Clearthinking1:
You’re a joke. All the violence against minorities in India is well-documented and reported by the media in India and all over the world. US State Dept and human rights agencies also reported the widespread killings of minorities in India by Hindu extremists. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen and so many decent Hindu leaders also raised their voices against the violence by Hindu extremists against minorities in India. Here you’re trying to cover up the lies of your co-religionists and promote your “superior Hindu culture.” If the Hindu culture is so superior, why did you abandon it and settled in the West?

Again, to measure the freedom and tolerance in/of Islam, Allah Rakha (A R) Rahman's next film will be "Satanic Verses" screenplay and book by Sir Salman Rushdie!!!!

"..By the way, I am a scientist who has studied Vedanta and Hinduism and I have developed an understanding and appreciation for this profound and peaceful philosophy. I live in the West "

Ahh...now he tell us.

Sorry man, you dont have the street cred.

You need to have the experience of walking back from school after the Sikh massacre, under the guns of riot police maintaining a curfew.

Again doing the same, while in college, after the Babri Masjid demolition.

You needed to be in the country, and watching that the secular tradition being eroded by Hindu fundamentalists, with the Advanis and Modis and Togarias deliberately creating anti-muslim feelings, in order to win an election.

You needed to be around when students burnt themselves to death protesting "Mandal commission" increasing the quota in government jobs for "other backward classes", where such "backward classes" were the same people who were affluent and in power already.

You needed to be after the Bombay blasts, when mobs targeted innocent muslims who had nothing to do with the incident, which was carried out by a gangster head, who among other things, was also the chief patron of bollywood.

You needed to be present in the aftermarth of the Godhara incident, hiding your head in shame as the Chief minister and the prime minister chose to look the other way, while innocent people were being murdered.

***************************************************************************************************

The trouble with interfaith dialog about the Indian subcontinent is this:

There are no issues regarding Hindus and Muslims, as far as religion is concerned. For a thousand years they have lived side-by-side, and each community has built-in mechanisms that diffuses any issues.

The troubles are mostly either (a) political, or (b) intellectual

Hindu Political parties try to find cracks and use all the tricks they can (breaking mosques, distributing tridents) to create a wedge, all in the name of winning an election. There is ONE political party that does that, and its leaders have brought nothing but blood, tears and shame.

The second are the "intellectuals" in the muslim community who feel that the Indian model is not "Islamic" enough. They feel that unless the mellow, mystic and colorful version of Islam in India is replaced by the drab, extreme and tribal version of Wahabism, all the muslims in India, are not really muslims at all.

We do have a stake, to stop both of these types, otherwise the good that was done over a 1000 years, will come undone in the next 20.

Just because you (Clearthinking1) say you are "a scientist who has studied Vedanta and Hinduism," live in "the West," "have a wonderful and loving wife and children," it does not mean your fact-free statements were not hateful, highly prejudiced against Indian minorities, and extremely intolerant of minorities in your country.

You had nothing to say about documented news-reports in Hindu-Indian media of groups of violence well-documented violence by Hindu extremists against defenseless Indian Christians, Muslims and Sikhs.

NO one has prejudged you. You have made statements, for which you are held accountable. Don't confuse the issue. FACE the music.... or live by what Rig Veda taught you. Don't go so blatantly against Rig Veda teaching !!

Just because you are "a scientist who has studied Vedanta and Hinduism," live in "the West," "have a wonderful and loving wife and children," it does not mean your fact-free statements were not hateful, highly prejudiced against Indian minorities, and extremely intolerant of minorities in your country. You had nothing to say about documented news-reports in Hindu-Indian media of groups of violence well-documented violence by Hindu extremists against defenseless Indian Christians, Muslims and Sikhs.

NO one has prejudged you. You have made statements, for which you are held accountable. Don't confuse the issue. FACE the music.... or live by what Rig Veda taught you. Don't go so blatantly against Rig Veda teaching !!

