Although the posts on socio-economics were supposed to be broad-sweep brushes rather than specific analyses of any one tradition, the discussion with Kupa Manduka (KM) veered into some specific issues regarding Islamic fundamentalism and Secularism. Particularlly, the posts were not meant to gloss over genuine issues that Islam has vis-a-vis spirituality in general and to Hindus in particular, over the centuries. I thought I should briefly consider these points, before moving on further:
1. On one hand, I hold that Islamic mysticism/spiritual traditions, broadly covered by the term 'tasawwuf' or 'Sufism' in orientalist/modern parlace, cannot definitely be dismissed as quaint and odd bearers of medieval superstitions. One cannot discount or diminish the really astonishing amount of Sufi material that has genuine mystical practices and contributions to human spirituality in general. It is also not a fringe movement at all, as it is widespread throughout the Islamic world, at one time or another. There are of course many odd Sufis around today who may be practising strange or superstitious practices - but then this can be said about many other spiritual schools in most religious traditions. More serious, in fact, on the other hand, is the undeniable historical phenoneon of the 'warrior-Sufi' who practices the 'outer Jehad' along with his 'inner Jehad' and the role of Sufi missionaries on the 'frontline' of Islamic expansionism. And yes, Sufism had to kowtow to, stay subservient to, and eventually even espouse the cause of rigid and violent Islamic clergy - this has been its greatest failure.
2. Does Islam provide an identity to its adherent that is stronger than what Hindusim or Christianity provides? I have always seriously doubted this. This is just something that undiscerning Hindus have made up. Hindus in fact never bother to ever question a Christian or Muslim what order, sect, branch or tradition they belong to. While they themselves blissfully identify with their caste, language, region, sect or tradition zealously, they assume that someone from another religion can exist happily wihtout such a background!! Islam has two major sects, many minor sects, and within each sect are mutiple numbers of sub-sects. Sunni Islam has four major 'madhabs', at least 4 known movements [in the subcontinent, the quarrelsome 'Deobandi' and the moderate 'Barelvi', the extreme Ahl-e-Hadith (Salafi), the more extreme Wahhabi], many Sufi orders (4 major just in the subcontinent); Shia Islam has many subsects including the majority Twelvers, the smaller numbers of Ismailis, the Zaidis, the Jafaris; then there are Islamic sects that are considered heretic by the others - Bahaii, Druze, Ahmadiyya; finally, any number of castes (ajlaf, ashraf, dalit), tribes (Gujjar, Jat etc and the Afghan, Baluch, Punjabi, Sindhi tribes), ethnicities/nationalities (Persian, Afghan, Mughal, Turk, Arab, Sindhi, Punjabi, Baluchi etc). Muslims cannot to this day agree on even simple questions such as what is considered halal and haram in Islam. The Sunni and Shia cannot agree on basic fundamental events in the life and times of the Prophet - indeed, they even use different Hadeeth collections! When the Wahhabi-allied rulers of the House of Saud captured power in the Arabian peninsula in the 1750's, they pillaged Shia holy cities such as Karbala and Najaf - why they went so far as to desecrate the graves of the Islamic Prophet, his family and companions themselves!! The very concept of God in Islam is still unclear to even erudite Islamic clerics, forget daily practices. Another thing that Muslims doggedely refuse to come to terms with is that, actually, the modern Quran, 'The Quran', is actually nothing but one recension - Uthmanic - among perhaps dozens in circulation in early years AH. How can such a desperately divided religion offer a monolithic 'identity'? All I can say is that some Muslim communities present themselves cockily to their Hindu neighbours.
3. Radicalism however, does seem to have a peculiar place within Islam, since perhaps its very founding. The Prophet's often violent struggle to establish his new religion amidst his Meccan paganist co-nationalists may provide the basis for this unusual zeal. This is why perhaps, there are always Islamic sects that claim to be the 'purest', and 'closest' to the ideals their Prophet upheld, depending upon who much they hate the 'polytheists' and the 'hypocrites'. But the greatest mistake to commit, would be to recognize such deviants to be the 'authentic' representatives of Islam, which is exactly what Hindus often do. No religion has just one predominant tradition - this is something they *must* come to recognize. take for example, Catholicism - the Pope is presented as if he is the sole Patriarch in the whole of Christendom - while actually, he is just one among the many Patriarchs around, including the number of Eastern Orthodox and Syriac ones. There are Muslim traditions that regard the Prophet's historic struggles in their historical context and draw inspiration only from his intent and not action and to this day, these form the majority of the adhrerents. Surveys have consistently shown that the Barelvis constitute the vast majority of subcontinental (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Afghan) Muslisms. Yet, Hindus sat around in their pathetically ignorant bliss, even as Deobandis were violently ousting Barelvis and wresting control of Mosques and Madrassa throughout India in the whole 80's and 90's. Instead of marginalizing and de-recognizing Deobandi fanatics and fanatical insitutions such as the Darul Uloom Deoband in favour of Barelvis and Barelvi insitutions such as Jamiatur Raza, they just sit and complain that 'fanatics are taking over'. Fanatics do not take over, overnight. Nor can they be defeated overnight. The key to defetaing them, is to recognize that religious traditions die without patronage. Cut Saudi funds that are coverting all Mosques into Wahhabi ones and supporting Wahhabi missionary propaganda; Cut the sources of funding for Deobandi institutions and clerics; provide Barelvis patronage and more importantly protection to develop and propagate their ideas and ideals freely. Will Hindus ever do this?
4. Is modern Secularism just another euphemism for suppression of Hinduism? Secularism just refers to the separation of religion and the state. The state such maintain an agnostic stance towards any religion - this is the secularist ideal. How can this become a vulgar means to suppress Hinduism, when, fundamentally, Hinduism itself is built on this model? Historically, the Rajan never interfered with the Rishi - those two had their domains and supported and guided each other. Now secularism should not be confused or conflated with some particularly anti-Hindu notions of some western liberals or leftists, or some western academics who are basically white racist or cultural supremacists masquerading as Indologists. While dealing with such individuals and their formidable academic, social, cultural and political clout may be formidable and frustrating, there is nothing in modern Secularism which specifcially allows for such individuals to dominate. As I have pointed out, under the same secular British laws where Indian Hindus preferred a life of virtuous ignominy and self-denial, Sri Lankan Hindus have proudly built dozens of openly Hindu shrines and promoted thier cultural, religious and spiritual values unabashedly.
5. Can Islam overtake Hinduism as the subcontinent's majority religion simply by competitive population growth through inter-marriage? I strongly doubt this and find this highly improbable. On the other hand, actually, Muslim fertility rates too may be falling down under the impact of Secularization and modernization. While modernity may be or may have been a challenge to Hinduism, it is a death-knell to radical and fundamentalist Islam. Conversion is a double-edged sword, and where Muslim men may be marrying Hindu women, there are a number of cases where they are also converting to Hinduism or adopting more moderate Islamic traditions (recently the son of a famous Muslim classicial Hindustani musician adopted Hinduism creating a buzz in the Muslim community). Children of mixed marriages, do not always necessarily adopt Islam - the case of Shahid Kapoor, the son of Pankaj Kapoor and Neelima Azeem, is a professed Hindu and a vegetarian.
Negativity and pessimism are a characteristic of the Sangh-Parivar (Golwalkarite) stream of Hindu nationalism. Time they abandoned this morose and morbid weltanschauung and looked to the positivism of the other streams of Hindu nationalism - Vivekanandite, Aurobindonian, Savarkarite, Gandhian-Tagorean, Goel-Swarupite.
