece was old enough, she would do an impromptu performance of Bharat Natyam, which she learned in America. That was nice. But one day, she casually said that Lord Krishna was her husband. While the others laughed it off as childish prattle, it registered in my mind sharply. Why had my cousin not inculcated the values of both religions in her children? After all, she had been born into one and had been a part of it for over two decades.]
Perhaps your Didi didn`t want her daughter to think of herself as a child bride to Prophet Muhammad. Sometimes, reality is too harsh to contemplate.
[Children were born. When my niece was old enough, she would do an impromptu performance of Bharat Natyam, which she learned in America. That was nice. But one day, she casually said that Lord Krishna was her husband. While the others laughed it off as childish prattle, it registered in my mind sharply. Why had my cousin not inculcated the values of both religions in her children? After all, she had been born into one and had been a part of it for over two decades.]
Perhaps your Didi didn`t want her daughter to think of herself as a child bride to Prophet Muhammad. Sometimes, reality is too harsh to contemplate.
#41 Posted by harimau on June 25, 2003 4:43:51 pm
Ref tahmed32 #32
[For a woman to discard her religion in order to marry someone does not tell me anything about the woman. It tells me a lot about the man - it tells me that he neither understands what religion is all about, nor does he love his wife enough to insist that she retain her religion. So, in both cases, the men were lowlife.]
Are you concluding ALL Muslim men who marry non-Muslim women are low-life?
[For a woman to discard her religion in order to marry someone does not tell me anything about the woman. It tells me a lot about the man - it tells me that he neither understands what religion is all about, nor does he love his wife enough to insist that she retain her religion. So, in both cases, the men were lowlife.]
Are you concluding ALL Muslim men who marry non-Muslim women are low-life?
#40 Posted by Inquirer on June 25, 2003 3:41:02 pm
Farzana:
I admit so far I had not thought of your write-up as literary piece. I confess to looking only on the religio-political aspects of the presentation. Partly and only partly this is due to excessive obsession of the chowkis with religion. As a representative of rambling emotional state the piece does have merit. Though there are a few places where it still needs to be tightened up so that it can carry the reader through the self-centered scenario that it IS.
Now I return to the intellectual aspects of the presentation.
1. What is your position that you declare in the footnote has not changed? Is this just a set of questions?
2. Your Didi`s conversion event has relevance to others only in so far as it can throw light on the understanding/guidance of those converts/back converts/further converts.
3. What do you think should be the situation of your didi`s chldren? Why should not be the specific combination that she and her husband wanted it to be?
4. What happened to the Pandit that your didi converted for? Did he die or they got divorced? Whose faults and what? From your descriptions Kamala Das does not appear to be a very upright person.
5. Why are you making a big deal out of the narcisistic tendencies of your didi in younger and older ages?
6. Why are your resenting your didi`s effort to adapt the religious practices of her husband though somewhat overzealously?
7. What is this trademark vs identity deal that you are kicking dust about?
8. I am not sure what you expected to achieve from your open letter. Do you resent her return to Islam? What is wrong with fair devotion to one`s husband? Do gods punish or you are punished by people who you might offend or wrong? This is so in Islam or Hinduism; just the same. Why drag God in it? How many satis and devdasis have you seen?
9. Your letter hangs without any statement of position or resolution proposed. What did your didi say about it?
Finally, in summary, I would like to state that your write-up is an interesting description of a personal phantasm but no one should infer any thing general from it.
I admit so far I had not thought of your write-up as literary piece. I confess to looking only on the religio-political aspects of the presentation. Partly and only partly this is due to excessive obsession of the chowkis with religion. As a representative of rambling emotional state the piece does have merit. Though there are a few places where it still needs to be tightened up so that it can carry the reader through the self-centered scenario that it IS.
Now I return to the intellectual aspects of the presentation.
1. What is your position that you declare in the footnote has not changed? Is this just a set of questions?
2. Your Didi`s conversion event has relevance to others only in so far as it can throw light on the understanding/guidance of those converts/back converts/further converts.
3. What do you think should be the situation of your didi`s chldren? Why should not be the specific combination that she and her husband wanted it to be?
4. What happened to the Pandit that your didi converted for? Did he die or they got divorced? Whose faults and what? From your descriptions Kamala Das does not appear to be a very upright person.
5. Why are you making a big deal out of the narcisistic tendencies of your didi in younger and older ages?
6. Why are your resenting your didi`s effort to adapt the religious practices of her husband though somewhat overzealously?
7. What is this trademark vs identity deal that you are kicking dust about?
8. I am not sure what you expected to achieve from your open letter. Do you resent her return to Islam? What is wrong with fair devotion to one`s husband? Do gods punish or you are punished by people who you might offend or wrong? This is so in Islam or Hinduism; just the same. Why drag God in it? How many satis and devdasis have you seen?
9. Your letter hangs without any statement of position or resolution proposed. What did your didi say about it?
Finally, in summary, I would like to state that your write-up is an interesting description of a personal phantasm but no one should infer any thing general from it.
#39 Posted by FarzanaVersey on June 25, 2003 2:26:02 pm
I agree that the format might seem confusing to some, but that was the reason I used the break. While editing suggestions (Samina?) would be welcome (I am not happy with the last para of the first segment – too many ‘buts’, which I was aware of, but on reading aloud it did not sound too bad), I would not change the letter to Kamala Das. As for the emotional quality of my writing, I thought Chowkies had got used to it by now. I do not pretend otherwise and, to be honest, I am not a particularly rational being. If you cannot feel about something, you cannot think of doing anything about it. My ‘logic’.
Let me share the reservations a friend had. A Pakistani. Not a Chowkie. He once told me that the moment I start revealing these aspects of my family/life, “all these Pakistanis who support you will show their true colours. That urstruly is always on your side, but just you wait and see what happens….”
I was surprised. One, I write for people, irrespective of their nationalities, but here there is the knowledge that the border is an issue. As for urstruly, I still do not understand what “whining” was there in this article. I gave two opposing versions and expressed my opinions on both, which are the same.
nazarhayatkhan (I type like a dervish…in some ways thoughts, words, emotions just get into a manic dance), veeresh (ah, you have confidence in meeee!), Brat, friend, driz459, digit (‘she’ is my cousin), aicha…thanks.
godot (#6):
[The only interesting aspect of this highly emotional outburst is a Muslim conversion to Hinduism and back.]
Well, that was the primary motive of this piece and am glad you could see it.
[Farzana, judging from your writings, I couldn`t tell you were capable of asking such naive questions. You come across as a good writer but a thought process of an adolescent.]
What are the naïve questions I have posed? Anyway, good to see you back. I was missing you…now that is naïve :)
yagacho (#9):
Didi IS a psychiatrist herself! I do not think she needs to get fixed…there are other issues I was discussing.
temporal (#10):
A while ago when I was in Kochy I tried to get in touch with her, and she sounded very confused and suspicious. She tried to stall the meeting, and after a couple of calls, I thought it was a waste of time. I was more interested in her because she used to be this grande dame who had an open house, where people would gather, drink and recite poetry…so I was told by friends in Mumbai. She has updated her autobiography and is continuing with her columns. I do not know what major change has come about in her life.
