Subscribe to Desicritics
Kashmir: Propagation of Islam and the Terror of the Sufis
MA Khan
How did Islam come to Kashmir?
“It came through the peaceful missionary preaching of the Sufis,” comes the answer.
Sufis have been universally credited with the peaceful propagation of Islam around the world. An Islamic legend tells us that there was a king in Kashmir, at an unknown point in time, who had no religion. One day, he wished to adopt a religion. Both Muslims and Hindus came to convince him. Their contradictory views left him rather confused, and resolved that, “‘he would embrace the religion of the first man he would meet in the street after coming out of his house the next morning” [Baharistan-i-Shahi (an anonymously 17th-century Persian book on the history of Kashmir, translated by Prof. K. N. Pundit), Chapter 2]. And it was a dervish [Sufi master], whom he encountered first the next morning, and there he became a Muslim, and Kashmir became Islamic.
In many places, one encounters very similar Islamic legends: that a Sufi, through his supernatural power or this and that, converts a king. Thus, the place becomes Islamic peacefully—thanks to Islam’s prophets of peace, the Sufis.
A Kashmiri ex-Muslim friend, who wants eradication of Islam because of its barbaric teachings, nonetheless, told me about how Islam, however abhorrent and barbaric in nature, came to Kashmir through the peaceful preaching of Sufis. And now, how this peaceful valley of Islam has become a land of barbarism, thanks to Wahhabism—which he calls the real Quranic and prophetic Islam!!
This impression, that was peacefully propagated in Kashmir and around the world by the Sufis, is universally entertained by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars and historians alike. Ask Dr. Yoginder Sikant, the prominent scholar and historian of Islam, and an alleged specialist in Sufism. He would tell you the same.
This paradigm is being successfully and exclusively propagated despite the fact that available historical records give an opposite picture.
It is hard to know when Islamic rule was established in Kashmir. Muhammad bin Qasim was in the preparation for an invasion of Kashmir in 715. Thereafter, Kashmir suffered a number of Islamic invasions; Sultan Mahmud, the master barbarian (although idolized by Muslims), had also led a failed expedition there. Caliph al-Mansur (r. 755–74) had sent an expedition under Hasham bin Amru for waging holy war against Hindu territories. Amongst many places, between Kandahar and Kashmir, he conquered, he “subdued Kashmir and took many prisoners and slave” [Elliot & Dawson, History of India as Told by Its Historians (it contains experts from Islamic chronicles), Vol. I, p. 122–23,203]. In 1033, Sultan Mahmud’s not-so-illustrious son, Sultan Masud I, made up for his illustrious father’s failure by launching “an attack on the fort of Sursuti in Kashmir. The entire garrison was put to the sword, except the women and children, who were carried away as slaves.”
While it is hard to establish which of these invasions established Islamic rule in Kashmir, the Sufis, Islam’s alleged prophets of peace, however had a prominent role in its Islamization, but it was a barbaric one.
About conversion of the masses to Islam in Kashmir, we get an idea of it around 1371 or 1381 CE, when Sayyid Ali Hamdani, a famous Sufi saint, arrived in Kashmir. The first thing he did was to build his khanqah [lodge or ashram] on the site of “a small temple which was demolished…” [Baharistan, p. 36]. Before his coming to Kashmir, the reigning Sultan Qutbud-Din paid little attention to enforcing Islamic laws. In the tolerant local culture, Muslims at all levels of the society—including the Sultan, the Qadis [Qazi]—had all tolerantly and comfortably submerged themselves in the Hindu culture and customs of Kashmir [ibid, p. 37].
But Sufi saint Sayyid Hamdani was horrified by the un-Islamic practices of Kashmiri Muslims, and forbade this laxity and tried to revive orthodoxy. The reigning Sultan Qutbud-Din tried to adopt Islamic orthodoxy in his personal life, but “failed to propagate Islam in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of Amir Sayyid Ali Hamdani” [ibid]. As a result, the Sufi saint left Kashmir because of his reluctance to live in a land dominated by the idolatrous culture, customs and creed.
Later on, his son Amir Sayyid Muhammad, another great Sufi saint, came to Kashmir during the reign of the famous idol-breaker, Sultan Sikander. Sikander was not such a barbarian until the arrival of holy Sufi saint Sayyid Muhammad, who prodded the Sultan into enforcing the Islamic code in his domain. Unlike Sultan Qutbud-Din, Sikander agreed to the Sufi saint’s instruction. Sikander and Sayyid Muhammad, thus, formed an alliance to wipe out all signs of idolatry and its professors from Kashmir.
According to Muhammad Farishtah (d. 1614) [History of the Rise of the Mahomedan Power in India, Vol. IV, 1997 imprint, p. 268], a historian of Delhi Sultan, Sikandar issued an order:
…proscribing the residence of any other than Mahomedans in Kashmeer; and he required that no man should wear the mark on his forehead... Lastly, he insisted on all golden and silver images being broken and melted down, and the metal coined into money. Many of the bramins [Brahmins], rather than abandon their religion or their country, poisoned themselves; some emigrated from their native homes, while a few escaped the evil of banishment by becoming Mahomedans. After the emigration of the bramins, Sikundur [Sikandar] ordered all the temples in Kashmeer to be thrown down… Having broken all the images in Kashmeer, he acquired the title of the Iconoclast, Destroyer of Idols.
According to another 17th-century Persian chronicle, HM Chadurah’s Tarikh-i-Kashmir, Sikandar “was constantly busy in annihilating the infidels and destroyed most of the temples...” [trans. Razia Bano, Delhi, 1991, p. 55].
This, to learned Farishtah, this was Sultan Sikandar’s greatest achievement. And to whom goes the credit?