I'd like to see you practice, NOT violate so blatantly, what you were taught in Rig Veda.

"No supremacy; just Unity" ? If so, how do you justify insisting on the moral supremacy of YOUR beliefs over those of others. What else but your intolerance, prejudice, bias ?

What kind of subjective scientist are you? Most of us are rational analyst of facts, can NOT bring in pre-determined subjective, personal bias in our professional life and be still taken as a credible scientist by any standard. Weren't you trained in this kind of science? Shame !

[Hope this IS posted, NOT 'held' for "approval"]

"You [cantabb1] continue to lack any facts, data, or statistics that would allow a rational discussion. ......But this will not happen until prejudices and wrong ideas are exposed":

Familiar fact-free, foaming-at-the-mouth tirade by clearthing1, dismissed as such before.

Indian News-reports (not just "anecdotal" accounts or hearsay) :

http://www.truthandgrace.com/Hinduviolence.htm

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/1999/09/29/anti-christian-violence-rise-india

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=45261

Wasn't India's constitution supposed to be SECULAR ???? Not just "based on Hinduism and Vedanta." Vedanta and Hinduism : one of the many routes, but NOT the one and only way that "will make the world more tolerant and peaceful."

YOU are the one of the few here whose "prejudices and wrong ideas [have been repeatedly] exposed." News flash!

Were you not such a religious extremist, you too "can all learn from" other faiths. Your child is NOT more beautiful than every other child !

For Your Information:

The etenal truth of Hinduism and Vedanta was stated in the Rig Veda (Book1,verse 64,hymn46) more than 7000 years ago: "That which is One, the sages call by many names."

The Rig Veda is the earliest text of Hinduism and one of the earliest thoughts of humanity.
The seed of tolerance and pluralism is present at the origin of Hinduism. It has been preserved in the peoples of the Indian subcontinent and their culture since, with the usual ups and downs of humanity.

Imagine if the concept of Unity and Oneness (Brahman) was the basis of all religions and cultures. No prophet; no ego; just philosophy. No supremacy; just Unity.

Cantabb,

You continue to lack any facts, data, or statistics that would allow a rational discussion. I have tried to keep things simple and verifiable. So far you have refuted no actual facts.

As you scream about minority mistreatment in India using anecdotes, remember a few simple facts:
"Minorities" (Muslims, Sikhs, Christians) in India have killed many more Hindus then visa versa. Verify this historical and current fact for yourself.
"Minorities" are over-represented in positions of political or military power, despite the history of violence.

You and some others writing here are living in the past. There was a time when phrases like "Hindu economic growth rate" were used derogatorily in the West and by Muslims to indicate slow economic growth in India. The implication was that inferior Hindus were incapable of rapid growth. Similar phrases have been used in America against Blacks over the years. The growth rate was slow after colonialism because of a lack of industrial development during that time. Now, Modi has shown that "Hindu growth rate" is perfectly fine, and the phrase was created by racists and supremacists with an agenda.

You continue these practices of trying to use anecdotes of social problems in India to defame or insult Hindus. Hinduism is an adapting system and significant progress is being made. A lot of evidence is available and has been given to you demonstrating progress and tolerance. You don't seem at all interested in acknowledging this. You may not be consciously aware that you are a racist or supremacist, but your attitude betrays your persona.

The world is not static and it does not wait for people like you who live comfortably only in the past where your prejudices give you comfort.

By the way, I am a scientist who has studied Vedanta and Hinduism and I have developed an understanding and appreciation for this profound and peaceful philosophy. I live in the West and I do not belong to any "Hindu fundementalist" group. I have a wonderful and loving wife and children. You (and others like Bostonbrahmin) have made several incorrect prejudgements about me in the past. I hope you learn something about prejudging people.
I have simply decided that unfair and prejudiced statements about Hinduism need to be refuted. There is much we can all learn from Vedanta and Hinduism that will make the world more tolerant and peaceful. But this will not happen until prejudices and wrong ideas are exposed.

