Pak Tea House » Islam, Islamism » Understanding Islamic Revival In Its Proper Context
Understanding Islamic Revival In Its Proper Context
By Yasser Latif Hamdani
My secular comrades and friends will probably disagree with me or maybe not, and it is nothing less than sacrilege for a self proclaimed secularist like myself to say so, but the core values of any civilization are drawn from the dominant religio-cultural system. There are contributory factors from other minority strains but ultimately the way society is organized is around the religio-cultural system the majority of its adherents follow. So for example, the Western civilization- as we know it today- has for evolved out of a Judaeo-Christian cultural norms and as it is secularized, it is enriched by other cultural strains but it remains manifestly a product of Judaeo-Christian evolution. It certainly has strong heritage in Hellenistic past but that itself is expressed through established Christian traditions (for example Christmas which is an adopted Hellenistic holiday), much like Islam adopted a lot of pre-Islamic Arabian heritage as its own.
We – who live in the Muslim World- are going through painful pangs of an accelerated evolution. Our predicament has been exacerbated by the information age and what we see today – the terrorism, the in-fighting, sectarianism, absolutism and religious extremism of the worst kind is part of a process that has been accelerated at a greater pace. Very often secularists – self included- are guilty of ignoring the bigger picture and the process when we express our impatience to irrational and apparently dogmatic adherence most of our co-religionists (to put it loosely) express on a daily basis. Our analysis has often fallen short on account of our inability to rise above a sense of self righteousness that we justifiably exhibit when interacting with the Mullah and custodian of the mosque. While we don’t resort to violence like many of the religious bent are given to, we need to also understand how this process works.
Islamic revival has been a long and painful journey for its adherents. It often becomes very hard to adequately distinguish between reform movements and revival movements as the two have often complemented each other when these have not been antagonistic. Take for example Jamaluddin Afghani (not his real name – he was actually a Iranian Shia from the city of Hamadan)– the main force for Islamic unity as well as global Islamic modernism in the late 19th century. He was a Sunni revivalist, reformist as well as a prominent freemason all in one. His most direct influence was on Muhammad Abduh, the liberal Islamic jurist who wanted to reconcile Islam with 19th century rationalist thought. Muhammad Abduh’s most noted disciple was Rashid Rida who was the most influential scholar of his time. He founded – ironically - the “Salafiya order” which seeks to purify Islam from all western influence. Amongst his followers can be listed men like Hassan Al Banna, Syed Qutb and Syed Abou Ala Maududi – three most influential Islamists of our time. Syed Qutb’s influence on Abdullah Bin Azzam thus creates a direct link between Al Qaeda’s Islamic terrorist strain and Syed Jamaluddin Afghani- the Islamic modernist, liberal and freemason. Hassan Al Banna similarly influenced a number of Palestinian Islamists who founded the “Hizbut-tahrir” in 1952-53. From within Hizbut-tahrir has emerged two strands – one a more virulent version of the same called “Al-Muhajiroun” and the second an exact opposite- a modernist, secular interpretation as forwarded by Majid Nawaz and his associates in the Quilliam Foundation.
There is another side to this coin though: Afghani inspired Allama Iqbal’s Ijtehadi thought as well. Iqbal inspired another interesting thinker , the Islamic Marxist, Ali Shariati. Ali Shariati was the ideologue of Islamic Revolution in Iran and this makes the same freemason Afghani directly linked to his own original country’s Shiite Islamic revival. It doesn’t stop here though. Most of Afghani’s work was in the Ottoman Empire and his influence on young Turk and then Ziya Gokalp cannot be underestimated. Therefore Afghani had a direct impact on the secular ideology of Kemalism as well. Similarly his work in Egypt inspired the modernist nationalist and in a way Gemal Abdel Nasser and his socialist secularism.
Taking Afghani’s Islamic strains in consideration for a minute - Muslim Brotherhood which can directly be traced back to Afghani’s efforts as well through Rashid Rida and Muhammad Abduh has shown remarkable evolution from a subversive Islamist movement of agitation to a democratic Islamist movement which more inclusive and even accepting women’s rights. Hassan Al Banna – another follower of the salafiya political Islamist strain – was assassinated in 1949. His grandson Tariq Ramadan- a Swiss citizen- is the foremost scholar at the frontline of reconciliation – to use late Benazir Bhutto’s term- of Islam and the West. Banna’s youngest brother Gemal El Banna is a learned Islamic scholar from the same strain who forwards complete equality and secularism as tenets of Islam.