Find it out from the proud author of Baharistan-i-Shahi, who writes: “…the credit of wiping out the vestiges of infidelity and heresy from the mirror of the conscience of the dwellers of these lands,” goes to Sufi saint Sayyid Muhammad [p. 37].
Succeeding the Iconoclast, his son Ameer Khan (aka Ally Shah) continued the butchery of the remaining Hindus of Kashmir, as adds Farishtah, he “persecuted the few Brahmins who still remained firm in their religion; and by putting all to death, who refused to embrace Mahomedism. He drove those who still lingered in Kashmeer entirely out of that kingdom” [ibid, p. 269].
Next, the liberal and tolerant Sultan Zainul Abedin (1423–1474) brought relief to the brutalized non-Muslims: he allowed religious freedom, even let the forcibly converted Hindus to revert. This enabled the flourishing of Hinduism, “which had been stamped out in the [earlier] reign of Sultan Sikandar the Iconoclast” [ibid, p. 74]. Under deviant Zainul Abedin, records Sydney Owen, “many Hindus (i.e. Hindus converted to Islam by force) were re-admitted into the Hindu fold” [From Mahmud Ghazni to the Disintegration of Mughal Empire, Delhi, p. 127). The horrified author of Baharistan-i-Shahi notes of the ascendancy of Hinduism and decline of Islam under Sultan Zainul Abedin [p. 74]:
…the infidels and their corrupt and immoral practices attained such popularity that even the ulema, the learned [Sufis], the Sayyids [nobles] and the Qadis [Islamic judges] of this land began to observe them without exhibiting even the slightest repugnance for them. There was none to forbid them to do so. It resulted in a gradual weakening of Islam and a decay in its cannons and postulates; idol-worship and corrupt and immoral practices thrived.
And Zainul pursued his liberal policies, like Akbar, by defying and angering the pious. Persian scholar Mulla Ahmad, for example, wrote to him reminding that,
…the main object of levying the jiziyah on them is their humiliation… God established jiziyah for their dishonor. The object is their humiliation and the (establishment) of the prestige and dignity of the Muslims. [Quoted by KS Lal, Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India, p. 113]
But terror befell upon the non-Muslims of Kashmir again in the reigns of Malik Raina and Kaji Chak, who converted the Hindus to Islam by the sword, again instigated by another Sufi saint, Amir Shamsud-Din Muhammad Iraqi, the greatest Sufi saint to arrive in Kashmir.
Iraqi arrived in Kashmir after Malik Musa Raina became the administrator of Kashmir (1501). He formed alliance with Malik Raina, and with his patronage and authority, says Baharistan-i-Shahi [p. 93–94]:
Amir Shamsud-Din Muhammad undertook wholesale destruction of all those idol-houses as well as total ruination of the very foundation of infidelity and disbelief. On the site of every idol-house he destroyed, he ordered the construction of a mosque for offering prayers after the Islamic manner.
And “on the instance of Shamsud-Din Iraqi, Musa Raina had issued orders that everyday 1,500 to 2,000 infidels be brought to the doorstep of Mir Shamsud-Din by his followers. They would remove their sacred thread (zunnar), administer Kelima [Muslim profession of faith] to them, circumcise them and make them eat beef”; and, thus, “twenty-four thousand Hindu families were converted to Iraqi’s faith by force and compulsion (qahran wa jabran)” [ibid, p. 105–06].
Saintly Iraqi continued his horror acts, when Malik Kaji Chak became the military commander under Sultan Muhammad Shah in 1519. And “one of the major commands of Amir Shamsud-Din Muhammad Iraqi carried out by him [Kaji Chak] was the massacre of the infidels and polytheists of this land,” says Baharistan-i-Shahi [p. 116]. What happened is that, many of those, forcibly converted to Islam by Malik Raina, later reverted to ‘polytheism’ [Hinduism]. Muslims spread a rumor that these apostates “had placed a copy of the holy Quran under their haunches to make a seat to sit upon.” Upon hearing this, the enraged Sufi saint protested to Kaji Chak, saying [ibid, p. 117]:
“This community of idolaters has, after embracing and submitting to the Islamic faith, now gone back to defiance and apostasy. If you find yourself unable to inflict punishment upon them in accordance with the provisions of Sharia [which is death for apostasy] and take disciplinary action against them, it will become necessary and incumbent upon me to proceed on a self-imposed exile.”
Note that Iraqi’s complaint does not mention the alleged disrespect of the Quran, but simply emphasize the Hindus’ abandonment of Islam after accepting it—i.e. their apostasy, punishment for which is death in Islam. In order to pacify the enraged Sufi saint, Malik Kaji Chak “decided upon carrying out wholesale massacre of the infidels,” says Baharistan-i-Shahi, which was scheduled to be carried out on the holy festival day of Ahsura [Muharram, 1518 CE; Iraqi was Shiite], and,
…about seven to eight hundred infidels were put to death. Those killed were the leading personalities of the community of infidels at that time. [p. 117]
Thereupon, “the entire community of infidels and polytheists in Kashmir was coerced into conversion to Islam at the point of the sword. This is one of the major achievements of Malik Kaji Chak,” adds the proud author of Baharistan-i-Shahi [p. 117].
This horrifying action, of course, was ordered by the great Sufi saint.
I need not say anything else to define the nature of the Sufis. Let me, however, emphasize that, Kashmir is flaunted by Muslims as the best example of peaceful penetration of Islam in India—thanks to peaceful Sufis, of course. And this is the story of the most peaceful Sufis that came to India from the Muslim world.
The story of other greatest Sufis of India is no better. They came, with their followers, as vicious Jihadi warriors to slaughter the infidels:
- Moinuddin Chisti of Ajmer came with Muhammad Ghauri’s army, which treacherously defeated the humane and benevolent king Prithviraj Chauhan.