Studebaker (#11):
[Given the money a woman will run with it caring too hoot for religion]
Didi married a man who had very little money, and they both worked their way up.
Inquirer (#13):
I did not present my woes, but my opinion. I know it would help to have further explored Didi’s mental condition, which I think I did with Kamala Das. But as I indicated, there really was no protest in my cousin’s case, so one never quite got to know why. She had a supportive father, who was more into reading books of philosophy rather than religion. Her mother was a staunch Aga Khani, and as everyone knows, it is as secular as you can get within a religious framework. And Didi was always with grandma and my mother, who have been liberal in the truest sense. Then there is the age gap between us. Interestingly, she firmly believes that I am much too rebellious.
hamidm (15):
Since you mentioned…although didi married a Brahmin, they, having moved to the west, ate everything that moved. He ate beef, she ate pork, the kids ate whatever they could lay their hands on. Now she and the family have turned vegetarian, and it has to do with religion, not health (her son told me) and she has been trying to convert us to that way of thinking.
Many years ago the Jehovah’s Witnesses got into overdrive and started visiting homes. I was a sucker looking for succour, so I gave them my phone number and they would call and ask me to attend their meetings every Sunday. I think that put me off. Re. conversions, I have just one thing to say: one god/religion is tough enough to understand, so how on earth will one have the time/inclination for others?
Let me share the reservations a friend had. A Pakistani. Not a Chowkie. He once told me that the moment I start revealing these aspects of my family/life, “all these Pakistanis who support you will show their true colours. That urstruly is always on your side, but just you wait and see what happens….”
I was surprised. One, I write for people, irrespective of their nationalities, but here there is the knowledge that the border is an issue. As for urstruly, I still do not understand what “whining” was there in this article. I gave two opposing versions and expressed my opinions on both, which are the same.
nazarhayatkhan (I type like a dervish…in some ways thoughts, words, emotions just get into a manic dance), veeresh (ah, you have confidence in meeee!), Brat, friend, driz459, digit (‘she’ is my cousin), aicha…thanks.
godot (#6):
[The only interesting aspect of this highly emotional outburst is a Muslim conversion to Hinduism and back.]
Well, that was the primary motive of this piece and am glad you could see it.
[Farzana, judging from your writings, I couldn`t tell you were capable of asking such naive questions. You come across as a good writer but a thought process of an adolescent.]
What are the naïve questions I have posed? Anyway, good to see you back. I was missing you…now that is naïve :)
yagacho (#9):
Didi IS a psychiatrist herself! I do not think she needs to get fixed…there are other issues I was discussing.
temporal (#10):
A while ago when I was in Kochy I tried to get in touch with her, and she sounded very confused and suspicious. She tried to stall the meeting, and after a couple of calls, I thought it was a waste of time. I was more interested in her because she used to be this grande dame who had an open house, where people would gather, drink and recite poetry…so I was told by friends in Mumbai. She has updated her autobiography and is continuing with her columns. I do not know what major change has come about in her life.
Studebaker (#11):
[Given the money a woman will run with it caring too hoot for religion]
Didi married a man who had very little money, and they both worked their way up.
Inquirer (#13):
I did not present my woes, but my opinion. I know it would help to have further explored Didi’s mental condition, which I think I did with Kamala Das. But as I indicated, there really was no protest in my cousin’s case, so one never quite got to know why. She had a supportive father, who was more into reading books of philosophy rather than religion. Her mother was a staunch Aga Khani, and as everyone knows, it is as secular as you can get within a religious framework. And Didi was always with grandma and my mother, who have been liberal in the truest sense. Then there is the age gap between us. Interestingly, she firmly believes that I am much too rebellious.
hamidm (15):
Since you mentioned…although didi married a Brahmin, they, having moved to the west, ate everything that moved. He ate beef, she ate pork, the kids ate whatever they could lay their hands on. Now she and the family have turned vegetarian, and it has to do with religion, not health (her son told me) and she has been trying to convert us to that way of thinking.
Many years ago the Jehovah’s Witnesses got into overdrive and started visiting homes. I was a sucker looking for succour, so I gave them my phone number and they would call and ask me to attend their meetings every Sunday. I think that put me off. Re. conversions, I have just one thing to say: one god/religion is tough enough to understand, so how on earth will one have the time/inclination for others?
#38 Posted by hamidm2 on June 25, 2003 2:26:01 pm
......... maybe i don`t have any appreciation for this religion business, but i just don`t see why anyone would want to convert to anything ............. religion is a heriditary disease that you are born with, and conversion is like trading it for some other horrible affliction instead of going for a full cure ............. some of the rituals like eid, devali and christmas can be fun, but others like fasting, prayer and circumcision can be quite painful ............ i have never met anyone who could rationally explain to me why they believe in what they believe in ............ some say it is for the free wafers and wine in church, others like the bhang at the mazars, others just like running around half naked or are afraid to go to the barber ............ what`s the point of all this?
............. instead of converting, mixed couples should try to take advantage of the good stuff in both faiths ......for example, a shia-sunni couple could keep shia time for sehri and sunni time for iftari, thus saving twenty minutes at both ends and reducing the idiotic act of fasting by forty minutes .............
............. instead of converting, mixed couples should try to take advantage of the good stuff in both faiths ......for example, a shia-sunni couple could keep shia time for sehri and sunni time for iftari, thus saving twenty minutes at both ends and reducing the idiotic act of fasting by forty minutes .............
#37 Posted by FarzanaVersey on June 25, 2003 2:26:01 pm
Deafening silence from those who believe I cannot think beyond Islam...but i am not surprised.
soysauce (#16):
Kamala Das did not reply; she probably did not even read it, though wish she had. For, most people taking potshots at her were Hindu. But I got a call from a person involved in an Islamic organisation and he was surprisingly supportive. The only problem he had was with my ‘open’ language!
I agree when you talk about powerplay. In India, even among educated urban families, the girl is always co-opted, whether she converts or not. Didi probably converted to fulfill her mother-in-law’s wish, but having never lived in the joint family and in fact in an open society, I could not understand her attitude. It does not appear that she resents it at all. In fact, she is clearly anti-Islamic as seen from the Western point of view. It ought not to bother me, except that she is family. We have shared moments. What I find strange is that she is more comfortable today with the other relatives who are practising Muslims, and rarely expresses her views on hijab etc to them.
[I cannot see myself carrying on a relationship if she were my relative and had undergone conversion. You could try brainwashing her kid!]
Oh, her daughter married young, and the guy she got married to is her husband’s nephew. And then they talk about Muslim’s marrying their cousins… we did try to have some fun when her son was here; I was of the belief that he should marry a Christian, just for variety… someone suggested a Muslim. Which is when we got the clear signal: her children would not even fall in love with a non-Hindu with marriage in mind. About carrying on a relationship with her, being emotional is a great help in these matters. You do not weigh these things…
ana (#19):
The footnote was put in there simply because the open letter was written in 1999; a lot has happened since then; I am seen as a jihadi of sorts here; political strife, riots…things that could have made me change my mind. But they have not.
The Kamala Das query has been answered in reply to t…
(Digression: why are the laundas being put on msgr, and not the ‘bimbo’??!)
