[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
I have a pretty fair authority that claims there are other gods that people are tempted to worship:
'3) you shall have no other gods before me"
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. To “have” in this case means to worship, and something doesn’t have actually to exist in order for it to be worshipped. In other words, there ARE other gods, only they aren’t real.
The thing is, I wasn’t asking about political machinations of latter-day politicians. Divide and conquer has always been easy with Indians, whatever religion they may hail from. I was asking whether or not there has been widespread acceptance of Hinduism in different schools of Islam, especially recently-not as submittees of Islamic rule. Hiring Hindus against your foe doesn’t demonstrate that they weren’t considered shirk.
This is a very very broad statement and needs more citations than those suggesting that Hindu and Muslims courts hired administrators of opposite faiths. Everyone knows that the Mughal empire extensively hired Hindu administrators/clerks etc..
Interpenetration would suggest extensive socialising, inter-marriage and an acceptance of the other’s faith, none of which I’ve read about. Hindus and Muslims may have worked together but from everything I’ve read most middle-class citizens lived and socialised with their own kind-the one glaring example being the field of arts, where people mixed and lived freely.
If I were to sum up the system under peaceful times it would be “separate but equal” but with a big emphasis on separate.
I went and googled for this school of thought and the first thing that popped out at me was that they decry idolatry. I would be INCREDIBLY surprised if any Hindus would be considered people of the book considering they’re probably the most obvious and glaring example of idolatrous practice in modern times.
As to the second statement, my experience has been vastly different. You can get an average, non-fundamentalist Indian Muslim to state, at most, that Allah will eventually decide over our fates and it’s up to him. This is the biggest concession possible. Not a single person I’ve ever met agrees that we are “People of the Book” and if we were, Hindus would not be required to convert in order to marry Muslims.
[QUOTE=anu-la1979]
This is a very very broad statement and needs more citations than those suggesting that Hindu and Muslims courts hired administrators of opposite faiths. Everyone knows that the Mughal empire extensively hired Hindu administrators/clerks etc..
[/quote]
Yes, pretty broad. Depends on your POV, I guess. I consider the undeniably extensive artistioc, trade, political and military interpenetrations to justify my statement. Especially in the case of states like the Deccani sultanates with their tiny ruling Muslim minorities and largely Hindu courts. But if you wanted to make the argument that such interaction was so limited to the elites that it most often scarcely impacted the larger population, I certainly think you’d have a reasonable debate point.
Definitely at the sub-gentry level, the interaction of different peasantries was probably pretty minimal. Though the note above about Hindus making pilgrimages to and praying at Sufi shrines indicates even folk religion could become intertwined.
Certainly the case in royal courts. Elsewhere, rather more limited, I’d agree.
Unidirectional in the case of the Mughals ( i.e. Rajput brides to Mughal courts, as in the mother of Jahangir ). Otherwise although I’m sure it must have happened occasionally, I have no info on how rare it was ( my suspicion would be uncommon and outside of the boonies, mostly unidirectional as with the example above ).
Well, we’ve discussed syncretic ties and the commonality of pre-modern Muslim views on the ‘protected’ status of Hindus. If you’re talking by modern standards, well, hell - no, absolutely not. You didn’t even get that from the British :).
No particular argument from me on that. I agree. But I consider working and art pretty significant, so again I guess it is a matter of perspective.
Yup, agree. And only equal at the VERY BEST of times ( and at the very highest levels - i.e. senior Rajput princes and the like ). Generally not even then. A Muslim might think a righteous Jew, Christian or even a Hindu might make it into heaven. Doesn’t mean they didn’t consider them inferior in faith ( and by extension usually by legality ).
I said SOME branches ( they aren’t uniform ) of Indian Naqshbandi Sufism and was careful to qualify that a particular membership shouldn’t necessarily imply anything.
Mirza Mazhar Jan-e-Janan believed in the divinity of the Vedas. Sirhind and Wali-Allah, mentioned above, were ALSO Naqshbandis and did their damndest to oppose any sort of liberality towards Hindus. The Chishti order is often considered very universalist vis-a-vis Hindus as well, but it has produced plenty of voices raised against Hinduism in similar terms.