- Nizamuddin Auliya participated in a Jihad war alongside Nasriruddin Qibacha in Multan.
- Sheikh Shah Jalal, the great Sufi saint of Bangladesh, fought in a Jihadi war against Hindu king Ghor Govinda of Sylhet.
All of these Sufi saints have claimed their role as decisive in winning those bloody wars. And such go the stories of most of the great Sufis—from India, to Africa, to the Balkans.
Kashmir: Propagation of Islam and the Terror of the Sufis
RSS:
- Subscribe to RSS 2.0 feeds for:
- » Comments on this article
- » Politics
- » Culture: Religion
- » Politics: India
- » Politics: Religion
- » Politics: Terrorism
- » Desicritics.org articles by MA Khan
- » All Opinion articles
- » All Desicritics.org articles
Amitabh Mitra
URL
August 30, 2009
06:26 AM
A wonderful research oriented article, Khan Sahab.
Many thanks
Ruvy
URL
August 30, 2009
06:53 AM
Interesting read - extremely interesting read. I will forward this to a Sufi scholar I know, and others. I'm very curious to see the response I get.
Aaman
URL
August 30, 2009
07:01 AM
I think more detail is needed, perhaps a follow-up article on these legendary (warrior?) saints
Jay
August 30, 2009
10:02 AM
@ Ruvy,
i would not expect much of a response from that sufi scholar beyond the usual lies (al taqiyya) about how 'tolerant' and 'peacefull' islam is and accusations that M.A. Khan is an 'islamophobe' (that is a ridiculuos accusation all critics of islam get from muslims who can't refute the evidence those critics bring on the table)
Golden Boy
URL
August 30, 2009
10:25 AM
Hello Mr. Khan
In the past, Christians first baptized babies in Africa then killed them in the Name of God & Salvation (Why I am not a Christian- Bertrand Russel). Hindus burned their women in the name of Sati. Moslem invaders (and even saints, as you say) invaded and led an onslaught of plunder and terror.
Don’t we all have a history? What do you get by digging up the past Mr.Khan? There are only skeletons there!
I believe that majority of Moslems in this age want Peace and progress. There are only a few who call themselves Jihadis and spread hate and terror.
And you do the same! You spread hatred too, Mr.Khan, by digging into the past! You are no less Jihadi!
Let’s get out of the Past and look at the present!
(I am sure he is going to write another appalling piece on today’s Moslems now! Call the Devil… and the Devil….)
Golden Boy
say no to islam
August 30, 2009
11:10 AM
@ Golden Boy,
muslims waged jihad against non-muslims in the past killing, raping, forcibly converting and enslaving countless non-muslims, they are STILL doing it today and they will keep on doing it in the future becuase their ideology called islam COMMANDS THEM to do that.
What you want us non-muslims to do is to stick our heads in the sand and ignore the bloody history and ideology of islam. But that won't work, intelligent people are beginning to understand the bloody and violent nature of islam.
The biggest treath today comes from islam. The majority of the christians have abandoned plans for world conquest the muslims have not, that's why they keep on migrating in large numbers into non-muslim countries in the West, India etc so they can take over those countries in the future.
The vast majority of terror attacks are islamic inspired and are carried out by muslim jihadi's. The vast majority of todays terrorists are muslims doing what their 'prophet' ordered them to do. The islamic ideology of jihad has throughout history delivered and keeps on delivering more death bodies than any other religion or ideology. Not a day goes past when someone on this earth is not killed in the name of islam.
You say the vast majority of the muslims wants peace and don't support the jihadi's, if that's so than where are the massive large scale protests by these so called muslim moderates everytime their fellow muslim brothers carry out a terror attack??? They have plenty of time to protest in large numbers against the West, against some cartoons (Danish) or a book (Satanic Verses), against drone attacks killing terrorist leaders but they don't have time to protest against the daily massacre and terror attacks carried out by their fellow muslims. The vast majority of muslims don't come out to protest against the actions by their fellow muslim brothers because in private they agree with the muslim jihadi's and their objectives that's why.
And don't give me that islam means peace crap because that is false islam means submission and the muslim jihadi's and their supporters won't rest untill everyone is into submission to that cult called islam.
Golden Boy
URL
August 30, 2009
01:37 PM
So much of hate in Comment# 6...
The Mind is the trouble-maker. Mr.Khan, mind what you speak. Because the words will only inspire those who had set out to burn a town for three days in Gujarat riots! Mind the skeletons you dig, for people will easily join you in hatred! There are Political Parties who will easily use the material you preach. And innocents who read you will fall prey to hatred today, for all the poison of yesterday's!
So much of Hate!
Hatred leads to poisoning of minds and hearts... Only Love can nourish...
It is upto you to see the beauty of a person/religion or to keep ranting about his/it's shortcomings!
I, for one learnt of Islam and Sufism through my own falling in love.
Deepti, you once requested me to write on Sufism. I promise to write an article based on my understanding of Sufism. And no I won't quote from books but by my personal experience.
For quotes from books, like Mr.Khan uses, are like spit. You can either choose to gulp it down your throat, spit on the street or spit on somebody's face!
I will write an article on Sufism as the popular Culture of Hindostan has taught me and I have learnt it with my experience. It needs no validation from books for I will draw on direct experience.
"Apni anna aur nafs ko aik insan k samny pamal krnay ka naam ishq e majazi hay aur apni anna aur nafs ko sab k samny pamal krny ka naam ishq e haqeeqi hay asal main dono aik hain....ishq e haqiqi aik darakht hay aur ishq e majazi uski shaakh hay....."