Satire (#21):
How often do people choose their religion out of choice? I did mention the instances where ideology comes into play, but that is often a male preserve. Didi is pretty and strong-minded, which is why I find it difficult to understand. But we must not forget that she has had a stable family life…now whether one god united them is the reason for this, I do not know.
You contradict yourself when you say that, “The issue you reflect with the kids not getting a `balanced instruction` isn`t really religious” and then, “As for the kids, ahh a touchy subject, the parents should decide which religion: either, both, all or none. Usually in an educated setting, the stronger personality dominates”.
The problem is that children are inculcated with religious values because in our subcontinent everything ethical has a religious basis; while Western thought threw up socio-psychological theories, we made mythology into our foundation for a value system. It has some good elements, but rituals interfere.
In my own case, when I was a child I refused to read the Quran because I had a simple explanation, “I hate mugging and I do not like the Muliyanima’s face.” That was the end. And as a teenager, I just stopped doing anything. Again, I was asked if I had been hurt. I said, no, I just did not find the answers I was looking for. One still asks questions because there is a vacuum. I do mumble prayers, I wear lucky charms, I try and put wind chimes everywhere…these are things to make one feel good. Because I think that while I have got closer to my community due to the ground realities around me, I am still groping in the dark. I was recently resented the book ‘Imaginary Muslims’…I think it conveys how best I feel. This long ramble is because what ought to be simple decisions are tough. You have talked about giving children the choice…possible. But can they ever forget what they see around them? Every Friday agarbattis were lit up at home, and that is what I have seen all my life. Today I may bring the Green Apple fragrant one and make it a point that it is so sensual….but I do know that if I light them, I will say a small fateha and hope that god likes my impeccable taste…
Shandana (#25):
Thanks for sharing a personal experience. As for your being seen as a Pakistani Hindu on some website, I have been surprised to find a Christian organisation branding me together with the likes of Bal Thackeray…
Yes, I am glad for the liberal atmosphere at home. I am glad when my nephew’s thread ceremony was conducted, together with the Hindu priest, by my Muslim namaazi cousin. But it makes me sad that in the current environment, I have to be the ‘other’… being a misfit is different and can be fun! I am happy you could hold your head high and be yourself.
Samankhan (#27):
Thanks for giving an example. However, I do not agree when you say, “To discard the religion one was born into to marry another from a different religion speaks volumes about the character of the person, doesn`t it? If he/she could be disloyal to his/her deity couldn`t he/she be so to a mere human?”
I think you can be human without being religious. One’s character does not come from which god one worships, but what one does after worshipping that god. Conversion is not so much about disloyalty, but about whether you can truly shake of what is your history. And must you? Can’t both co-exist? I see it alas only in the so-called elite professions like films, theatre, media, and believe me there is often a conflict here too.
dost-mittarji (#28):
Good post. But I do not think that Islam put an end to metaphysical debate. Blasphemy too is a metaphysical debate, if we can get into a mature discussion about it. I do not agree that Kamala Das’ decision was mature, although it may been thought over and mulled for a while. We can think of a hundred things to do for long, but they need not be mature.
Ah, as for all being Buddhists in the end…sure, you must see those monks :)
Regards,
Farzana
soysauce (#16):
Kamala Das did not reply; she probably did not even read it, though wish she had. For, most people taking potshots at her were Hindu. But I got a call from a person involved in an Islamic organisation and he was surprisingly supportive. The only problem he had was with my ‘open’ language!
I agree when you talk about powerplay. In India, even among educated urban families, the girl is always co-opted, whether she converts or not. Didi probably converted to fulfill her mother-in-law’s wish, but having never lived in the joint family and in fact in an open society, I could not understand her attitude. It does not appear that she resents it at all. In fact, she is clearly anti-Islamic as seen from the Western point of view. It ought not to bother me, except that she is family. We have shared moments. What I find strange is that she is more comfortable today with the other relatives who are practising Muslims, and rarely expresses her views on hijab etc to them.
[I cannot see myself carrying on a relationship if she were my relative and had undergone conversion. You could try brainwashing her kid!]
Oh, her daughter married young, and the guy she got married to is her husband’s nephew. And then they talk about Muslim’s marrying their cousins… we did try to have some fun when her son was here; I was of the belief that he should marry a Christian, just for variety… someone suggested a Muslim. Which is when we got the clear signal: her children would not even fall in love with a non-Hindu with marriage in mind. About carrying on a relationship with her, being emotional is a great help in these matters. You do not weigh these things…
ana (#19):
The footnote was put in there simply because the open letter was written in 1999; a lot has happened since then; I am seen as a jihadi of sorts here; political strife, riots…things that could have made me change my mind. But they have not.
The Kamala Das query has been answered in reply to t…
(Digression: why are the laundas being put on msgr, and not the ‘bimbo’??!)
Satire (#21):
How often do people choose their religion out of choice? I did mention the instances where ideology comes into play, but that is often a male preserve. Didi is pretty and strong-minded, which is why I find it difficult to understand. But we must not forget that she has had a stable family life…now whether one god united them is the reason for this, I do not know.
You contradict yourself when you say that, “The issue you reflect with the kids not getting a `balanced instruction` isn`t really religious” and then, “As for the kids, ahh a touchy subject, the parents should decide which religion: either, both, all or none. Usually in an educated setting, the stronger personality dominates”.
The problem is that children are inculcated with religious values because in our subcontinent everything ethical has a religious basis; while Western thought threw up socio-psychological theories, we made mythology into our foundation for a value system. It has some good elements, but rituals interfere.
In my own case, when I was a child I refused to read the Quran because I had a simple explanation, “I hate mugging and I do not like the Muliyanima’s face.” That was the end. And as a teenager, I just stopped doing anything. Again, I was asked if I had been hurt. I said, no, I just did not find the answers I was looking for. One still asks questions because there is a vacuum. I do mumble prayers, I wear lucky charms, I try and put wind chimes everywhere…these are things to make one feel good. Because I think that while I have got closer to my community due to the ground realities around me, I am still groping in the dark. I was recently resented the book ‘Imaginary Muslims’…I think it conveys how best I feel. This long ramble is because what ought to be simple decisions are tough. You have talked about giving children the choice…possible. But can they ever forget what they see around them? Every Friday agarbattis were lit up at home, and that is what I have seen all my life. Today I may bring the Green Apple fragrant one and make it a point that it is so sensual….but I do know that if I light them, I will say a small fateha and hope that god likes my impeccable taste…
Shandana (#25):
Thanks for sharing a personal experience. As for your being seen as a Pakistani Hindu on some website, I have been surprised to find a Christian organisation branding me together with the likes of Bal Thackeray…
Yes, I am glad for the liberal atmosphere at home. I am glad when my nephew’s thread ceremony was conducted, together with the Hindu priest, by my Muslim namaazi cousin. But it makes me sad that in the current environment, I have to be the ‘other’… being a misfit is different and can be fun! I am happy you could hold your head high and be yourself.
Samankhan (#27):
Thanks for giving an example. However, I do not agree when you say, “To discard the religion one was born into to marry another from a different religion speaks volumes about the character of the person, doesn`t it? If he/she could be disloyal to his/her deity couldn`t he/she be so to a mere human?”