To measure the freedom and tolerance in/of Islam, Allah Rakha (A R) Rahman's next film will be "Satanic Verses" screenplay and book by Sir Salman Rushdie!!!!

Hope you'll change your mind. Vast majority of Indians/Hindus are tolerant people. But, we also have Bajrangis, VHPs, RSS, Ram Senas and other elements like Clearthinking1 who bring a bad name to India and its people. Nobel laureate Amartya Sen had Hindu fanatics like him in his mind when he said, "The Hindu militant presents India as a country of unquestioning idolaters, delirious fanatics, belligerent devotees, and religious murderers."

On violence against religious minorities in India, this link I posted before for ‘clearthinking1’ was quite instructive: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2004/35516.htm.

Incidents like this, widely reported. A quick google should do to get the picture.

I think BOSTONBRAHMIN asked a fundamentalist.extremist poster the right question :

“Have you whipped your wife lately? Did you do it with a stick or a rope? It better be a rope, as that is what is mandated by the Manu Samhita, the great book defining Hindu customs.”

Before these news-reports, hate-filled ‘blame-the-victim’ statements, bias and bigotry, I had a more favorable view of multicultural India!

To measure the freedom and tolerance of Isalm, Allah Rakha (A R) Rahman's next film will be "Satanic Verses" screenplay and book by Sir Salman Rushdie!!!!

One can pay mere lip service to the fuzz, fad word "pluralism," if the understanding of the process and the objectives remain poorly understood.

In 'religious' pluralism', I think, it is the desire, interest of the participants from different faiths to get-together and talk in an open, non-confrontational manner (civilized, of course).

Any two groups in any arena are going to have problems. The overall aim should be: to understand them and work toward resolving them. That would involve softening of the edges and positions, and some give-and take (No one is always right or correct 100% over period). It's an active process -- not mere tolerance, but tolerance with mutual understanding of diversity. One does not have to give up one's beliefs, but unless there's a desire to understand other groups and their concerns, and work to reduce tensions, no dialogue is going to useful or effective.

Takes two tango...

Part 2 of my post to 'Clearthinking1' is yet to be posted (supposedly waiting 'approval' by the blog's author).

This post is regarding "pluralism" in Islam.

A couple of posters have commented if the a person "worships" the saints, he fails to maintain the monotheisitc principles of Islam, and therefore is no longer a muslim.

Perhaps. On the other hand, the facts on the ground in India is that a vast majority of muslims follow the teachings of the sufi saints. They have pictures of these saints's dargahs (mausoleums) in their homes, and travel regularly to these places to offer respect and pray for help.

The most famous of them is possibly that of Moinudding Chisti at Ajmersarif, where millions of people visit to offer prayers, incense and "shirni", a particular sweet made of rice and milk. One should note that there are myriads other saints with more local followings, and people flock to their dargahs everyday, and ask for blessings for themselves and their neighbours. There are special pirs (spiritual guides) for sailors, just as there are patron saints in Christianity for specific professions.

http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/P_0175.htm

Now, the question would be, does offering "shirni" at the pir's dargah constitue a "worship", thus making the person fall foul of the "one God" principle.

The way I look at it, is that

(a) the desire for people for a spiritual guide, as well as a holy man whose blessings can help in myriad daily problems, is extremely strong.

(b) The polytheistic religions of India and Persia predate Islam by millienia. Even as the people converted to Islam, attracted to simplicity and the message of universal brotherhood, they still had a desire for a "personal savior", who is closer at hand. Thus, the flavors of Islam in India is fundamentally different from that of the Arab lands.

(c). The koran is in Arabic. A very small fraction of muslims in India can read the book, and depend on the spiritual teachings of the saints for guidence.