"jab insan ka iishq lahasil rehta hay tu woh darya ko chor kar smandar ka pyasa ban jata hay.....choty rasty say hatt kar bday madar ka musafir ban jata hay uski talab bdal jati hay"
(Ishfaq Ahmad)
(August 22, 1925 â€" September 7, 2004)
-Golden Boy
RRWest
August 30, 2009
02:59 PM
It does not follow that because someone is a mystic, that he/she is not flawed. It just means that, like the Sufis, they are capable of entering into an altered state of consciousness without the need to use drugs.
When you combine that with religious fanaticism, as the followers of Issan I Sabbah did in the days of the Crusades, you can end up with a murderous cult whose Arabic name, "hashashin", gave many western languages a new word: "assassin".
What a horrible, yet truthful, legacy to leave...
commonsense
August 30, 2009
03:43 PM
time for some sufi comic relief:
1. A neighbor who Nasruddin didn't like very much came over to his compound one day. The neighbor asked Nasruddin if he could borrow his donkey. Nasruddin not wanting to lend his donkey to the neighbor he didn't like told him, "I would love to loan you my donkey but only yesterday my brother came from the next town to use it to carry his wheat to the mill to be grounded. The donkey sadly is not here."
The neighbor was disappointed. But he thanked Nasruddin and began to walk away.
Just as he got a few steps away, Mullah Nasruddin's donkey, which was in the back of his compound all the time, let out a big bray.
The neighbor turned to Nasruddin and said, "Mullah Sahib, I thought you told me that your donkey was not here.
Mullah Nasruddin turned to the neighbor and said, "My friend, who are you going to believe? Me or the donkey?
2. Nasruddin opened a booth with a sign above it:
Two Questions On Any Subject Answered For Only 100 Silver Coins
A man who had two very urgent questions handed over his money, saying:
- A hundred silver coins is rather expensive for two questions, isn't it?
- Yes, said Nasruddin, and the next question, please?
3. The wit and wisdom of Mullah Nasruddin never leaves him tongue-tied. One day an illiterate man came to Mullah Nasruddin with a letter he had received.
- Mullah Nasruddin, please read this letter to me. Mullah Nasruddin looked at the letter, but could not make out a single word. So he told the man.
- I am sorry, but I cannot read this. The man cried:
- For shame, Mullah Nasruddin ! You must be ashamed before the turban you wear (i.e. the sign of education)
Mullah Nasruddin removed the turban from his own head and placed it on the head of the illiterate man, said:
- There, now you wear the turban. If it gives some knowledge, read the letter yourself.
4. One day Mullah Nasruddin lost his ring down in the basement of his house, where it was very dark. There being no chance of his finding it in that darkness, he went out on the street and started looking for it there. Somebody passing by stopped and enquire:
- What are you looking for, Mullah Nasruddin ? Have you lost something?
- Yes, I've lost my ring down in the basement.
- But Mullah Nasruddin , why don't you look for it down in the basement where you have lost it? asked the man in surprise.
- Don't be silly, man! How do you expect me to find anything in that darkness!
5. Nasruddin went on a pilgrimage to Mecca, and on the way he passed through Medina. As he was walking by the main mosque there, a rather confused-looking tourist approached him.
- Excuse me sir, he said, but you look like a native of these parts; can you tell me something about this mosque? It looks very old and important, but I've lost my guidebook.
Mullah Nasruddin, being too proud to admit that he, too, had no idea what it was, immediately began an enthusiastic explanation
- This is indeed a very old and special mosque. he declared, It was built by Alexander the Great to commemorate his conquest of Arabia.
The tourist was suitably impressed, but presently a look of doubt crossed his face.
- But how can that be? he asked, I'm sure that Alexander was a Greek or something, not a Muslim. . . Wasn't he?
- I can see that you know something of these matters. replied Mullah Nasruddin with chagrin, In fact, Alexander was so impressed at his good fortune in war that he converted to Islam in order to show his gratitude to God.
- Oh, wow. said the tourist, then paused. Hey, but surely there was no such thing as Islam in Alexander's time?
- An excellent point! It is truly gratifying to meet an English man who understands our history so well, answered Mullah Nasruddin. As a matter of fact, he was so overwhelmed by the generosity God had shown him that as soon as the fighting was over he began a new religion, and became the founder of Islam.
The tourist looked at the mosque with new respect, but before Mullah Nasruddin could quietly slip into the passing crowd, another problem occurred to him.
- But wasn't the founder of Islam named Mohammed? I mean, that's what it said in the newspaper; at least I'm sure it wasn't Alexander.
- I can see that you are a scholar of some learning, said Mullah Nasruddin, I was just getting to that. Alexander felt that he could properly dedicate himself to his new life as a prophet only by adopting a new identity. So, he gave up his old name and for the rest of his life called himself Mohammed.
- Really? wondered the tourist, That's amazing! But...but I thought that Alexander the Great lived a long time before Mohammed? Is that right?
- Certainly not! answered Mullah Nasruddin, You're thinking of a different Alexander the Great. I'm talking about the one named Mohammed.
commonsense
August 30, 2009
03:47 PM
PROMISES KEPT
A FRIEND ASKED THE MULLA HOW OLD ARE YOU? FORTY REPLIED THE MULLAH. THE FRIEND SAID BUT YOU SAID THE SAMETHING TWO YEARS AGO ! YES REPLIED THE MULLAH, I ALWAYS STAND BY WHAT I HAVE SAID.
Ruvy
URL
August 30, 2009
04:52 PM
Jay,
I will wait a few days for my Sufi scholar friend to get back from a trip so that his computer does not overload. If all I get from him is taqqiya, then much is lost, for he is a lynchpin to developing peace between Moslems and Jews. Somehow, having seen his work, a rather good deal of it, I do not think I'll get taqqiya. I will, of course, ask him to read the comments here as well.