Similarly, the Ali Shariati strain de-generated into Khomenism but indirectly created Islamic Republicanism and in the last 15 years we have seen a newer version of this Islamic Republicanism in form of Khatami and Mousavi who have emerged as a liberal and progressive opposition to the conservatives.
In Pakistan Syed Maududi’s “Jamaat-e-Islami” and its student wing Islami Jamiat e Talaba has long been at the vanguard of the “Islamic Movement” in Pakistan. Given their antipathy to the Pakistan Movement and Maududi’s opposition to Mahomed Ali Jinnah, the founding father of Pakistan, they’ve been never been successful at a direct election, but they have infiltrated by placing their people and sympathizers in key places within the Pakistani establishment thereby thwarting the state’s growth as a modern nation state. However Maududian thought itself has splintered into diametrically opposing groups. Maududi himself took a giant leap in terms of political maturity when he supported Fatima Jinnah’s candidacy in 1965 despite having held the view that women should not be entrusted with the business of running the state’s affairs. A faction within Maududi’s Jamaat-e-Islami broke away under the leadership of Maulana Amin Islahi whose school of thought was then carried forward by Khalid Masud and Javed Ahmed Ghamidi. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi today is probably the most liberal and progressive scholar in the entire Islamic world. This Maududi-trained Islamic scholar has come a full circle by claiming that Islamic state is not an objective of a Muslim but rather the objective of a Muslim is individual reform. Contrast this to another breakaway Maududian faction - Dr. Israr Ahmed- whose Tanzeem-e-Islami is a religious movement working towards “Non-violent attainment of Khilafah”. Interestingly like Hassan Al Banna, Maududi’s own family now leans towards liberal interpretations of Islam.
The essential issue is not of whether a strain is good or bad, but whether there is some intellectual movement forward. Individual Muslims, thinking outside the narrow confines of taqlid and madhab- have often found themselves with new ideas and “taabeers” of Islam. In addition to the above mentioned, this may include Sir Syed Ahmed Khan – the great Islamic Modernist- , Syed Ameer Ali whose intellectual contribution to modernity in Islam is second to none, the Muslim Internationalist Ubaidullah Sindhi (whose disciple Zafar Hassan Aibak went through a profound evolution from a Jehadi to a Marxist to a Kemalist) and Allama G. A. Pervez . The last one was a rationalist Quran scholar in the finest Qaramtian tradition of late. Similarly the “heretic” movements within Islam are also in a way an expression of this trend. Abdul Baha of Iran and Mirza Ghulam Ahmed of Qadian presented themselves as Mujadads and reformers. Mirza Ghulam Ahmed’s movement produced geniuses like Sir Zafrullah- whose legal and political contributions to Pakistan and the world at large make him a towering figure- and Dr. Abdus Salam who claimed that his remarkable theory which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics resulted from his profound study of the Holy Quran. Meanwhile Abdul Baha’s Bahaism is one of the fastest growing religions in the US.
There has often been a tendency by some Non-Muslim observers (and now some secular Muslims) of the process of Islamic revival and reform to draw a distinction between a “traditional Muslim scholar” and a “radical Muslim ideologue”- a distinction which is not always useful or fruitful. This view tends to conclude in general that “traditional Islam” whatever that creature is better than “political Islam”. This ignores the basic fact that Islam is – whether we like it or not- largely political. Those who wish to resolve the issue of terrorism by supplanting “political Islam” with Sufism and “traditional Islam” are going against the current of history. It is political Islam alone that needs to evolve to a secular-leaning paradigm i.e. Ghamidi or Gemal Al Banna. Indeed Sufism and “traditional Islam” are likely to fail in this respect because they don’t have any political application because Sufism is at the end of the day an intensely personal creed whereas “traditional Islam” is a misnomer and refers to the Madrassah educated Maulanas who in the long run are even more harmful as they oppose modernity more trenchantly than Islamic revivalists, who over a generation or two seem to be more adaptive.