(d). The teachings of the Sufi saints are spiritually not far from the teachings of Hindu saints from the "bhakti" movement. The message of universal brotherhood, and the fact that "God" lives within the heart of the followers is common to both. For US-based readers of this forum, a contemporary and local example will be that of "Hare-Krishna", a pop-bhakti movement.

Pluralism in Islam is very real, as far as India is concerned. There are people (mostly better educated and well off) who push a strict version of Islam, and call the fervent beliefs in "pirs" some sort of sacrilege. And there are millions of muslims who dont care the semantics, and follow their hearts.

(part 1 of 2)

CLEARTHINKING1:

Incoherence, unlimited -- in addition to your usual blather dismissed before!

Nothing new, and nothing that makes sense. Just more of your now-familiar knee-jerk actions ---‘parroting’ the ‘talking points’ you seem programmed to spew; blaming everyone else, (Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, every other poster) for your deficiencies and mindless rants.

My CAPS got your attention, eh ? No effect yet, though !

My re-post of your comments on another blog lets people see “for themselves who rants and who does not on this blog” and other blogs. Rant is a rant, on this and other blogs. Your Wikipedia partial quotes undercuts your own argument, but how would you know ?

NO Rants/ foaming-at-the mouth tirades don’t need “verifiablle facts and data” – and you offered N-O-N-E --- for “your own conclusions !

Had you even understood what “secularism” really means. you wouldn’t have made, and repeatedly at that, this comment: “India (based on Hinduism and Vedanta) is a tolerant, pluralistic, vibrant, nonaggressive democracy. “ Talking all the time about moral superiority of Hinduism over all other religions (mostly native to India) !

Do you even understand what your own Constitution stands for ????? What a disservice to the spirit of your early leaders like Nehru and that constitution author !!!

‘Eboo Patel’s] Fuzzy thinking = “(hence the pseudonym)”???? Do you know what you’re saying here !

Cantabb,

Thank you for posting again what I wrote. People will be able decide for themselves who rants and who does not on this blog.

You were complaining about fuzziness in Eboo's writing. Clear writing and clear thinking is definitely preferable. Using facts and data to support one's argument or in a rebuttal is also preferable. This may help.

Here is a definition for "rant":
To utter or express with violence or extravagance.
Using phrases as you have, like "disembowel your argument", and using capital letter to shout "NONSENSE" would be considered a rant.

To help you clarify your thinking about secularism, here is a quote from a reasonable discussion on Wikipedia:
"prayer and meditation are not necessarily non-secular being that the concept of spirituality and higher consciousness are not married solely to any religion but are practiced and arose independently across a continuum of cultures."

The concept of secularity was necessitated by medieval Christianity. Wikipedia again: "This word derives from a Latin word meaning "of the age". The Christian doctrine that God exists outside time led medieval Western culture to use secular to indicate separation from religious affairs and involvement in worldly (or time-related) ones."

For you to try to use secularity as a bludgeon against Hinduism shows your lack of understanding of Hinduism - a monistic tolerant religion that acknowledges all paths to enlightenment. Hindus wrote the Indian secular constitution when the British left to support a peaceful coexistence. Since then, there has been much more violence against Hindus by Muslims and Sikhs than visa versa. Please learn the real facts, statistics, and numbers and not just anecdotes.

Again, I try to write verifiablle facts and data and then draw conclusions. You are free to draw your own conclusions or presnt additional facts and data.
I believe that people like Eboo Patel use fuzzy thinking (hence the pseudonym) to obfuscate the real problems of Islam and other religions. This, in my opinion, only provides cover to the violent aspect of Islam, which is a very significant problem today.

As I mentioned early in this discussion (March 9, 2009 9:06 PM), there is a lot of fuzziness about "Muslim pluralism," as described here, and what kind of "inter-faith" dialogue can one possibly have when religious fanatics are allowed to drive the discussion into the gutter. I've dealt with at least one.

Not only is the term "Muslim pluralism" fuzzy in itself, the way it is defined, the forum's failure to make things clear, only adds to the confusion. This fuzzy term also has to be distinguished from other equally fuzzy terms as 'relativism', 'inclusivism', etc.