I will also point out that the author is a Moslem who has fallen away from the faith - because he is.
One of the basic reasons for sending this out for comment is that Mr. Khan explores Moslem history as seen from the sub-continent - something I am not familiar with at all.
M. A. Khan
August 30, 2009
11:25 PM
Thanks Aaman, there are too many warrior Sufi stories in vogue in South India, which most apologists, love-stricken by Sufism, want to discount as fiction in order to rehabililate the cult. We know the stories of Sufi master Sirhindi, who waged Jihad against apostate Akbar's tolerance and liberalism of Kafirs. We know Shah Walliullah, who invited Abdali from Afghanistan when Maratha's were gaining control of India.
What becomes clear from my research is that, after Sufism became firmly footed in the 12-13th century, thanks to Ghazzali (d. 1111), these so-called mystics quickly established relationship with the Muslim rulers and provoked them into undertaking Jihadi wars and conquests.
Golden Boy, assuming that you are a Muslim, it is Muslims who take great pride in history than any other people in the world. Islamic Golden Age, Islamic science of yore, Islam's historical tolerance, Muhammad's greatness---it's all part of Islamic discourse today. Problem with you people is that, so long one invents falsehood, tell part of the story, to spread a shining image of Islam, that history is good for you; you would encourage such diggings of Islam's past. What you don't like is "the complete truth".
Nonetheless, it is in truth that humanity will find its salvation. And not in hiding the truth, but recognizing it, and learning from it, to guide our future. If we don't learn from history, it will most likely recur. When we falsify history, a vogue amongst Muslims, that's of greater danger. Take, for example, the current scourge of Islamic terrorism, which is recurrence and resurgence of Islam's past, which you might recognize now, if not a couple of days earlier. Had Muslims recognized that there past has a lot of stink, not all scent of roses, it couldn't recur today.
Holocaust museums are created hoping that they will help prevent its recurrence. The sooner we forget or deny it (something Muslims are working hard at), the closer we get to another holocaust.
Aaman
URL
August 31, 2009
09:06 AM
Lets not forget the Jedi, the last of the great warrior saints, definitely descended and inspired by the Sufis, whose master Yoda, knowingly allowed Anakin to enter into the dark side, with the full awareness that he lacked the ability to resist it.
The point, people, is that all strong forces/movements have a good and a dark side, and even the strongest good necessarily has some darkness in it.
The force is strong.
indian
August 31, 2009
10:41 AM
None of the mainstream will ever dare to print or publish this.
These so called seculars can see there family die just to be praised by the so called Peace loving Muslims.
commonsense
August 31, 2009
11:50 AM
Aaman #13,
Thanks for injecting some basic commonsense here, while i was asleep :)
Morris
August 31, 2009
03:35 PM
"Don’t we all have a history? What do you get by digging up the past Mr.Khan? There are only skeletons there!"
Of course we do. No one should deny that. We learn from the mistakes of past, admit, express regret and go forward with a resolve not to repeat them. That is how we evolve. We become better human beeings to day than we were yesterday. There should be no need to feel hatred. Why do we feel hate? It was hate that was the cause to begin with. It is time to reflect and regret and go forward.
Recently the Prime Minister of Australia apologized to the natives for the atrocities. He did not say, so what? Americans did that and a lot of other people did that too. How can we justify our past bad deeds just by pointing out bad deeds by others. If we had Sati system, do not deny it. Express regret and point out the steps taken to stop that. It serves no purpose whatsoever by pointing out that so what, whites burnt witches in Europe.
The problem is muslims refuse to admit that such events did happen. They do know but they cannot face. As a result they have this burden and that creates a drag on their ability to move forward. Hatred is felt only because they are unwilling to face it. No admission, no hope of going forward.
Remind me of a recent event in India. A painting exhibit showing atrocities of Aurangzeb was forced to close down by muslims. But then on the other hand when movie 'Water' was filmed by Mehta hindus forced her to quit. Both acts are stupid. Our unwillingness to face the history shackles us.
So many hindu temples had been destroyed by muslims. May be I do not know but I had not heard that any muslim leaders express regret for that. When Ayodhya temple events were on the front page they had an excellent opportunity to be magnanimous and give that site up to hindus particularly since that mosque was inactive to begin with and at the same time express regret for what happened in the past. That was their opportunity to put a kind closure to that chapter of the history. I do not know but had not heard that any muslim leader expressed that sentiment. On the other hand they fought against it. That does not mean that I support mosque destruction by hindus. That was stupid.
Desh
URL
September 2, 2009
08:51 AM
Mr. Khan - a very interesting article indeed.
In the past few months, I have been wondering about one rather interesting thing that kind of leaves me bewildered.
Many Masters/Enlightened people came out of what is Hinduism or Vedic/Vedantic tradition - Buddha, Nanak are the popular ones among them. All of them REJECTED religion and went on their own to look for truth. While their intrinsic philosophy and articulation (Nanak's many examples are basically "inspired" from earlier scriptures)- they did not promote the ROOT of the philosophy which they, I am sure given their spiritual level, would have known was very profound. I can understand this "behavior" and the practice. That's what religions are made of.
On the other hand, the Sufis, ostensibly inspired by the Bhakti movement (and "Enlightened" according to many), did NOT leave the confines of Islam - specifically the limitations of Quran. Anyone on a spiritual journey and with a questioning and objective mind which I believe was common to Nanak and Buddha and should have been the case with Sufis as well, would realize that Quran's text is spiritually inconsistent and not well thought out... in fact its seemingly profound concepts seem to be existing in logical silos, as it were and look more like hearsay as opposed to someone getting to them by self introspection. One example is Formless God and the concept of Believers/Non-believers. "FOrmless" concept is a RESULT of a long string of thought where one understands "God" to be a non-God and Infinite in expanse and SO is formless. Now, if one realizes that God is infinite and THEREFORE formless, one also realizes that distinction between Believers and non-believers is UTTER and USELESS Nonsense. The entire edifice of Good and Evil, punishment and blessing, the day of judgment etc.. is then based on THAT one distinction between Believers and Non-believers.