But poking around on a Naqshbandi site just now, I did run across this:
*You can see how human beings are honored beings. There is no discrimination in God’s sight at that level: there is no Muslim; there is no Christian; there is no Jew; there is no Buddhist; there is no Hindu.
There is no differentiation at that level. Discrimination is from us. It is we who say: “They are Jews”; “They are Christians”; Christians say: “These are Muslims”; “These are Jews." But there are no such things in God’s eyes. There are only human beings – period.
You are not allowed to speak ill of your brothers and sisters, as all of us are sons and daughters of Adam and Eve! You would be interfering in God’s judgment. But you are not the judge: God is the Judge. Don’t interfere, therefore, in God’s ways by giving your opinion. God will not ask for your opinion in the Judgment Day.
If God says, I want to put everyone who has faith and love of Him in Paradise, who can say to Him, “What are You doing?” and if He says, “I want to punish everyone,” who can say to Him, “What are You doing?” No one. And do you think that God has created us to punish us? Is He Someone revengeful, Someone who likes revenge or punishment? Someone who created His servants in order to torture them? Do you accept this view? It is impossible. God is merciful, and He is keeping His mercy for His servants.*
From a 2003 lecture in Michigan by one Shaykh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani. Significant? Eh, it’s the opinion of one dude and can be read with some ambiguity I guess, so who knows.
And your experience no doubt vastly exceeds mine in this regard :). I have no hard data ( as I noted ) and you have a plentitude of anecdotes. So, fair enough.
I know a very little history. An expert on modern intercommunal relations in India, I’m not.
[QUOTE=Alessan]
Not necessarily. To “have” in this case means to worship, and something doesn’t have actually to exist in order for it to be worshipped. In other words, there ARE other gods, only they aren’t real.
[/QUOTE]
So He’s wasting valuable tablet-inches specifying imaginary things that He’s already covered anyway? (If He’s “The Lord thy God,” then obviously that crappy magnet-idol I’ve got on my refrigerator ain’t nothing.) Why not, as He doesn’t mind verbosity and redundancy in His Commandments, spell out some other subtle points, like whether you should honor a step-parent equally with a parent, or whether showing that identical degree of devotion is disrespectful to your birthparent? I mean, your God seems to have tablet-space to burn on technicalities.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
So He’s wasting valuable tablet-inches specifying imaginary things that He’s already covered anyway? (If He’s “The Lord thy God,” then obviously that crappy magnet-idol I’ve got on my refrigerator ain’t nothing.) Why not, as He doesn’t mind verbosity and redundancy in His Commandments, spell out some other subtle points, like whether you should honor a step-parent equally with a parent, or whether showing that identical degree of devotion is disrespectful to your birthparent? I mean, your God seems to have tablet-space to burn on technicalities.
[/QUOTE]
Because it’s one thing to say that other gods don’t exist, and another to instruct people not to, say, sacrifice a goat to Baal (you know… just in case). The ritual aspect of worship is very important in Judaism.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
So He’s wasting valuable tablet-inches specifying imaginary things that He’s already covered anyway? (If He’s “The Lord thy God,” then obviously that crappy magnet-idol I’ve got on my refrigerator ain’t nothing.) Why not, as He doesn’t mind verbosity and redundancy in His Commandments, spell out some other subtle points, like whether you should honor a step-parent equally with a parent, or whether showing that identical degree of devotion is disrespectful to your birthparent? I mean, your God seems to have tablet-space to burn on technicalities.
[/QUOTE]
The waste of column inches makes sense in a way.
These religions are more a hybrid between ‘worship’ and Common Law
@Tamerlane
Your stuff was extremely interesting - quite eye opening.
[QUOTE=FRDE]
Less recent: The selfish ba*tards streaming out of the Domes on the Mount, where I live you pass around joints, they did not.
[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about, and does it have anything to do with the topic? Posts in GD are expected to be intelligible to begin with. You speak of passing around joints, so why are you bogarting that one?
[QUOTE=Johanna]
What are you talking about, and does it have anything to do with the topic? Posts in GD are expected to be intelligible to begin with. You speak of passing around joints, so why are you bogarting that one?
[/QUOTE]
The last time I was in Jerusalem was on a Friday afternoon.
On Friday afternoons they have a mega service in the Mosque(s) in/under the Domes on the Mount.