Islam’s on-going Lutheran Movement has not emerged from within the confines of Darul Ulooms and Jamias. This movement has come from the middle class – and for a time it will remain confused and shall be violent for a while as it is now- but ultimately it will reform the Muslim World and usher upon it an age of reason, enlightenment and I daresay modern secularism. Lucky us that thanks to the information age, every thing is accelerated and exaggerated.
Filed under: Islam, Islamism · Tags: Abdul Baha, Abdullah Bin Azzam, Abdus Salam, Ali Shariati, Allama Iqbal, Allama Pervez, Bahaism, culture, Egypt, Gemal Al Banna, Hassan Al Banna, Iran, Islam, Islamic Revolution, Jamaat-e-Islami, Jamaluddin Afghani, Kemalism, Liberalism, Lutheran, Mirza Ghulam Ahmed Qadiani, Muhammad Abduh, Muslim, Muslim Brotherhood, Nasserism, Ottoman Empire, Political Islam, Rashid Rida, Reformist, secularism, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Syed Maududi, Syed Qutb, Tariq Ramadan, Turkey, zafrulla
193 Responses to "Understanding Islamic Revival In Its Proper Context"
Leave a Reply
PTH biweekly Cartoon
Picture of the Week
-
Sunrise at the Arabian Sea, Charna Island
24 Dec 2011
(4 Comments)
Recent Comments
- Fingolfin
said @raza
again brilliant article!
i think that in a... - roamin
said Pakistanis need a bogey man. Hatred for Amrikis, J... - Babar Baig
said Can anyone please share the these books.
1) Mus... - Fingolfin said to observ
to term the bangladeshi's interpretatio...
- AKB said @ Bin Ismail
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[“The Light...
- AKB said @ Sachbol
BABY, DON'T UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER...
- AKB said @ rex minor
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[Any one with a com...
- AKB said The Mirzai's suffer from Bad Guilt!!
.
Good Guil...
- Syed said @Raj Too
Thank you very much indeed for the kin...
- Sachbol
said Kalchakra .
Good one , Did you notice how he inse...
PTH on facebook
It is amusing to see that Ganpat Sahib has lined up on the same side as Riaz Bhai to claim that the Indian republic is non-secular.
The later is a Pakistani anti democracy advocate who supports a military rule in his country and has spent better part of the last decade cutting and pasting every scrap of news disparaging to India and the former is a Hindu nationalist, in the Nirad Babu mold, who in his late senile years claimed that the Ayodhya Masjid destruction in 1992 was justified.
Excellent line up.
Ironies abound.
Ganpat Sahib wants to claim tolerance yet insist on having India defined his way; an oxymoron concept of the word ‘tolerance’ as any can be.
Ganpat Sahib wants to claim the mantle of tolerance exclusively for the Hindus of India and thinks that only Muslims are intolerant; the rampage by the Ram Bhakts in the wake of Ayodhya notwithstanding.
Further Ganpat Bahi wants to compare the republic of India with a small island nation of UK; why he wonders, if UK can be protestant and still be a liberal democracy, India can’t be so.
He forgets that UK is a small kingdom; not an empire.
To be remotely comparable to India, UK would have to rule over entire Europe, including Muslim Turkey and orthodox Russia and still it would come out short in terms of size.
I would like to see the Britons try doing that and then insisting that it is a protestant country!!
Conversely, India can indeed become like UK, a Hindu country but then it would have to give up Kashmir and Punjab, Assam and large chunks of Bengal, Bihar, UP which have several little Pakistans in them.
Who knows once identity politics takes hold of the popular imagination, the Maratha Manus may want to go his way, and then Tamils can form a nation; after all they are bigger than half the nations in Europe.
By then the Hindu nation can emerge, in the heartland, somewhere in the central India with parts of today’s MP, UP, Bihar and Rajasthan etc. in it; like mother Russia did, after the breakup of the Soviet Union; but what the heck, it would be a lily pure nation; a nation for Hindus who deserve a nation of their own, just like Israel is a nation for the Jews of this World!!
Regards.
Gorki sb,
Did you have to bring in Nirad Babu? I happen to be an admirer.
The problem with Ganpat’s argument is the Indian context… Otherwise Great Britain is a classic example of an established state church and religion. Yet Great Britain is a perfectly secular society. Herein lies the rub..the British can allow nostagic mixing of religion on the top precisely because it is so completely secular in spirit… India is a profoundly religious country and this is precisely because it needs top down secularism.