As I understand it from literature on Islamic principles, this "pluralism" even seem to compromise, at least to an outsider, some of these basic tenets Muslims wouldn't want to. I've pointed out a couple of contradictions (Islam scholars could correct me if I am wrong). I see that another poster, perhaps a Muslim, has now raised similar questions.

th

Dear Eboo Patel:

Thanks for the nice article but I must point out couple of things that need to be understood correctly:

1.Tawheed or Tauheed refers to Ones of God with no association what so ever to anyone or anything. It is the first and most important tenet of Islam without it, one cannot be qualified as a Muslim.

Therefor, anyone who worships a saint or anything else would not qualify with this tenet #1 above. I think most Muslim go to a Saint's grave to ask his soul to pray for them not necessary worship him.

2. The Question of Buddha or Krishna being prophet's of past are worth investigating and would be a great discovery...

3. I think it is important to understand "Inter Faith" dialogue. It does not mean you have to tie the faiths together rather it should be point out that despite differences, we can find a common ground in our basic teachings to respect one another and live with peace & harmony side by side.

We are not all same. And it is absolutely fine.
Diversity as collective makes us unique and better not worse and not superior to another. People need to understand this and appreciate themselves as who they are or what they believe in...

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen had some of these Hindu fanatics in his mind when he said, "The Hindu militant presents India as a country of unquestioning idolaters, delirious fanatics, belligerent devotees, and religious murderers."

BOSTONBRAHMIN:

On Clearthinking's foaming rant, you beat me to it. :)

This by him surprised me: “India (based on Hinduism and Vedanta) is a tolerant, pluralistic, vibrant, nonaggressive democracy. “

Wasn't India's constitution supposed to be SECULAR ???? Not "based on Hinduism and Vedanta" !

He has 'talking points' and must spew them out, ad infinitum, no matter the subject. He has made himself a predictable joke !

For instance, sis last post here [1:21 AM, 10 March] is similar to the one he posted [a few minutes later] in response to an entire different topic on "PostGlobal" forum :

Guest Voice [PostGobal, Washington Post]

Samuel Huntington, Misunderstood

Amina Chaudary

The late Samuel Huntington will probably be best known for his controversial thesis - The Clash of Civilizations - which defined a worldview for many after the fall of the Soviet Union.....

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2009/03/samuel_huntington_misunderstoo.html

"clearthinking1 :

Experiments in political science are difficult, but Pakistan and India are a rare example. People of the same DNA and genes that share common languages, rituals, and cultures (e.g. Punjabi, Sindhi, etc..) are separated by religion. In just 60 years, there have been clear results.

India (based on Hinduism and Vedanta) is a tolerant, pluralistic, vibrant, nonaggressive democracy. Progress is seen in politics, economics, education, etc... India has had Presidents who are Muslim, Hindu, Dalit, female; Prime ministers who are Sikh, Hindu, female; Defense ministers who are Christian, Hindu, Sikh; powerful politicians are even Italian Catholics like Sonia Gandhi. More progress needs to made in many places in Indian society, but even in America Blacks had very limited rights till the 1960's and now Obama is president. Tolerant peaceful cultures make progress.

In contrast, Pakistan has become an increasingly intolerant and violent society. Pakistan used to have 40% Hindus 60 years ago, and now it is only 1% Hindu. The treatment of women and honor killings in Pakistan are inexcusable, regardless of the fact that the Islamic fundamentalists are able to find actual quotes in the Koran that justify their behavior.

Samuel Huntington did not want to promote violence against Muslims. As a political scientist he was making observations and trying to draw conclusions. The conclusions are disturbing, but that does not mean we should go into denial.

*************March 10, 2009 1:45 AM************

EBOO PATEL:

No matter what kind of inter-faith dialogue this forum was intended to promote, it's been turned into a place to hurl hate-driven raw accusations, with no demonstrated interest in a civilized discussion of differences.