I think you can be human without being religious. One’s character does not come from which god one worships, but what one does after worshipping that god. Conversion is not so much about disloyalty, but about whether you can truly shake of what is your history. And must you? Can’t both co-exist? I see it alas only in the so-called elite professions like films, theatre, media, and believe me there is often a conflict here too.
dost-mittarji (#28):
Good post. But I do not think that Islam put an end to metaphysical debate. Blasphemy too is a metaphysical debate, if we can get into a mature discussion about it. I do not agree that Kamala Das’ decision was mature, although it may been thought over and mulled for a while. We can think of a hundred things to do for long, but they need not be mature.
Ah, as for all being Buddhists in the end…sure, you must see those monks :)
Regards,
Farzana
#36 Posted by harimau on June 25, 2003 12:50:30 pm
Ref soysauce #16
[Your cousin, on the other hand, sounds like she is trying to be holier than the Sankaracharya. I cannot see myself carrying on a relationship if she were my relative and had undergone conversion.]
Finally, the mask has dropped from the face of the hypocrite.
Sangilikkaruppan who has been pretending to be egalitarian finally admits that he wouldn`t be able to handle an inter-religious marriage. You all know now that he won`t be able to stand his cousin marrying a Dalit. Or for that matter, one notch below his own caste.
One teeny-weeny notch ABOVE his caste: now, that is another story!
[Your cousin, on the other hand, sounds like she is trying to be holier than the Sankaracharya. I cannot see myself carrying on a relationship if she were my relative and had undergone conversion.]
Finally, the mask has dropped from the face of the hypocrite.
Sangilikkaruppan who has been pretending to be egalitarian finally admits that he wouldn`t be able to handle an inter-religious marriage. You all know now that he won`t be able to stand his cousin marrying a Dalit. Or for that matter, one notch below his own caste.
One teeny-weeny notch ABOVE his caste: now, that is another story!
#35 Posted by harimau on June 25, 2003 12:50:30 pm
Ref dost-mittar #28
[In my ideal world, religious conversion would be like voting in an election, one could change one`s mind about one`s religion several times in one`s life as one`s thinking evolves...]
Except that, electing to become a Muslim is like electing Communists to power. That would be the last free election in either case!
[In my ideal world, religious conversion would be like voting in an election, one could change one`s mind about one`s religion several times in one`s life as one`s thinking evolves...]
Except that, electing to become a Muslim is like electing Communists to power. That would be the last free election in either case!
#34 Posted by nazarhayatkhan on June 25, 2003 12:50:30 pm
Farzana
Whether people hate your guts or they like you, they all get deeply involved in what you write.
That is the best compliment a writer can get.
What you write does not require any editing or clipping - it is its spontanity and honesty that gives it its inner power.
#33 Posted by tahmed32 on June 25, 2003 12:50:29 pm
For a woman to discard her religion in order to marry someone does not tell me anything about the woman. It tells me a lot about the man - it tells me that he neither understands what religion is all about, nor does he love his wife enough to insist that she retain her religion. So, in both cases, the men were lowlife.
PS: the article is written in a confusing manner, and i couldnt figure out which way this conversion took place until i skimmed through a few posts and realized we were talking two different marriages...i think...
PS: the article is written in a confusing manner, and i couldnt figure out which way this conversion took place until i skimmed through a few posts and realized we were talking two different marriages...i think...
#32 Posted by friend on June 25, 2003 12:50:29 pm
Dost#28,
I fully agree with your post. However, I remember reading about 2 occassions when contrary opinion was not permitted. One of them is in Mahabharat.
I fully agree with your post. However, I remember reading about 2 occassions when contrary opinion was not permitted. One of them is in Mahabharat.
#31 Posted by dullabhatti on June 25, 2003 11:02:27 am
Dost ji: Actually quite a few people are learning and teaching classical Indian dances and singing in California. A magazine, India Currents, in California has more than a dozen ads for such schools and teachers. I am sure someone is learning.
#30 Posted by dullabhatti on June 25, 2003 10:52:03 am
This time it much better Farzana - although - a bit emotional. Highlights some of issues related to conversions very well.
The gem to take home is in Dost-mittar`s post below and I agree 100%.
``I believe my right to convert myself to another religion is a fundamental human right, but not my right to convert others.``
The gem to take home is in Dost-mittar`s post below and I agree 100%.
``I believe my right to convert myself to another religion is a fundamental human right, but not my right to convert others.``
#29 Posted by jay on June 25, 2003 7:35:53 am
MADHAVIKUTTY,
I lived through the days of ``my story`` in india, the days of ``my god died young`` by shahty brata, i dont know where he is now. I knew the hell that my story created, I knew her husband, a senior officer at that time in reserve bank of india, and this woman will not stop at anything to be contraversial. After the death of her husband, having a great social life in the circuits of bombay, madhavikutty became the muslim, to be contraversial as farzana says, to fake an orgasm, this time a geriatric one. Daughter of lailtambika antharjanam, the top cate namdoodiris daughter, daughter of a great peotess and writer, has to do it all again. There is no aspect of religion in her conversion, it is all to be in the lime light.
I lived through the days of ``my story`` in india, the days of ``my god died young`` by shahty brata, i dont know where he is now. I knew the hell that my story created, I knew her husband, a senior officer at that time in reserve bank of india, and this woman will not stop at anything to be contraversial. After the death of her husband, having a great social life in the circuits of bombay, madhavikutty became the muslim, to be contraversial as farzana says, to fake an orgasm, this time a geriatric one. Daughter of lailtambika antharjanam, the top cate namdoodiris daughter, daughter of a great peotess and writer, has to do it all again. There is no aspect of religion in her conversion, it is all to be in the lime light.
#28 Posted by samankhan on June 25, 2003 7:35:53 am
Ms. Farzana,
A delicate as well as a controversial topic to handle but you have handled it well.
A person should convert if only he/she believes in it and not for any other reason whatsoever or else he/she would be insulting two religions as you have rightly said.
To discard the religion one was born into to marry another from a different religion speaks volumes about the character of the person, doesn`t it?.
If he/she could be disloyal to his/her deity couldn`t he/she be so to a mere human?
A close relative of mine is married to a Kashmiri Pandit; he converted to Islam...only on the paper...he has not openly declared his conversion nor taken the new name for it would hinder his career prospects! He doesn`t practice the religion at home either for his brother lives with them and his family is still in the dark about his conversion and he cannot risk disclosure even if it means the brother stays put for the rest of his life!
When his parents come visiting they rightfully perform all pujas and celebrate all festivals...how or whether or not he avoids them is still unknown...whether my relative is included in the rituals or not remains unknown...
The couple does not have children...intentional or otherwise...we don`t know...I guess they are contemplating which religion their offspring will follow or what names to give them...Hindu or Muslim?!
Just goes to show that he could neither be true to one nor do justice to the other...
Samankhan
A delicate as well as a controversial topic to handle but you have handled it well.
A person should convert if only he/she believes in it and not for any other reason whatsoever or else he/she would be insulting two religions as you have rightly said.
To discard the religion one was born into to marry another from a different religion speaks volumes about the character of the person, doesn`t it?.
If he/she could be disloyal to his/her deity couldn`t he/she be so to a mere human?