And this is Riaz sb’s problem. He gives arguments as to why India is not secular by citing the very reason it had to be secular.
Vajra, reassuring, at least theoretically…..
Dear YLH:
Nirad Babu’s writing skills are not in question; his judgement and honesty certainly is.
After Ayodhya Masjid destruction, he wrote that it was justified because in the last 1000 years every Hindu temple in India under Muslim rule had been desecrated! Even if one were to overlook the gross exaggeration of this claim, one wonders about the judgement of the grand old man who condemn a whole community to guilt by association with one flourish of his mighty pen!!
Regards.
@Ganpat Ram
Your statement, India is hindu, whether anyone says so or not.
Then why are you saying it. No one in the UK says that it is a protestent or a catholic country. In fact the UK clergy is in talks with the Vatican to return into the fold of catholicism. What is important for the citizen is the democracy.
I would classify you as a nationalist religous individual, for better or for worse. And there are many in Europe, though they do not associate themselves with any religion.
The only so called secular country I know of who rants(to use yours and Gorki’s terminology) about the religion is Israel. This is simply because they created a state on the basis of a homeland for the jews and then over years discovered that their demography is unlikely to sustain the jewish character of the State. They have all gone crackers since and even their great American jewish supporters are watching this development helplessly.
Now what is your problem, would you also like to see India as a democratic, secular and a hindu country? Then I am afraid you have created for yourself a problem!! However, if you want a democratic and a secular country then start thinking less of your religion, reform your colonial style military and you are sooner or later going to achieve a cohesive society.
The problems of Pakistan in my view are twofold, the country is not a true democracy and far away from the secularism. They do not have the demographic constraints, but in view of the influence of military the masses have remained without a visionary leader for a very long time.
PS
As a matter of interest, do you still have a caste system?
Gorki
May be an exaggeration, but cannot be refuted entirely, quite valid to some extent, it is an extension of the principle ‘Propagation of Islam’ or ‘Jihad’, the perpetrators, in doing so, were ensuring for themselves a place in heaven and guaranteeing it to all companions. It was their understanding of it, sanctifying a selfish motive of aggrandizement, loot and wealth accumulation.
Seemingly we have seen the worst of it, should this sway of terrorism be averted, Islam has a good chance of emerging in its true form, a religion of peace for the entire humanity.
YLH:
Excellent observations BTW, agree wholeheartedly.
People forget that India is not a country like GB or any other; it is more like the United States of India; except it is several times more diverse
than the US.
The only think comparable to the Indian experiment seen elsewhere in the recent years was the former Soviet Union, a Union of many group identities ‘nations’ arising from a former empire; organised for a little while as a union of equals (at least theoretically) and the only thing that can come close to India, politically speaking, in the near future can be a more centralized EU; which now seems less likely.
Hindu nationalist forget that they can’t have their cake and eat it too; either they can have a much smaller nation of the ‘Hindu pure’ or a much larger but a modernsecular nation state; looking past group identities but not both. what they want is a Hindu empire; benignely ruling over ‘subjects’ but keep forget that the empires went away a century ago; washed away with the blood of people like Bhagat Singh and others like him…..
Regards
“the British can allow nostagic mixing of religion on the top precisely because it is so completely secular in spirit”
… vehemently secular as far as the working class is concerned, and the largest chunks of the middle class.
the monarch is not an elected head of state. any one cannot be a monarch. they can have one of their progeny in line for the monarchy, provided they are willing to marry the monarch or the heir apparent (who is willing to marry them too), and convert to the C of E. fundamental rights hardly come into something that is entirely hereditary.
Sorry for the glaring typos;
the sense is clear regardless.
Hayyer, Gorki et al:
I think it would be a very strange world if Buddhists can have their countries by right of being a majority, Christians can, Muslims can, even the Jews can, but somehow it is barred to Hindus.
If in 1947 the simple decision had been taken to have a Hindu state where minorities were respected, none of this hypocritical blather would be happening now. We would be focusing on real issues: is India sufficiently respectful of minorities or not?
The truth is, as Muslim numbers grow and their aggrssiveness grows (Hayyer forgets that West Bengal and Assam are Hindu majority areas) Hindu assertiveness will rise. Hindus will insist that they have a state which protects their religion, as other religions do.