Hordes of little old men came streaming out, and I mean hordes, quite a crush in the covered passages, and a lot of them were smoking joints.
[QUOTE=FRDE]
Hordes of little old men came streaming out, and I mean hordes, quite a crush in the covered passages, and a lot of them were smoking joints.
[/QUOTE]
Considering the police presence in that area, I’m pretty sure they were just handrolled cigarettes.
[QUOTE=Alessan]
Considering the police presence in that area, I’m pretty sure they were just handrolled cigarettes.
[/QUOTE]
I was there.
You don’t see many police in the area, soldiers, yes, but they stay out in the open.
My feeling is that it is an area where nobody wants any hassle.
My question is, what hope is there that moderate muslims can persuade the jihadists among them to ease off on the attacks and threats againt the West?
[QUOTE=FRDE]
I was there.
You don’t see many police in the area, soldiers, yes, but they stay out in the open.
My feeling is that it is an area where nobody wants any hassle.
[/QUOTE]
It’s a nicotine smoke - It’s a cannabis smoke - You’re both right! It’s two smokes in one. Most likely they were smoking hashish handrolled with tobacco. Or tobacco handrolled with hashish.
In Catholic high school, I had a Lebanese religion teacher who spoke against marijuana in class, saying his grandfather back in Lebanon used to sit on the porch overlooking the mountains in the evening and smoke hash and get stoned. He meant to convey why getting high is wrong. But his description sounded pretty attractive.
We seem to have lost the original poster.
Guys, please go easier on the newbies until they have a chance to get acclimated here! We always lose the Muslims pretty quickly, why can’t we keep any?
[QUOTE=Johanna]
It’s a nicotine smoke - It’s a cannabis smoke - You’re both right! It’s two smokes in one. Most likely they were smoking hashish handrolled with tobacco. Or tobacco handrolled with hashish.
In Catholic high school, I had a Lebanese religion teacher who spoke against marijuana in class, saying his grandfather back in Lebanon used to sit on the porch overlooking the mountains in the evening and smoke hash and get stoned. He meant to convey why getting high is wrong. But his description sounded pretty attractive.
[/QUOTE]
What amused me was that I’m pretty sure dope is banned in Islam
[QUOTE=Johanna]
We seem to have lost the original poster.
Guys, please go easier on the newbies until they have a chance to get acclimated here! We always lose the Muslims pretty quickly, why can’t we keep any?
[/QUOTE]
I think it is inevitable that we lose them, just as we don’t have many rabid creationists. People who hold ‘received’ beliefs are not much good at arguing (or even debating).
[QUOTE=FRDE]
I was there.
You don’t see many police in the area, soldiers, yes, but they stay out in the open.
[/QUOTE]
Just to continue the hijack, what you saw weren’t soldiers, they were Border Police (the Israeli equivalent of the French Gendarmes or the Italian Carabineri), identfiable by their darker uniforms and police shoulder-patches. For various political reasons, regular army aren’t stationed in the Old City.
[QUOTE=NSmasta]
good evening Bryan,
first of all could you give me an example of these reforms? just so i can have a better image of what could or should be changed in Islam…
then, tell me more about islamic rituals you think should be abandoned, if you have any specific idea.
then i may be able to tell you if it could be acceptable, and to what point.
[/QUOTE]
NSmasta, I hope you’re still checking in on this thread.
Here in America, the separation of church and state is a pretty cherished principle. It’s not absolute, some of our wilder elements claim that the Constitution promises no such thing, but it’s a widely-held ideal. If we skip church or eat pork on Friday, it’s considered a matter of individual conscience, and outside of some Utah counties, it’s never a police matter.
In the West in general, our Medieval period began when the Roman emperor ceded more civil authority than he should have to the Pope, and it ended when clerics lost their ability to raise armies and jail infidels. Other stuff happened too (like the fall of Constantinople, the Protestant Reformation, the voyage of Columbus, etc.), but basically, Medieval means “The Church runs western Europe.”
It’s my impression that in much of the Muslim world, the Middle Ages never ended, expressly because clerics retain more civil and military authority than is healthy in a modern world. Of all the rituals Muslims could abandon, that–and the Religious Police-- would be the first. Call the cops for civil crimes, and let men answer for spiritual lapses in the afterlife. To what point would that be acceptable to you?