A close relative of mine is married to a Kashmiri Pandit; he converted to Islam...only on the paper...he has not openly declared his conversion nor taken the new name for it would hinder his career prospects! He doesn`t practice the religion at home either for his brother lives with them and his family is still in the dark about his conversion and he cannot risk disclosure even if it means the brother stays put for the rest of his life!
When his parents come visiting they rightfully perform all pujas and celebrate all festivals...how or whether or not he avoids them is still unknown...whether my relative is included in the rituals or not remains unknown...
The couple does not have children...intentional or otherwise...we don`t know...I guess they are contemplating which religion their offspring will follow or what names to give them...Hindu or Muslim?!
Just goes to show that he could neither be true to one nor do justice to the other...
Samankhan
#27 Posted by dost_mittar on June 25, 2003 7:35:53 am
Dear Farzana:
I really enjoyed reading this:
``Where is the young girl standing naked in front of the mirror, every curve with expectation, skin slithering before the eyes, appraising every little texture, the light fuzz standing on edge? Where is the woman who tasted the honey on another’s lips or bared a breast for a man behind a bush? Where is the wife who tried all the wiles to get her husband and then, frustrated, went to others without trying? Where is the poet who wrote her lines like hot iron off the fire? Where is that model of hope who, even at an old age, left her hair loose, the black curls dripping water, the scent of jasmine embedded in their darkness? Where is the gutsy lady of the dark night of so many souls who licked her own wounds and like a bitch in heat went back for more? Where is she who spoke about these things as though they were so natural, and they were natural, but society has made them seem dirty enough that they have to be covered up``
Powerful words!
On the subject, I have rather strong views on religious conversions. I approve the way Kamla Das converted; even if it was a publicity stunt to rekindle her career, as some claimed, it was a mature decision taken by a mature person after fully thinking out the consequences of her actions. I do not approve the way Didi converted because I do not believe that marriage should lead to a change in one`s faith.
I believe my right to convert myself to another religion is a fundamental human right, but not my right to convert others.
In my ideal world, religious conversion would be like voting in an election, one could change one`s mind about one`s religion several times in one`s life as one`s thinking evolves (hopefully, they will all become Buddhists in the end:-)). In such a world, religion would be no big deal but metaphysics/philosophy would be. In this ideal world, we would all be born without any faith and choose our faith (or no-faith) as we grow older. It seems to me that India did, in fact, have approximately such a system until the advent of Islam in the country which made us all Hindus. There were several faiths and no one tried to impress its superiority on another. And for the scholarly and the curious, there were rigorous debates where scholars debated the merits and demerits of various philosophies. Faith was the opium the masses needed and philosophy the nourishment for the minds of the scholars. But with the advent of Islam, faith became a one-way street which shut down all debates about metaphysics with the concept of blasphemy.
Unfortunately, we are not living in an ideal world and religion means more, a LOT more than just one`s faith. It`s a force that divides people into mutually antagonistic and potentially hostile identities. It changes people`s worldview, resulting in divisions of countries or creating new ones. In the current situation, when I convert, I am taking a decision not only for myself but on behalf of my future progeny as well. Thus, taking an example from another board, one sayyed came to India 70 generations ago and there are now between 20-50 million sayyeds on the subcontinent. So, one man`s decision 70 generations ago effectively denied the freedom of choice of religion to several millions. It is this demographic and rigid aspect of religious conversions which causes such consternation to the majority community in India. After all, Jinnah and Iqbal were both relatively recent converts, weren`t they?
Incidentally, your example of your didi`s daughter really surprised me. She must be the only North American girl learning Bharat Natyam or any other Indian classical dance (including at least two muslim girls in Ottawa alone!) who thinks that Krishna is her husband.
I really enjoyed reading this:
``Where is the young girl standing naked in front of the mirror, every curve with expectation, skin slithering before the eyes, appraising every little texture, the light fuzz standing on edge? Where is the woman who tasted the honey on another’s lips or bared a breast for a man behind a bush? Where is the wife who tried all the wiles to get her husband and then, frustrated, went to others without trying? Where is the poet who wrote her lines like hot iron off the fire? Where is that model of hope who, even at an old age, left her hair loose, the black curls dripping water, the scent of jasmine embedded in their darkness? Where is the gutsy lady of the dark night of so many souls who licked her own wounds and like a bitch in heat went back for more? Where is she who spoke about these things as though they were so natural, and they were natural, but society has made them seem dirty enough that they have to be covered up``
Powerful words!
On the subject, I have rather strong views on religious conversions. I approve the way Kamla Das converted; even if it was a publicity stunt to rekindle her career, as some claimed, it was a mature decision taken by a mature person after fully thinking out the consequences of her actions. I do not approve the way Didi converted because I do not believe that marriage should lead to a change in one`s faith.
I believe my right to convert myself to another religion is a fundamental human right, but not my right to convert others.
In my ideal world, religious conversion would be like voting in an election, one could change one`s mind about one`s religion several times in one`s life as one`s thinking evolves (hopefully, they will all become Buddhists in the end:-)). In such a world, religion would be no big deal but metaphysics/philosophy would be. In this ideal world, we would all be born without any faith and choose our faith (or no-faith) as we grow older. It seems to me that India did, in fact, have approximately such a system until the advent of Islam in the country which made us all Hindus. There were several faiths and no one tried to impress its superiority on another. And for the scholarly and the curious, there were rigorous debates where scholars debated the merits and demerits of various philosophies. Faith was the opium the masses needed and philosophy the nourishment for the minds of the scholars. But with the advent of Islam, faith became a one-way street which shut down all debates about metaphysics with the concept of blasphemy.
Unfortunately, we are not living in an ideal world and religion means more, a LOT more than just one`s faith. It`s a force that divides people into mutually antagonistic and potentially hostile identities. It changes people`s worldview, resulting in divisions of countries or creating new ones. In the current situation, when I convert, I am taking a decision not only for myself but on behalf of my future progeny as well. Thus, taking an example from another board, one sayyed came to India 70 generations ago and there are now between 20-50 million sayyeds on the subcontinent. So, one man`s decision 70 generations ago effectively denied the freedom of choice of religion to several millions. It is this demographic and rigid aspect of religious conversions which causes such consternation to the majority community in India. After all, Jinnah and Iqbal were both relatively recent converts, weren`t they?
Incidentally, your example of your didi`s daughter really surprised me. She must be the only North American girl learning Bharat Natyam or any other Indian classical dance (including at least two muslim girls in Ottawa alone!) who thinks that Krishna is her husband.
#26 Posted by Inquirer on June 25, 2003 7:35:53 am
# 17, studebaker: You are incorrectly responding.
To all: Why people in general get converted is not the issue here. We need to discuss what positions exist for someone who coverts back. Evidently, one has to clearly document why any particular person got converted. Then what did a person get from the conversion or what that person did to solidify the bridges between two religios groups. Now what has changed - from the convert`s point of view - to try another conversion. That is why I asked in #13 about presenting the statuses of the feelings of the Didi and suggested deemphasis on Farzana`s emotional reactions. Hard to get because the information flow channels are in her control.