If Hayyer has so much difficulty with coconuts he can always go to Pakistan.
Hindus have little patience with Muslims whining about secualarism in India when they themselves are the least secular of anyone.
If Hindus are challenged, they will hit back.
Is that clear?
Ganpat Ram:
Hindus are not barred from having a country. Nepal is a Hindu country officially.
If you and your fellow Hindutvavadis want to make India a Hindu republic there is nothing to stop you. All you need is to get the necessary votes and amend the constitution. You may have some difficulty with the Supreme Court which has ruled that constitutional amendments cannot alter the basic structure of the constitution.
No I did not forget that Bengal and Assam are Hindu majority, but they don’t vote for Hindutvavadis. In the last fifty years there was ever only one MLA for the BJP in Bengal.
Hindutvavadis tend naturally to talk nonsense, but you loonies don’t decide who may live in India and who may not. I don’t live in India either by your leave, or because of a fondness for or aversion to coconuts.
As for hitting back- Why, I thought all your kind did was hunt in mobs. What more do you want,-an Ahmedabad every week?
Nepal is officially a secular state now…
Hayyer:
You are right that if Hindus muster the votes, India will be a Hindu state. I do not believe in any other way.
As for Muslims who have a problem with this, tough luck. You guys are the least secular of anyone, the least generous to minorities. Your whining cuts no ice.
If a legitimate Hindu state is trifled with, those who it will do so at their own risk.
@Hayyer
You are dealing with a super-patriot who will fight to the last drop of the Indian Army’s blood.
If Hindus are challenged, they will hit back.
Is that clear?
If a legitimate Hindu state is trifled with, those who it will do so at their own risk.
Another Ozymandias.
@ ganpat ram:
‘If Hindus are challenged, they will hit back.
Is that clear?’
crystal. We agree.
Now will you kindly be on your way?
So one chap asks me to be on my way as soon as I express an opinion he doesn’t share……So much for the great “secular” tolerance” he supposedly stands for.
It would never occur to me to ask him to shoot off because he voices an opinion I disagrree with: my Hindu brand of tolerance is happy with different viewpoints.
Besides, I am the only one here who can entertain you all by a flawless imitation of Burke.
Ganpat,
As a Pakistani who advocates a complete separation of church and state, I find your comments intriguing. Can we talk about the nitty gritty here…by a Hindu state do you mean:
1. A Hindu Republic whatever that means?
2. Do you propose the head of state be Hindu?
3. Do you propose the state religion to be Hinduism?
(This is what Islamic republic means in Pakistan) …and there are few other intrinsic questions:
4. Will you ban cow slaughter?
5. Reinstitute caste system? Sati?
6. Will there be a law against conversion?
7. Would there be a process of reconversion ?
8. Will places of worship like Babri mosque destroyed and reconverted?
The last five issues – mind you- have happened in Secular India regardless in varying degrees so you can’t argue Hinduism doesn’t condone this… Secular India holds these retrogressive trends at bay.
Hindu cultural life forms the dominant factor in Indian secular national identity …there is no question about it but must you pollute religion and governance by mixing them together?
Ganpat
Two ‘ifs’ there in your post of 12:02am. why not first go and preach and plead to the vast majority of indians who happen to be hindu, if you want to do anything about these two big ‘ifs’? instead of imagining demons that may attack what does not exist. as hayyer has pointed out already, if you want to do something about the two ‘ifs’, you’ll have to deal with the supreme court too, at some point.
It must feel wonderful to imagine yourself in full armour on your trusted steed slaying these imaginary dragons.. or at least threatening them so valiantly. it’s entertaining, but even the best show can survive only so many repetitions.
no one has denied you the freedom to express your pitiful insecurities in whatever psychotic way you choose or cannot help. nor would we stop you from entertaining us with a good imitation of burke. do go ahead.
PS btw my view is that Islam could have held Pakistan (west + east) together had Pakistanis not gone for the over-kill by making Pakistan an Islamic state.
Paradoxically state’s imposition of official faith (even though Pakistan was till 1979 quite conscious of its multiculturalism) is what discredited Islam in the East wing.
So think a thousand times before you seek to give Hinduism an official role… It will only weaken Hinduism’s role as the civic religion of India.
Ganpat Ram:
“You are right that if Hindus muster the votes, India will be a Hindu state. I do not believe in any other way.”