[QUOTE=Alessan]
Just to continue the hijack, what you saw weren’t soldiers, they were Border Police (the Israeli equivalent of the French Gendarmes or the Italian Carabineri), identfiable by their darker uniforms and police shoulder-patches. For various political reasons, regular army aren’t stationed in the Old City.
[/QUOTE]
Really, that is very interesting.
The ones I’ve seen were very efficient and courteous
The first time we went there, we asked a taxi driver in Tel Aviv whether he knew of a guide. Miraculously it turned out that he was one, and the next day showed us an ID card to prove it - the picture was not too good, and the eye colour was wrong.
On entry to the Mount area, the guard obviously clocked the situation and told us ‘look after your ‘guide’ boys’ with heavy emphasis on ‘guide’
[QUOTE=Krokodil]
NSmasta, I hope you’re still checking in on this thread.
Here in America, the separation of church and state is a pretty cherished principle. It’s not absolute, some of our wilder elements claim that the Constitution promises no such thing, but it’s a widely-held ideal. If we skip church or eat pork on Friday, it’s considered a matter of individual conscience, and outside of some Utah counties, it’s never a police matter.
In the West in general, our Medieval period began when the Roman emperor ceded more civil authority than he should have to the Pope, and it ended when clerics lost their ability to raise armies and jail infidels. Other stuff happened too (like the fall of Constantinople, the Protestant Reformation, the voyage of Columbus, etc.), but basically, Medieval means “The Church runs western Europe.”
It’s my impression that in much of the Muslim world, the Middle Ages never ended, expressly because clerics retain more civil and military authority than is healthy in a modern world. Of all the rituals Muslims could abandon, that–and the Religious Police-- would be the first. Call the cops for civil crimes, and let men answer for spiritual lapses in the afterlife. To what point would that be acceptable to you?
[/QUOTE]
That is a pretty fair analysis (well it is my take on things, so I would say that)
[QUOTE=FRDE]
What amused me was that I’m pretty sure dope is banned in Islam
[/quote]
Generally, but not necessarily. I read somewhere that Ottoman ‘ulama’ of the Hanafi school of jurisprudence ruled that hashish is licit in Islamic law because it isn’t wine, and only wine is explicitly illicit in the texts.
I read somewhere else about inter-religion socializing in Bosnia - how Muslim and Serbian or Croatian teenagers would hang out together, the Christians would try the Muslims’ hashish and the Muslims in turn would try the Christians’ alcohol - but when they grew up they mostly went back to their own culture’s preferred intoxicant.
I agree - Bring back when Islam was a cool civ - for smart people - not this icky totalitarian version they’re pushing now.
For everyone who likes freedom of thought, and especially for those who thought it couldn’t exist in Islam, please see the movie Destiny - it shows the real-life arguments of the philosopher Ibn Rushd (Averroës) in favor of reason and open-minded tolerance against dogmatic religious authoritarianism. It shows how Arab civilization once provided that to Europe and how fragile it can be. It provokes thought on Muslims and Christians, Middle Easterners and Europeans alike, in the present day, needing to cooperate to keep the flame of reason and tolerance lit.
[QUOTE=Cisco]
Complete bullshit and you know it. We’re not talking about 100 years ago; we’re talking about today. No one on this board was alive 100 years ago and can’t very well apologize for what happened back then.
[/QUOTE]
My, you’re sensitive. But what the the odds the OP is personally involved in the oppression of women? Surely the same rule of personal non-responsibility applies?
Well, except the evil Muslims, right? They seem to be fair game.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
My, you’re sensitive. But what the the odds the OP is personally involved in the oppression of women? Surely the same rule of personal non-responsibility applies?
Well, except the evil Muslims, right? They seem to be fair game.
[/QUOTE]
Isn’t it at least a LITTLE disingenuous, RickJay, to equate all societies’ oppression of women as equal? We’re not discussing how western industrialized Non-Muslim societies mistreat women here, are we? We’re discussing Muslim cultures in particular, and it seems a little weak to dismiss explicit and sanctioned mistreatment of women in Muslim cultures with a “Yeah, tu quoque.”