Without some kind of 'moderation', NO serious, thoughtful discussion/dialogue seems possible anytime soon. I wouldn't be surprised it's scrapped as a waste opportunity.

Radical Islam is not an organic entity.

It is a combination of inherent impatience and need for belonging. Both manifestation of human characteristic prevalent throughout history and races.

Radical Islam's synthesis is also influenced by a reactionary urge that pervades reason.

So how can one say that Rumi's wonderings of life and bin laden's threats come from the same religion?

Here we see human nature in play. Not particularly unseen in Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism and Buddhism for that matter.

Last time I checked, there was a caste system in India. (Your children are not as good as mine, and they will continue to be janitors, etc)

It is easy to beat on Islam because we have cornered "humans" acting irrationally.

Yours is a fascist ideology. Take the case of recent killings and rapings in Orissa. Criminals need to be brought to justice and punished for taking innocent lives. As it turned out, the killers of the Swami in Orissa are Maoists, who admitted that they killed the Swami because he incited communal hatred and the state invstigation proved that Maoists killed the Swami. Why did the VHP/RSS not seek out the guilty and bring them to justice? Is not that the way a "secular" Hindu governance is supposed to function? Instead innocent groups of Christians were targeted. Hundreds of churches and houses of Christians were damaged or destroyed. Scores of innocent people were murdered. The point is: do militant Hindu fascists want to convert India into a violent country that has no place for non-Hindus? Militant Hindu fascists have been targeting minorities for no reason at all, except a fascist ideology. India already has a secular Constitution. There is no need for militant Hindu fascists to abolish it and set up their own version of "secular." If the violence in Orissa is any indication of how violence is brought to justice, (read: by killing innocent people who had nothing to do with the original incident), then it is a kind of Hindu "secular" India doesn't need.

It seems by the language of Bostonbrahmin that he is a Muslim masquerading as a Brahmin.

The facts are very clear- As soon as Muslims get into majority, they call it a separate Islamic nation- does not matter where they come from. It is of course a great insult to non-Muslims (if they let any remain). Turkey- 99 percent Muslim; Iran- 97 percent Muslim. Do not seem tolerant version of Islam to me. Both have brutal history of genocide against non-Muslims. It is just not Saudi Arabia (where the guardians of Islam sentenced a 75 year old women to 40 lashes today)- it is all of Islam and Koran following people who engage in exclusivity and superiority of Islam.

I guess India would still be a secular nation ( and a very prosperous and happy one too) if it had just 2 percent of Muslim population today instead on 15 percent. Why not; if Pakistan can reduce its Hindu/Sikh population from 40 percent to 2 percent today, why can not India do it and still be called secular?

Clearthinking.....

Have you whipped your wife lately? Did you do it with a stick or a rope? It better be a rope, as that is what is mandated by the Manu Samhita, the great book defining Hindu customs.

Intellectually dishonest, you would say, nobody lives by the Manu Samhita these days. Fine, and nobody does by the literal words of the Koran either, other than a miniscule who do so because of the money from Saudi Arabia, and because of the great United States of America, who peddled Wahabism in Pakistan for their own benefit.

It is well known that the current problem of intolerance in Pakistan stems from the Regan years, when the US provided the arms and training, SA provided the religion, and elements of ISI provided the leadership to set up bin Laden and the Taliban-style millitants. All of this was to fight the Godless USSR and Najibullah in Kabul.

Poor people with no other way to feed and educate their children keep sending them to these Wahabist schools, where they get free food and lodging, and training in Jihad. Everybody who can read knows this, and you still keep up the tirade.

General Zia in Pakistan coddled the Islamists to hold on to power. General Ershad of Bangladesh coddled the Jamat-i-Islami to hold on to power. It is a failure of the politcal process, that the Islamists have gained traction.