So when you muster the votes tell us. Till then keep smoking whatever gets you your high.
“As for Muslims who have a problem with this, tough luck. You guys are the least secular of anyone, the least generous to minorities. Your whining cuts no ice.”
I don’t have a problem with something that doesn’t exist. And it is you who seems to be whining the most at present.
“If a legitimate Hindu state is trifled with, those who it will do so at their own risk.”
When your legitimate Hindu state comes into existence in India send us a postcard. Till then take your wet dream elsewhere.
@ Rashid:
You had been banned from this website a few months back due to your not-so-subtle attempts at sectarian propaganda. You are not welcome at PTH and any of your comments from now on will be spammed. Don’t bother posting at PTH any more.
AZW (Moderator)
>Besides, I am the only one here who can entertain
> you all by a flawless imitation of Burke.
Can we have an answer to questions 1. to 8. ?
One can imitate style, content and thoughts are something else really. There is still no way to camouflage “your brilliance”.
Luq
@ Ganpat
you spake thus:
‘So one chap asks me to be on my way as soon as I express an opinion he doesn’t share’
Burke smurke!!! It seems you have an issue with basic comprehension m’boy…
I expressly told I agreed with you. Done. Converted Sire!!! My cup really did runneth over and all that.
Since your work was done. I felt you were needed elsewhere that’s all and I wanted to nudge you in the right direction. So why the ruckus?
YLH:
You write to me:
“As a Pakistani who advocates a complete separation of church and state, I find your comments intriguing. Can we talk about the nitty gritty here…by a Hindu state do you mean:
1. A Hindu Republic whatever that means?
2. Do you propose the head of state be Hindu?
3. Do you propose the state religion to be Hinduism?
(This is what Islamic republic means in Pakistan) …and there are few other intrinsic questions:
4. Will you ban cow slaughter?
5. Reinstitute caste system? Sati?
6. Will there be a law against conversion?
7. Would there be a process of reconversion ?
8. Will places of worship like Babri mosque destroyed and reconverted?”
Do you really advocate the demotion of Islam from pride of place in Pakistan. There can only be a handful of your type, and I notice you refer to people like Ayub Khan and Bhutto ans “secular”…..Well, these were obsessedly Islamic-supremacy characters by any serious reading. They were not mullahs, but they were Muslim-obsessed politicians.
One thing amazes me about supposedly “secular” Muslim intellectuals: they are ready to hand out the certificate of “secular” to avowedly Muslim states and Muslim rulers, on the flimsiest of pretexts: Jinnah made one nice speech, he ate pork and liked whisky, etc.
It doesn’t wash.
No Hindu who stands for Hinduism in the way Jinnah, Ayub or Bhutto stood for Islam has the faintest hope of being called “secular”, and quite rightly so.
Why not call the BJP secular? Vajpayee likes whisky, forbidden to Brahmins?
And yet these same Muslim intellectuals demand that INDIA be 100000 percent pure-o-pure “secular”, and think the end of the world has come if an Indian leader breaks a coconut to launch a ship. They wantto give honour and place to Islam, and complain hoarsely if anypone else pays even much smaller respect to Hinduism.
Only the Hindu who dare not call India Hindu is good enough. Having scores upon sof utterly Muslim-dominated countries is not enough. Even the single one the Hindus have has to be taken away.
This kind of two-faced attitude wins Muslims no friends.
Going on to your questions:
1. I see no reason why India should not be a republic with the state religion of Hinduism. Do you? India is 80per cent Hindu. If we have no pride of place even there where will we?
2. The head of state can be of any religion or one. Hinduism is a tolerant utlook.
3. Already answered at 1.
4. Cow slaughter is already banned in some Indian states. The difficulty is enforcing the ban. Many Hindus do feel deeply about banning cow slaughter, not just Hindu nationlists. Gandhi said that it was more important than securing freedom from British rule. Muslims have their sacred cows too. For instance, the odd idea that India should not dare to be Hindu. How about slaughtering THAT sacred cow?
5. Do I wish to reinstitute the caste system, Sati? To the same extent that you wish to have stoning to death for supposed adultresses. A funny question deserves a funny answer. I believe in a progressive Hinduism.