Hopefully, this will also supply information to #18, saminasha. Even in #13 I had provided specific evaluations of the emotional vs. rational descriptions. Now, don`t take me wrong, there is nothing wrong in emotionalized writing. It is perfectly legitimate to do it and enjoy it. But you should not do it for a group discussion. Men (not all, but usually) do the boring rational writing things because they have learnt from lot of waylaid discussions that emotionalized wrting does not contribute to clear exchange of thoughts.
To all: Why people in general get converted is not the issue here. We need to discuss what positions exist for someone who coverts back. Evidently, one has to clearly document why any particular person got converted. Then what did a person get from the conversion or what that person did to solidify the bridges between two religios groups. Now what has changed - from the convert`s point of view - to try another conversion. That is why I asked in #13 about presenting the statuses of the feelings of the Didi and suggested deemphasis on Farzana`s emotional reactions. Hard to get because the information flow channels are in her control.
Hopefully, this will also supply information to #18, saminasha. Even in #13 I had provided specific evaluations of the emotional vs. rational descriptions. Now, don`t take me wrong, there is nothing wrong in emotionalized writing. It is perfectly legitimate to do it and enjoy it. But you should not do it for a group discussion. Men (not all, but usually) do the boring rational writing things because they have learnt from lot of waylaid discussions that emotionalized wrting does not contribute to clear exchange of thoughts.
#24 Posted by slink on June 25, 2003 12:30:22 am
farzana,
interesting, emotive writing. made me think of a lot of things...not necessarily related.
on conversion, when i was a kid my mother told us that when people asked what religon she was we should say she had converted. she was roman catholic when she married my sunni muslim punjabi father. i didn`t understand why then, but as we got older kids started asking. they were obviously repeating the questions their parents had but were unable to ask her or my father directly at pta meetings etc. i didn`t then and still dont understand why it matters. but people still ask. when she goes for a walk in the park and strikes up conversations with other women, she tells me people still ask first or second thing what her religon is, not just her but everyone. now that she is older she no longer cares, or maybe now that we have grown up and moved away she feels she can be honest about who she is without damaging our chances (for what i`m not sure). when she says roman catholic, some try to nudge her towards conversion. it is a favorite joke of ours, whats the latest attempt then ami?
another thing, a lot of people who had read my articles believe i am not a muslim. they have arrived at this conclusion how...i don`t know. perhaps because i have written about minorities. i found an article i had written about hindu`s in pakistan on a saudi arabian website under ` a pakistani hindu speaks`. i laughed. how confusing it all is. why must we wear our beliefs on our sleeves? why must we champion only our own beliefs rather than the right to believe?
i think you are lucky to have grown up with religous diversity. i say this because so have i, and i consider myself lucky. in the absence of any ONE true path, i have been able to tread many. for this i thank all the gods anyone has ever believed in, especially the ones in terry pratchett books. ever read small gods by the same author?
regards,
shandana
interesting, emotive writing. made me think of a lot of things...not necessarily related.
on conversion, when i was a kid my mother told us that when people asked what religon she was we should say she had converted. she was roman catholic when she married my sunni muslim punjabi father. i didn`t understand why then, but as we got older kids started asking. they were obviously repeating the questions their parents had but were unable to ask her or my father directly at pta meetings etc. i didn`t then and still dont understand why it matters. but people still ask. when she goes for a walk in the park and strikes up conversations with other women, she tells me people still ask first or second thing what her religon is, not just her but everyone. now that she is older she no longer cares, or maybe now that we have grown up and moved away she feels she can be honest about who she is without damaging our chances (for what i`m not sure). when she says roman catholic, some try to nudge her towards conversion. it is a favorite joke of ours, whats the latest attempt then ami?
another thing, a lot of people who had read my articles believe i am not a muslim. they have arrived at this conclusion how...i don`t know. perhaps because i have written about minorities. i found an article i had written about hindu`s in pakistan on a saudi arabian website under ` a pakistani hindu speaks`. i laughed. how confusing it all is. why must we wear our beliefs on our sleeves? why must we champion only our own beliefs rather than the right to believe?
i think you are lucky to have grown up with religous diversity. i say this because so have i, and i consider myself lucky. in the absence of any ONE true path, i have been able to tread many. for this i thank all the gods anyone has ever believed in, especially the ones in terry pratchett books. ever read small gods by the same author?
regards,
shandana
#23 Posted by Tipu on June 25, 2003 12:02:30 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#22 Posted by m_souza on June 24, 2003 11:21:36 pm
#16 by soysauce on June 24, 2003 2:55pm PT
Your cousin, on the other hand, sounds like she is trying to be holier than the Sankaracharya. I cannot see myself carrying on a relationship if she were my relative and had undergone conversion. You could try brainwashing her kid!
-------
It is amazing to see peopel so disturbed here.
You feel you would not carry on the relationship if some relative of yours converts. Muslims can`t accept conversion away from their religion but are so glad to see people converting to their religion. Such double standards.
History itself is the proof of this. They love to convert others.
Reading many of the posts till now, the conclusion is that even one such conversion(from Islam to Hinduism and that too not by force but for the sake of love and marriage) seems to have disturbed and annoyed the muslims. Imagine how did hindus feel when so many of their co-religionists were forcibly converted to Islam.
Isn`t the subcontimental history brimming with stories of conversions? Some for marriage and greed for money...others and most of them were by the invading armies coming from the Hindukush. They not only converted the kafirs but destroyed the religious places of the native religion. What right did they have? How do Hindus feel about all this?
In today`s secular India we don`t care if one is a hindu or muslim or others...
But ...because not only are these people converted to Islam but speak so much against the religion of thier ancestors-hinduism..this is bad.
Anyway...we as Hindus do not have any desire to convert others to our religion. Religion is not a political party. And even if someone converts to it...there is no compulsion on that person to forget the previous religion.
But if Farzana`s Didi feels like behaving the way she does..it is her own wish...why should it disturb anyone.? she should not disturb even her cousins..forget about chowkies? When people convert to Islam aren`t they told to absolutely forget their past? Just look at the subcontinental muslims to see how they have not only changed but hate their past...and call themselves Syeds
+You could try brainwashing her kid! +
Hinduism doesn`t lay any such conditions to follow only its God. But isn`t it upto the Didi to bring up her kids in any way she wants?
Brainwashing..ufff.......like the moghuls ....Aurangzebs did after invading India. Are you still continuing it?
Your cousin, on the other hand, sounds like she is trying to be holier than the Sankaracharya. I cannot see myself carrying on a relationship if she were my relative and had undergone conversion. You could try brainwashing her kid!
-------
It is amazing to see peopel so disturbed here.
You feel you would not carry on the relationship if some relative of yours converts. Muslims can`t accept conversion away from their religion but are so glad to see people converting to their religion. Such double standards.
History itself is the proof of this. They love to convert others.
Reading many of the posts till now, the conclusion is that even one such conversion(from Islam to Hinduism and that too not by force but for the sake of love and marriage) seems to have disturbed and annoyed the muslims. Imagine how did hindus feel when so many of their co-religionists were forcibly converted to Islam.
Isn`t the subcontimental history brimming with stories of conversions? Some for marriage and greed for money...others and most of them were by the invading armies coming from the Hindukush. They not only converted the kafirs but destroyed the religious places of the native religion. What right did they have? How do Hindus feel about all this?
In today`s secular India we don`t care if one is a hindu or muslim or others...