What I have failed to understand is - were Sufis just INSUFFICIENTLY questioning in their spiritual journey or were they just putting on a facade of spirituality. For, it is VERY easy to talk so called spirituality in a nice-you-good-I-good-pleasing-politically-correct semantics and get away with it without talking any useful stuff. But spirituality is NOT about Morals.. nor about God.. NOT about blessings nor about Grace.. all that is nonsensical make believe of the MIND! Real spiritual questioning goes FAR beyond that... in the realm of Infinite (which all these concepts repeatedly bastardize to their own meanings).
Can you, based on your research, write something along these lines? Were Sufis serious on their journey or just faking it?
I respect the utterances from them... but something tells me that these utterances do NOT fall in line with their actions and the eco-system.
The ONLY Sufi that I know who sort of broke from all this was Hazrat Inayat Khan. But he did not seem to comment on earlier practitioners.
Cheers,
Desh
Drishtikone.com
bunch of lies get a life read history
September 3, 2009
04:22 AM
From that IP:
"bunch of lies get a life read history" has posted 1 comments
"hypnotized or mentor of prof. jerry " has posted 1 comments
"u cant even work your way up to be enlightened in a debate" has posted 1 comments
"vedatists scared of falling behind" has posted 1 comments
u cant even work your way up to be enlightened in a debate
September 3, 2009
04:33 AM
From that IP:
"bunch of lies get a life read history" has posted 1 comments
"hypnotized or mentor of prof. jerry " has posted 1 comments
"u cant even work your way up to be enlightened in a debate" has posted 1 comments
"vedatists scared of falling behind" has posted 1 comments
M. A. Khan
September 3, 2009
11:08 AM
Desh,
I'm an atheist and rationalist, and I become dumb when one talks about spirituality, such as of religious or mystic nature. It just doesn't get into my brain. All sounds rubbish to me. Nonetheless, I believe in my human/animal spirit, a mix of good and bad, and try to maximize the good as my vision toward contributing for a better society.
So, it's tough for me to write an essay from the point of mystical spirituality of Sufism. Nonetheless, to the question of why none of the Sufis failed to be completely enlightened (if you call that enlightenment), by which you want to mean why they couldn't come out completely from the fold of Islam, I think the fear of losing their life was a major concern. Some of the Sufis in the midst of delusions had uttered things insulting to Islam, and they were dealt with harshly; a few even lost their life through severe torture. Yet, there were some deviant Sufis, who were condemned as "Besharia" (i.e. outside the Sharia or Islam).
aziz tayyab
URL
September 3, 2009
04:22 PM
in my opinion,a muslim is muslim because he/she is
ignorant about islam and it's history;so to golden
boy I say - learn and to m.a.khan I say - thanks.
also I believe that if mohammad was a literate and
not an illiterate,he would not have invented islam.
aziz tayyab
URL
September 3, 2009
04:30 PM
I forgot to write in my previous comments that it is
not the past history that bothers me but the present
because if it were not for islam and muslims,india
and panjab would not have been partitioned.
commonsense
September 3, 2009
06:38 PM
aziz tayyab:
"if mohammad was a literate and
not an illiterate,he would not have invented islam."
talking of literacy, "if mohammad was a literate..." does not seem to make sense. unless of course you are about to invent some new religion.
aziz tayyab
URL
September 4, 2009
04:32 AM
commonsense with no commonsense:
literate is one who is able to read and write.
literate mohammad who had read e.g. the Bible would
have known that nowhere in Bible either Jesus or
Moses said that what I am telling you today is brought to me by angel gabrail therefore call it
quran but what I told you yesterday I made that up
all by myself so call it hadith; just that small
amount of knowledge would have helped him cope with his mental problem(s) that resulted in the
invention called islam.
it is commonsense that a literate would have more
knowledge than an illiterate and knowledge is man's best help to help himself.
Golden Boy
URL
September 4, 2009
10:57 AM
:-) Mr.Tayyab. It was interesting going through your blog. Perhaps you are no longer Mr.Tayyab now but have a christian name... now that you have converted??? So! was it because Jesus was "literate"? Or "educated"? :-)
(Sorry, I thought I would answer in the tone of your comments so far)
You belong to the group of people who believe that learning to read and write the alphabet makes a man a genius! And the more you read, more glows the halo over your head! (I feel compassion for you, Sirji)
You advised me in Comment #21 that I should "learn"... How? Are you going to write a book now giving an anti-thesis to Islam? Oh, I am sorry... you already have a blog to do that work (http://duskofislam.blogspot.com/), right, right!!
Mr. M.A Khan is atleast honest enough to admit in Comment #20 that he " become(s) dumb when one talks about spirituality, such as of religious or mystic nature. It just doesn't get into my brain. All sounds rubbish to me".
You for one, will take some time I think before you cultivate that kind of humility in order to know that it is not just the Knowledge from books that makes a man wise but a different kind of Intelligence that comes from Practising or experience.
Before the Tsunami the tribals of Andaman Nicobar Islands had already receded from the shores sensing trouble. Science is now treading on the path of Para-Psychology! Telepathy, Clairovoyance, out of the body experiences etc. are not fiction anymore!
There is more to the Mind than what we use! The rest we have either forgotten to use, or will take time to reclaim/develop.
Meanwhile, we can fight with swords and words over matters of religion, right?