6. Will there be a law against conversion?, you ask anxiously. How typical, this Muslim anxiety to get as many people as possible from someone else’s religion while knowing that your own is protected against similar depredation by the fear of missionaries of the Muslim resort to violence to deter conversion! Hindus are easygoing, so they havev to disappear for their virtue.
I certainly believe in freedom to leave any religion INCLUDING ISLAM, without fear. (Small chance!) But, like Gandhi, I believe foreigners trying to convert Indians should be banned, as should the use of foreign money for spreading religions in India.
7. Will there be a process of reconversion? I certainly don’t believe in it, bu it is starting to happen as Hindus retaliate against concerted and hate-filled Christian and Muslim attempts to get Hindus into their camp. Hindus are acquiring plenty of money with India’s economic growth, and soon it could be the Christians and Muslims who are threatened by Hindu conversion drives. Their tune on this subject will change when that happens.
8. Will Muslim mosques be demolished? Not if Hindus have any sense. Will Muslims apologise for destroying so many thousands of Hindu temples even today in Kashmir? Not even as a joke.
YLH, be serious. As the Muslim threat rises, India WILL be more and more consciously Hindu. It is inevitable.
The threat that this will lead to Muslim violence is not going to work. Muslims will not pipe down on Islam if Hindus apologise for Hindusim a million times.
In fact, the Hindu apologetic attitude only emboldens the Muslims, make them a hundred times more demanding. Jnnah demanded a parity of power in India for a minority of 25 percent. Which MUSLIM will concede that to a minority?
If Muslims refuse to live in peace in a Hindu state that ensures their rights, that will be mostly their problem. As a minority, the resort to violence will hit them most.
In 1947, India was partitioned, and Muslims got their share.
Cow-slaughter is banned in the Indian except Kerala, West Bengal and the seven-north-eastern states.
Even leading Congress politicians have favoured banning cow slaughter.
Ganpat that shows the ugliness in your mind. I have never called Bhutto secular. About Jinnah we have discussed the issue to death … and the reasons for calling him secular are not rooted in one speech or his dietary habits… as for Ayub he may qualify because he was the last ruler to actually make Pakistan a simple “Republic of Pakistan”. But this is not about individuals good or bad.
I stand for a total and complete separation of church and state and demotion of islam from the “place of pride”. Just like India will remain a Hindu country in a demographic sense Pakistan shall remain an Islamic country in the demographic sense …by virtue of their dominant religio-cultural tradition …but there is absolutely no need to make laws on the basis of religion or exclude minorities from complete citizenship. I’d like to see Pakistan revert to a simple Republic and have a Hindu president.
PS I am absolutely not in favor of conversions … But I am also against laws persecuting those Muslims who might want to convert to Christianity …or any other faith.
Similarly my question is an academic one…as an agnostic I am not in any hurry to convert you to Islam… My questions were to understand this “Hindudom” business.
YLH:
The days when Hindus could be told to submit to the dictates of other, more powerful religions is over.
India is growing fast, and money in plenty is coming into Hindu hands.
The Westerners still talk patronisinglyof Hindus as if they are entitled to be the top dog and show off, but all they have are credit cards. They are being bought out.
As Hindus acquire money and power, there is a possibility that many Muslims and Christians in India will want to return to the Hindu fold. Their ancestors often quit Hinduism because it was associated with defeat and humiliation.
Nobody pays attention to those who have no money or power.
There is no ugliness in realising this fact.
The world is a tough place because religions like Islam, single minded like the Judaism it is descended from, want supremacy. Hindus have to fight to survive in such a world. Sweet talk is helpless.
It is easy for you to talk about having a Hindu president in Pakistan when Hindus and Sikhs, once one-third of the population, have been ruthlessly expelled and are now only 2 to 3 per cent.
Too easy. It won’t wash.
Hindus are not all fools. They know the demographics. They can count. (They invented the zero.)
And even Muslims who believe what you claim to can be counted on the fingers of one hand. It is the attitude of the vast majority that matters.
I believe in a tolerant Hinduism. But a Hinduism that knows how to survive.
I do not wish to question your world view. That is yours. Nor do I wish to have a protracted dispute about history …it would be pointless.
I do however wish to point out that as a Pakistani secularist and liberal nationalist the only thing I admire about your country, am envious of and in awe of is your secular constitution. Infact I wish you success …atleast that will demolish the air of superiority that the Indian republic as and we shall all be Gandhijis in one hamam.