But ...because not only are these people converted to Islam but speak so much against the religion of thier ancestors-hinduism..this is bad.
Anyway...we as Hindus do not have any desire to convert others to our religion. Religion is not a political party. And even if someone converts to it...there is no compulsion on that person to forget the previous religion.
But if Farzana`s Didi feels like behaving the way she does..it is her own wish...why should it disturb anyone.? she should not disturb even her cousins..forget about chowkies? When people convert to Islam aren`t they told to absolutely forget their past? Just look at the subcontinental muslims to see how they have not only changed but hate their past...and call themselves Syeds
+You could try brainwashing her kid! +
Hinduism doesn`t lay any such conditions to follow only its God. But isn`t it upto the Didi to bring up her kids in any way she wants?
Brainwashing..ufff.......like the moghuls ....Aurangzebs did after invading India. Are you still continuing it?
#21 Posted by Satire on June 24, 2003 8:47:30 pm
Farzana,
Two warm stories, indeed. But shouldn`t individuals be allowed to choose their religion irrespective of their past. Shouldn`t we be free to call themselves ``Mohammed Ali`` should we choose. Or bring up our children as we choose. Shouldn`t we be allowed to be the idiots in our own space?
The issue you reflect with the kids not getting a `balanced instruction` isn`t really religious. I think it has more to do with sexism where the husband`s faith usually dominates. Or if the girl is really pretty and strong minded, they lattoo could be swung the other way too.
Lastly, I don`t believe Kamala Das was insulting anyone`s religion. If she was, it was her own (either past or present). In any plural society people will convert, inter-marry, socialize .... I think the freedom to do so should be encouraged rather than curtailed. As for the kids, ahh a touchy subject, the parents should decide which religion: either, both, all or none. Usually in an educated setting, the stronger personality dominates.
Satire
Two warm stories, indeed. But shouldn`t individuals be allowed to choose their religion irrespective of their past. Shouldn`t we be free to call themselves ``Mohammed Ali`` should we choose. Or bring up our children as we choose. Shouldn`t we be allowed to be the idiots in our own space?
The issue you reflect with the kids not getting a `balanced instruction` isn`t really religious. I think it has more to do with sexism where the husband`s faith usually dominates. Or if the girl is really pretty and strong minded, they lattoo could be swung the other way too.
Lastly, I don`t believe Kamala Das was insulting anyone`s religion. If she was, it was her own (either past or present). In any plural society people will convert, inter-marry, socialize .... I think the freedom to do so should be encouraged rather than curtailed. As for the kids, ahh a touchy subject, the parents should decide which religion: either, both, all or none. Usually in an educated setting, the stronger personality dominates.
Satire
#20 Posted by ana_dobarah on June 24, 2003 4:59:34 pm
Ferzoo...
hiya! agreeing with brat here. you know i`ve read a little bit `bout kamala das recently, but these days from the eye to hawa rather than to the mind...is she just as content with her conversion as she was when she went through it?
and i`m just curious...vhy the footnote? yaar, from what you wrote about your didi, and connecting that to the letter to kamala das...intelligent readers can figure out your position, no?
and thank you for sharing about didi. :-)
love,
ana
hiya! agreeing with brat here. you know i`ve read a little bit `bout kamala das recently, but these days from the eye to hawa rather than to the mind...is she just as content with her conversion as she was when she went through it?
and i`m just curious...vhy the footnote? yaar, from what you wrote about your didi, and connecting that to the letter to kamala das...intelligent readers can figure out your position, no?
and thank you for sharing about didi. :-)
love,
ana
#19 Posted by aicha on June 24, 2003 4:59:34 pm
didnt get the second part. But re the conversions - first of all it is an extremely touchy topic. Second just discussing the matter makes born again believers/practicerers out of atheists.
What you sister/cousin did is in fact commendable but should have been reciprocated by her husband to even things out.
If you are not broadminded enough for this - should stick to the girls your mother picks out.
Personally I dont understand why marriage has to have this conversion business attached to it. What purpose does it serve?? You are marrying the person and inheriting the inlaws (or outlaws depending on your outlook) - why should religion be involved>
What you sister/cousin did is in fact commendable but should have been reciprocated by her husband to even things out.
If you are not broadminded enough for this - should stick to the girls your mother picks out.
Personally I dont understand why marriage has to have this conversion business attached to it. What purpose does it serve?? You are marrying the person and inheriting the inlaws (or outlaws depending on your outlook) - why should religion be involved>
#18 Posted by Studebaker on June 24, 2003 4:17:46 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#17 Posted by Saminasha on June 24, 2003 4:17:46 pm
Some of the interacts from male respondents are quite interesting in their rush to label the writing and characters as `emotional`` and ``irrational``. To these respondents I would request the textual evidence to back up their ``emotional`` and ``irrational`` claims.
#16 Posted by hamidm2 on June 24, 2003 2:55:50 pm
........ it is really beyond me why anyone would want to change their religion and swap one set of ridiculous superstitions for another load of kaka .......... sounds like a lot of work, pain and grief for nothing ......... so you give up believing in angels, jinns and men flying off to heaven on a winged horse and start believeing in gods and godesseses shamelessly copulating in public ..........actually, the latter sounds like a lot more fun, but i don`t think hindooism allows you to imitate its lecherous gods............... instead you might end up having to give up eating steaks and kababs and your body being barbecued on a smoking pyre on the banks of a filty river ............. no siree! .......... it just doesn`t sound like much of a bargain .......... now, if hugh hefner started a religion which involved debauchery and rituals at the mansion it would be another story .......... or if somone offered a lifetime annuity of a couple of thousand a week, it might be worth considering it ..........there was a rumour that ahmedis paid handsomely and would also marry off their beautiful daughters to converts - not true ......... christian missionaries are more generous, but who needs glass beads and a turkey dinner ..............
............ should christians convert muslims? ... that is the cover story in the latest issue of time magazine .................sounds like the evangelical missionaries are descending on iraq armed with the bible, cookies and the blood of christ and bent upon saving the muslims from satan ............ no wonder poor satan has a persecution complex!......... everyone is out there trying to get him ..........muslims throw rocks at him, christians are showing him the cross and giving him the finger, hindoos are trying to smoke him out............ you have to root for the underdog, so i think i will convert to satanism ...........
............ should christians convert muslims? ... that is the cover story in the latest issue of time magazine .................sounds like the evangelical missionaries are descending on iraq armed with the bible, cookies and the blood of christ and bent upon saving the muslims from satan ............ no wonder poor satan has a persecution complex!......... everyone is out there trying to get him ..........muslims throw rocks at him, christians are showing him the cross and giving him the finger, hindoos are trying to smoke him out............ you have to root for the underdog, so i think i will convert to satanism ...........
#15 Posted by soysauce on June 24, 2003 2:55:50 pm
Farzana,
I really enjoyed reading this. Going by what others have had to say so far, I wonder if you could have been clearer. But I also wonder how.
Your letter to Kamala Das (whose poems I had read occasionally in the Illustrated Weekly) is superb. Did you receive a reply from her? From what I read after her conversion (same as what you`ve quoted) she was trying to synthesize something new, trying to ``sufify``. In addition to the points you bring up, her conversion also is unusual in that most convertees are young, searching for something different.