In the last decade, people in India were willing to give the Hindu extreme right wing parties votes, in spite of their obvious failings, because they were sick of the nepotism and outright corruption of the more secular parties. In the process, we get the worthies who seek to burn shops selling Valentines day cards, because they hurt their sense of Hindu pride and morality. The Indian version of Taliban is gaining a presence, not because the Hindus have become less tolerant, but because the mainstream politcal parties have failed to deliver.

Please, you or your family may have been kicked out duing the partition, you may have suffered as a cause. But the world has moved on, and your anti-Pakistan ranting is only holding the rest of us back, but giving the whole region a bad name.

Eboo, thanks for yet another reminder of the complexity of Islam, both historically and in contemporary times. There is no one "Islam" just as there is no one Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism. It would be more accurate to speak of "Islam(s)" and this has been true since its earliest days. People like those you've mentioned in this post need to be encouraged and not demonized. They represent one possible future for Muslims everywhere.

"Islamic pluralism"

Eboo Patel goes to India and instead of acknowledging Hindu tolerance and pluralism, he tries to spin it to Islamic pluralism. Some people don't let facts get in their way.

Curious that Muslims had to live in a sea of Hindus before learning something about tolerance. Salman Rushdie had to run to India to find refuge among Hindus, not Muslims. Eboo Patel has to go to a Hindu land to find examples of Muslim tolerance. Zorastrians had to leave Iran to find tolerance among Hindus. As long as Islam is based on the Koran, these improvements that Eboo writes about will be rare and insignificant. The problem is not Bedouin or Wahabi culture; the problem is the Koran - just read it.

Experiments in social science are difficult, but Pakistan and India are a rare example. People of the same DNA and genes that share common languages, rituals, and cultures (e.g. Punjabi, Sindhi, etc..) are separated by religion. In just 60 years, there have been clear results. India (based on Hinduism and Vedanta) is a tolerant, pluralistic, vibrant, nonaggressive democracy. Progress is seen in politics, economics, education, etc... India has had Presidents who are Muslim, Hindu, Dalit, female; Prime ministers who are Sikh, Hindu, female; Defense ministers who are Christian, Hindu, Sikh; powerful politicians are even Italian Catholics like Sonia Gandhi. More progress needs to made in many places in Indian society, but even in America Blacks had very limited rights till the 1960's and now Obama is president. Tolerant peaceful societies make progress.

In contrast, Pakistan has become an increasingly intolerant and violent society. Pakistan used to have 40% Hindus, and now it is only 1%. The culture of Hindus of tolerance and peacefulness has made even Muslims in India relatively peaceful when compared with dominantly Islamic nations.

Eboo, I suggest you look for Islamic tolerance in the Swat Valley or at the ISI headquarters in Pakistan. Let us know if they are interested in your interfaith dialogue or interfaith stoning and beheading.

What happened to the thoughful people in this forum? Suddenly we get a bunch of people who do nothing more than spout venom about Islam.

There is no single version of Islam, as much as there is no single version of Christianity. Just as the Suthern Baptists have little in common to the Unitarians, the Sufism-influenced version of Islam, that is largely practiced by Indians, is far from the Wahabist traditions of Saudi Arabia.

Islam started in Arab worlds, that is certain. They went to Persia, and became the state religion, but in the process absorbed the local flavors and changed its nature. The bedouin traditions were replaced by the urbane and sophisticated ones, and Baghdad became the center of the world. The Arabian nights were based on Baghdad, and its imagery are no less in sensuality than the Bollywood movies of today.

Arabs never came to India. One lone Arab came to the province of Sind, and that was it. The Islam that came to India was the version of the Persians and the Chugtai Turks, who's capital was Samarkand, which was another urbane center.

For more than a thousand years, Islam has been modified in India, and taken on local color. Islam and Hinduism has merged together in the traditions of "bhakti movement", where it is difficult to figure out which is which.