-Golden Boy
aziz tayyab
URL
September 4, 2009
01:21 PM
Golden boy:
I do not care if you learn anything or not; it was just a free advice I felt you needed based on your comments to m.a. khan as not to dig the past history
of islam/muslims in india because as you yourself
put it at the end is the exact point he has made in
the article that islam spread by fighting with the
swords and words because muslims think their words
are better than others.
And no; I need not change my name as it is already
a christian name.
commonsense
September 4, 2009
05:01 PM
Tayyab:
"it is commonsense that a literate would have more knowledge than an illiterate and knowledge is man's best help to help himself."
"a literate" is not usually what literate people would use to describe others. perhaps you mean "a literate person"
however your contention above smacks of literate elitism of the variety that no truly literate person would agree with. for example, there are many illiterate people who have more knowledge of their surrounding and environment than, let's say dubya. and not just dubya. there is a whole category of people who are literate but not necessarily educated (me being a prime example) and others who have knowledge ie. are educated about their world, without knowing how to read or write. Think before you write. But I guess you would, if you could. But I suppose you are spending too much time mastering the ABC's of reading and writing, while letting commonsense simply pass you by. However, I suggest you should agitate to make the following proposition into law: all future inventors of new religion must pass a basic literacy test.
commonsense
September 4, 2009
05:03 PM
Tayyabji,
Ever come across this expression? "parhey likhey jaahil"??
commonsense
September 4, 2009
05:21 PM
tayyabji: (from his humourous blog)
"Islamic belief is based on rewards 'swabs' and punishments 'sins' and the objective is to collect more 'swabs' than 'sins' to pass The Judgement."
i actually got some "swabs" from a medical store the other day. didn't know i could have gotten it free from Islam!
commonsense
September 4, 2009
05:25 PM
tyyabji: (from his blog about "swabs" and other medical issues):
"I do not believe in the numbers game or logic"
not sure which game you are referring to, but whether you believe in logic or not, it does exist independantly of your beliefs. Quite unlike your conception of God - Christian, Unchristian or Martian.
Desh
URL
September 4, 2009
08:03 PM
One reason why DC is a put off is because there are people here who, instead of engaging in contructive as serious debate about stuff somehow turn the debate into a facetious direction.
I had seen it on my own blogs.. and I can see it here. Its fairly obvious what someone must have meant by swabs and sins.. but there are enough smart pants who will refuse to engage in serious discussion but continue to indulge in completely facetious and turn off slap-stick humor.
But then there is little one can do, when the editorial team itself has elements who have installed themselves to promote JUST this behavior!
Anyways....another forum has become a rant-house instead of a useful forum of intelligent discussion.
commonsense
September 5, 2009
01:51 AM
Desh:
"I had seen it on my own blogs.. and I can see it here. Its fairly obvious what someone must have meant by swabs and sins.. but there are enough smart pants who will refuse to engage in serious discussion but continue to indulge in completely facetious and turn off slap-stick humor."
oh sure, i know what he meant by "swab" just as i have no clue why you venture into solid state physics when you have not a clue what you are talking about. i, as most folks on DC know, can engage in a serious discussion with anyone who is serious (as in knows the "atey daal ka bhaoo"), but dish out slapstick humor and even worse to those who deserve nothing less.
So, would you like ketchup with those fries Kapoor Bhai?
commonsense
September 5, 2009
01:55 AM
Desh:
"One reason why DC is a put off is because there are people here who, instead of engaging in contructive as serious debate about stuff somehow turn the debate into a facetious direction"
Ah, you man you get turned off when folks don't agree with you?? Spoken like a true democrat who no doubt believes in a plurality of views and of course "tolerance". So where do you usually go when you want to be "turned on"??? Wink, wink, snigger, snigger :). Not DC, I bet! Perhaps, NY?
commonsense
September 5, 2009
02:05 AM
Desh:
"One reason why DC is a put off is because there are people here who, instead of engaging in contructive as serious debate about stuff somehow turn the debate into a facetious direction"
fair enough! what's the second reason why DC is a put off? ah, because nobody takes you seriously. But seriously, that's not reason enough...as in that's pretty unreasonable of you. sorry, i need to buy some "swabs" now...
commonsense
September 5, 2009
02:10 AM
Desh:
"But then there is little one can do, when the editorial team itself has elements who have installed themselves to promote JUST this behavior!"
Apologies Aaman and Deepti. In the past I have been guilty of accusing you of the same sins...or was it "swabs"...me confused as usual...
commonsense
September 5, 2009
02:13 AM
Desh:
"One reason why DC is a put off is because there are people here who, instead of engaging in contructive as serious debate about stuff somehow turn the debate into a facetious direction"
Sorry Kapoor Sahab, a serious discussion is something that you have to earn. I'm afraid you or your friend do not merit it, at this point of time at least. Unless you would prefer a "swab" at the local health clinic.
commonsense
September 5, 2009
02:27 AM
Desh:
"But then there is little one can do, when the editorial team itself has elements who have installed themselves to promote JUST this behavior!"
Dear "the editorial team" there must be something you are doing right, if both me and Desh Kapoor (from the opposite end of the commonsense spectrum) accuse of doing nothing right. A sure sign, trust me!
commonsense
September 5, 2009
02:40 AM
Desh:
"Its fairly obvious what someone must have meant by swabs and sins.."
sorry desh kapoor, but it's not that obvious to monkeys such as me. as in "bandar kya janey, adrak ka SWAB". by the third generation, i may have a clue.
aziz tayyab
URL
September 5, 2009
03:34 AM
Commonsense:
"parhey likhey jaahil" will always have more commonsense than "unparh jaahils"
Numbers of people with a certain belief is not a
proof of that belief being the truth; numbers can
change to more or less but the truth cannot be more
or less.it is either the truth or a lie.
commonsense
September 5, 2009
11:19 AM
Yaa Aziz Bhai,
On your blog, what you have is nothing but a rant about how Christianity is better than Islam. For anyone to argue that "my religion" (whichever religion that might happen to be) or as some men argue, "my tool" is bigger and longer than yours, is a sure sign of parhey likhey jaahils. At least the tool claim can be empirically verified! So the issue of engaging in a serious discussion with you ka to sawaal hi nahin uthtaa...