Your cousin, on the other hand, sounds like she is trying to be holier than the Sankaracharya. I cannot see myself carrying on a relationship if she were my relative and had undergone conversion. You could try brainwashing her kid!
A sort of power play goes on in inter-religious marriages. The stronger side imposes its will in return for relationship as a favor. By hinduising so completely (and going beyond) your cousin is making sure of marital harmony. Sounds very one sided though. Wonder if she resents it.
I really enjoyed reading this. Going by what others have had to say so far, I wonder if you could have been clearer. But I also wonder how.
Your letter to Kamala Das (whose poems I had read occasionally in the Illustrated Weekly) is superb. Did you receive a reply from her? From what I read after her conversion (same as what you`ve quoted) she was trying to synthesize something new, trying to ``sufify``. In addition to the points you bring up, her conversion also is unusual in that most convertees are young, searching for something different.
Your cousin, on the other hand, sounds like she is trying to be holier than the Sankaracharya. I cannot see myself carrying on a relationship if she were my relative and had undergone conversion. You could try brainwashing her kid!
A sort of power play goes on in inter-religious marriages. The stronger side imposes its will in return for relationship as a favor. By hinduising so completely (and going beyond) your cousin is making sure of marital harmony. Sounds very one sided though. Wonder if she resents it.
#14 Posted by _digit on June 24, 2003 1:41:52 pm
Hmm...I`ve recently finished reading ``Life of Pi``... and now this. Interesting contrast...
Parts of the story were a bit confusing. I had to re-read certain sections a few times to determine if ``she`` was your cousin or niece.
#13 Posted by Inquirer on June 24, 2003 1:41:51 pm
An interesting story. I can see several interactors could not fathom the emotional/intellectual issues related to conversion, deprivation of preconverted state and then reconversion. Versey did not help the reader by not describing the factual summary information. It is usual woman/emotional description. For a coherent and cogent discussion fancy flights need to be kept within the framework of factual developments.
Versey`s desire to dicourage conversion back should be more solidly grounded in rational discussion. Right now it is not in a reviewer friendly mode. More information about the initial conversion and the reconversion needs should be provided. It is more desirable to represent ``Didi`s`` mental condition than to present one`s own woes and dilemmas.
I appreciate nazrhayatkhan`s reaction and advice. That has greater relevance than the life-circumstance under consideration.
Versey`s desire to dicourage conversion back should be more solidly grounded in rational discussion. Right now it is not in a reviewer friendly mode. More information about the initial conversion and the reconversion needs should be provided. It is more desirable to represent ``Didi`s`` mental condition than to present one`s own woes and dilemmas.
I appreciate nazrhayatkhan`s reaction and advice. That has greater relevance than the life-circumstance under consideration.
#12 Posted by Saminasha on June 24, 2003 1:25:42 pm
This has a lot of potential but is in great need of editing.
#11 Posted by Studebaker on June 24, 2003 12:59:30 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#10 Posted by temporal on June 24, 2003 12:59:10 pm
well said brat #4
Ferz, what happened to her subsequently...and where does she (kamala das/soraya) stand now?
bspnd,
...t
Ferz, what happened to her subsequently...and where does she (kamala das/soraya) stand now?
bspnd,
...t
#9 Posted by yagacho on June 24, 2003 12:56:45 pm
farzana,
to put it simply your didi is a nut case who needs to get friendly with a psychiatrist. that`s the gist of the whole mess. dont worry over it, medications should fix her.
to put it simply your didi is a nut case who needs to get friendly with a psychiatrist. that`s the gist of the whole mess. dont worry over it, medications should fix her.
#8 Posted by driz459 on June 24, 2003 12:11:47 pm
Farzana
I have read two are thre articles of you before this. I am not clear about the footnote which is at the end of the article. As concern to this article it is realy worthy and provokes to think a lot. Majorly. as i think to adopt any philosophy or religion base on human euality is mostly depends upon the romance. With out know the core of that philosophy or religion to accept that only the salogns which lead masses to the heavely life. Reality is that mostly the generator of that thought mostly bitray and exploite the real thoughts. You have very nicely in indirect way has pointed out this hidden phenomanon.
I have read two are thre articles of you before this. I am not clear about the footnote which is at the end of the article. As concern to this article it is realy worthy and provokes to think a lot. Majorly. as i think to adopt any philosophy or religion base on human euality is mostly depends upon the romance. With out know the core of that philosophy or religion to accept that only the salogns which lead masses to the heavely life. Reality is that mostly the generator of that thought mostly bitray and exploite the real thoughts. You have very nicely in indirect way has pointed out this hidden phenomanon.
#7 Posted by friend on June 24, 2003 12:09:55 pm
Furzy madam,
It was an interesting read. Making it little concise would have helped a lot.
It was an interesting read. Making it little concise would have helped a lot.
#6 Posted by Urstruly on June 24, 2003 11:57:59 am
I didn`t get it. I know the authoress is whining about something but I can`t put my finger on it.
#5 Posted by Godot on June 24, 2003 11:57:59 am
The only interesting aspect of this highly emotional outburst is a Muslim conversion to Hinduism and back.
Farzana, judging from your writings, I couldn`t tell you were capable of asking such naive questions. You come across as a good writer but a thought process of an adolescent.
#4 Posted by Brat on June 24, 2003 11:42:01 am
Farzana:
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. You narrated the two shadows really well, the accounts are gripping and it leaves one with thoughts about exactly what does conversion mean to a person. The public and private viewpoints from which you saw this was also a great structure for the article. (All of this from someone who doesn`t see themselves as a critic and hesitates to talk about how something was written!)
It is a very interesting issue and I hope to learn from reading other interactors.
Cheers!
Brat
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. You narrated the two shadows really well, the accounts are gripping and it leaves one with thoughts about exactly what does conversion mean to a person. The public and private viewpoints from which you saw this was also a great structure for the article. (All of this from someone who doesn`t see themselves as a critic and hesitates to talk about how something was written!)
It is a very interesting issue and I hope to learn from reading other interactors.
Cheers!
Brat
#2 Posted by veeresh on June 24, 2003 11:24:38 am
Hi Farzana,
Good writing, but come on, you could give us better, no, what men?
cheers/Veeresh
``If you are out here and cannot close off the loves and hates of all that back there in the real world, the memories will overtake you and swamp you and wilt your tenacity. ``
Leon Uris, Mitla Pass, 1988.
#1 Posted by nazarhayatkhan on June 24, 2003 11:23:34 am
Farzana
A very good soliloque. Thoughts flowing out in their brash rawness. Sitting alone lookin into a void. Can you type at the speed of your thoughts?
Couldn`t agree more with the ending - God, Bhagwan, Allah is the same whatever it is.
A good one.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- anil: Re: # 20 Dost sahib: “Indians... Uneven Democracy : The
- shankar: #93 Woah...the mullah said he... The Strange Case of
- guru: I mean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqQJLOpKgRU... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- guru: I do not want... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- RiazHaq: It seems a little... Uneven Democracy : The
- a_r_j_u_n325: #89 Posted by... The Strange Case of
- Sinha: Re: # 48 Pakistanis should... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- Sinha: Re: # 90 After all... The Strange Case of