That said …it is my sincere wish to see a Non-Muslim president. Pakistanis of Hindu faith have always served Pakistan remarkably… Bhagwandas is a hero to everyone and even Jamaat e Islami types are forced to admit the debt lawyers’ movement has to him.
YLH:
Fair enough.
I have spoken plainly because the Hindu-Muslim issue is too serious for anything else.
It is easy to make a mascot of a member of a community when that community has almost vanished.
It is like the Americans sentimentalising the Amerindians when the Amerinidian population has almost disappeared. The Noble Sitting Bull gambit, I call it.
When Hindus have almost gone from Pakistan, the Pakistanis (a few) can afford to lionise one or two of them.
Westerners think they are cut out to dominate because they have credit cards.
Muslims often think they can do it with a high birthrate and machine guns.
Both are due to be bitterly disillusioned, methinks.
If Muslims resort to violence to challenge the 1947 shareout, they will know, I think, that they will suffer the worst.
@Ganpat
Somehow your bias against Muslims keeps on manifesting itself in diversely amusing ways. You perfectly symbolize the mythical Indian Secularism. I would have to agree with YLH that India’s secular constitution is indeed something commendable – something we miss badly in Pakistan. However, it would be in line with objectivity to recognize that India’s secularism is limited to the extent of its constitution.
Bin Ismail, so you think Indians call themselves
secular but they are not perfect secular.
How about Pakistanis call themselves Muslims
but they are not perfect Muslims!
These are all value judgments. States are secular not people …similarly people have religions not states.
I disagree with my compatriots who say India is not a secular state…it is a secular state..with an overwhelming Hindu majority. Pakistan ought to have been its Muslim majority equivalent.
As for society – India is a deeply god-obsessed society…and Pakistan is well a religion-obsessed society.
Mr. Ram,
You are an outspoken critic of Muslims and Islam. Do your views extend to the entire Muslim Civilization or, you are limiting yourself only to your own country India and her Muslims. And by the way. Why here. I mean why here at Pak Tea House Blog.
PMA:
Why not at Pak Tea House?
It’s a good place to tell Pakistanis a few interesting facts.
OK Mr. Ram. When you speak of ‘Muslims’, are you speaking of the entire Muslim Civilization? Please do not be shy now.
@Gandphat Ram
With prosperity hindus education level will rise. With increased literacy rationality will increase. With rationality hindus will cease to remain hindu and followers penis, monkey and cow gods.
HannodMarkhor
That would be a huge pity. it will make us as fanatical and blind as the followers of some other religions.
HannodMarkhor
That would be a huge pity. it will make us as fanatical and blind as the followers of some other religions.
@ Ganpat Ram…
It took you……..acting as a commode……..to attract flies like hanoodmarkhor….
thanks a lot!
@Ganpat Ram
“…it will make us as fanatical and blind as the followers of some other religions…”
Are you somehow dwelling in the illusion that you are immune to fanaticism and blindness. You see my friend, a competative dialogue can go on till eternity, with each claiming “…I’m good, you’re bad…” and with ever increasing fervour. The attributes of fanaticism and blindness, if you like are widely prevalent among South Asians. Borders drawn merely six decades ago, will not alter our genetic make-up. The likelihood is that fanaticism and blindness will continue to flourish on either side of the border for many generations to come. What we have to learn is to be able to keep religion distinct from statecraft, on all planes and along all dimensions and to be more accommodative at the level of society as well.
@Bin Ismail
Well said.
It is sometimes difficult for an Indian and a Hindu to go into detail on these points, since it leads to a suspicion of sycophancy towards the others on this blog. It is also not entirely dignified to go into such detail.
Your broad-based rejoinder covers the ground very satisfactorily.
“With rationality hindus will cease to remain hindu and followers [of] penis, monkey and cow gods.”
“That would be a huge pity. it will make us as fanatical and blind as the followers of some other religions.”
Ganpat Ram
If history is of any value to you, you can see in UK, where Queen is defender of Christian faith, number of Christians attending church mass in the entire year including Christmas mass, are far less than number of Muslims attending Friday mosques prayer in any given week. Average age of Christian priest is almost 65 years. Today’s Christian clergy are already working in their retirement age. Over whelming number of people born in Christian homes are not Christian anymore.