Folks, please don't forget to visit Aziz Tayyabji's blog, even though I will tell you that my blog, naturally, is better than bigger than his!
commonsense
September 5, 2009
11:32 AM
PS:
My non-existent blog is certainly bigger and better than the blog of Aziz Tayyabji. Please check my blog out HERE (non-existent link) and don't forget to compare it with Aziz's. I certainly think mine is better and bigger, even though i concede that his religion is marginally better than my yet-to-be-invented religion.
Khush?? Desh and you can have a party now!
Blogging sure attracts a bewildering variety of folks, and some of them even petulantly demand to be taken seriously! And then there are wierdos like me!
commonsense
September 5, 2009
12:00 PM
Desh:
"All of them REJECTED religion and went on their own to look for truth."
Desh Bhai, too bad your blog _Drishtikone_ was not up and running in those days. Regardless, anyone looking for TRUTH now, need not waste time searching for it - all disoriented people can now simply go to _drishtikone_ and have their daily fix of TRUTH in various degrees of potency. And it's all free!
commonsense
September 5, 2009
12:13 PM
Tayyab:
"but the truth cannot be more
or less.it is either the truth or a lie."
so you seriously believe in this particular TRUTH don't you? (i'm going by your blog)
1. that christianity is not only the best religion for you but, naturally enough for everyone else too.
2. and the above for you is not an indication of "parhey likhey jahil".
but then again, i'm beating the proverbial dead horse here, since you yourself, in your blog, reject "logic"
aziz tayyab
September 5, 2009
01:17 PM
commonsense:
I think I cannot help you understand; I never rejected logic itself but the use of logic to say
that if there are a billion hindus ,hinduism must
be the truth because by the use of the same logic
hinduism must not be the truth when there were less
than billion hindus; same goes for islam and every
other belief including christianity and I did not
accept christianity because there are billion plus
christians around.
anyways you need not beat the proverbial dead horse because I have no interest in making you or
anyone else understand me;I am just trying to
understand myself and me writing the blog or tweet
or comment is part of me trying to understand me.
regards
aziz tayyab
Golden Boy
URL
September 5, 2009
01:36 PM
Wooosh!!!
I am already enlightened!
Thanks Aziz Tayyab, Common Sense, Desh!
-Golden Boy
commonsense
September 5, 2009
01:59 PM
Aziz Tayyab:
"commonsense:
I think I cannot help you understand; I never rejected logic itself but the use of logic to say
that if there are a billion hindus ,hinduism must
be the truth"
the very fact that you are actually seriously arguing with the above illogical argument, unintentionally advertizes the sheer distance between you and logic. with you as your own self-appointed detractors, i can sleep easy and tackle Desh, who by the way does a reasonably competent job of undermining himself. You however are indisputably No. 1 in this game. Desh could be your apprentice. Good luck!
commonsense
September 5, 2009
05:32 PM
godammit! DC has been hit by the commonsense flood. i need a break (sigh) and others here certainly need a break from me (i heard that sigh of relief!)
Aaman
URL
September 6, 2009
12:06 AM
Divert that verbosity to writing an article, CS
commonsense
September 6, 2009
07:21 PM
aaman,
i wish! if wishes were horses, monkeys like me would not cry. i guess i will have to settle for my buffoon persona.
Golden Boy
URL
September 7, 2009
03:14 AM
Hi commonsense,
I have myself been in your shoes once, on another Internet group. I exhausted myself after convincing myself that I should put my views agressively even when I knew that I just wouldnt' convince the other and was actually making a nuisance of myself.
Then it helped me to be Still and understand what in life was really troubling me, to face it and accept it.
(This space already makes me feel like being in a family! Thanks commonsense, aziz tayyab, aaman, deepti, temporal, m.a.khan, desh, ayan, etc.
At times one wants to reach out and just tap a person's shoulders or hold him/her to calm him down! But then one realises how distant we actually are!
I, for one don't even know if some of the IDs here are men or women (like commonsense and temporal)! Not that it really matters! But there are times one feels close to people on the cyber space, relationships are built, even when one cannot actually reach out to the other.)
Take good care of yourself commonsense, you need a lot of love and hugs at this point of time, I guess!
Much Love and peace
Golden Boy
Deepti Lamba
September 7, 2009
04:13 AM
GB, its easy to get rip roaring mad on comment boards but its better to respond via posts. And sometimes its best to let matters be and take a breather.
commonsense
September 7, 2009
11:31 AM
taking a breather here. point taken, GB and Deepti. Pint not taken. perhaps therein lies the problem. sure, blame the beer or in this case "the non-beer made me do it"!
GB (following your advice about putting everything down in one post, rather than spraying DC...): your point about me unnecessarily going after Desh, is to some extent true. On the other hand, i really wasn't even trying to be amusing at all. once you have been here long enough you will realize what some folks stand for and in certain situations, ridicule is the better part of valour. I agree that trying to convince someone of some piont is indeed pointless, so i usually don't even try to do it.
Finally: it might appear to be the case, but trust me, I am NOT playing to the gallery. I'm my own person (man or woman or whatever), and do what i feel is right. I do understand that most folks do not agree with what i think is right.
Peace to you too!
Add your comment