In the turn of the last century, when the British finally dissloved the Caliphate, there was a movelment to re-start the process and muslims in India, specially students from Aligarh Muslim University started looking at the Arab roots of Islam, which as as far from the local version as is possible to be. Under their THEORETICAL tutelage, some of the intelligencia started to be interested in "going back to the roots". It however, never changed the common version.

In the meanwhile, Ibn Saud started peddling the Wahabist version of Islam as a way to unifying the bedouin tribes of the Arabian Peninsula. It was a political act. With petrodollars this version has been spread to India and Pakistan, and has been pushed on to the poor muslim population. It is the story of the last 30 years.

Please, let us not give the followers of the Wahabist version more importance than they deserve. It has NOTHING to do with Islam in India, and would have had no influence, if the west did not pour the dollars for oil.

The Islam that is prevalent in India is more important than the version in Saudi Arabia, for the simple reason that the followers of this version outnumber the Wahabists at least a 1000 to 1.

Man oh man, he's lucky he's not a muslim in Pakistan because there is no music, no art, no bands, singing or dancing girls. If he became an islamic follower seems extremely weird that he must have his own islam. No singing, no dancing girls, girls covered except for face, hands and feet, maybe? This just seems really stupid, claiming to be islamic by revelation when he follows none of mohammed's revelations at all! It's all BS

The Indian Muslims have also engaged in unspeakable acts of terrorism directed against Hindus- in temples, trains, shopping Malls etc.
Most of these Indian Muslims were educated and some of them were very well employed.

Even the recent Mumbai massacre of 200 civilians in which 10 Pakis are suspected, there were at least 2 Indian Muslims arrested for providing help to the Paki terorrists.

The Indian Muslims and secularists say the reason is destruction of Babri Masjid (where not even one Muslim lost list life) or Kashmir (where it is the Hindus who have actually been massacred). No one says it is inherent in Islam because it (Muslims terrorism) happens all over the world- almost every day.

So I disagree with Mr. Patel saying that Indian Muslims are pluralistic and tolerant. Facts do not say so. Remember Paki and Bangladeshi Muslims were in recent history also Indian Muslims- so what happened to their tolerance and compassion?

Typos in my last post, corrected: additions/changes in CAPS; deletions as [....]:

..... Despite the extremists/fanatics in different faiths and conflicts created by them, India is STILL considered a secular democracy, offering more or less equal opportunities to people with various backgrounds. Those successful owe their success NOT to their faith, but TO their individual demonstrated abilities in their chosen fields of interest, hard work and drive.

Like what [....] has long been the case in other countries : UK, USA, Canada, France. Good that India joins the club. .......

..... How do you "[seek] to absorb the multiple identities of faith," and still maintain the identity of one's own religion: e.g., I understand that in Islam, THE "one-ness" of Allah is inviolable. How does this FIT in with the Christian belief: Jesus, the son of God ? Or with multiple Gods as in another religion ?

....How do Muslims in general (moderate/liberal, progressive/conservative) FEEL ABOUT THIS -- I can imagine how the Puritans/fundamentalists would react ?

.....What does that Oscar-winning Muslim musician got to do with all this? Because he apparently converted to Islam, 'coerced' by a dream ? Does Hajj and [....] other Islamic things ? Or he got musical talents -- something Indian movie-industry liked and promoted.

Well, Eboo, again you fail to be convincing. First, off, Muslims do continue to face discrimination in India. Part of India's credibility problem is this discrimination as well as its treatment of the Dalit, women, its practice of female feticide, etc. The ninety-five separate mafies, Dawd Irihim's ongoing influence don't help. Then we get to the ongoing shenanigans with other countries.

As for Islam, the endless Jew hatred practiced among so many Muslims, is, as my formerly Muslim husband says, a source of the huge repugnance felt by so many people for those of the Islamic faith. It is up to people like you to face it and speak out against it, something you have so consistently failed to do, of late, as to prove embarrassing. On some occasions, you have actually added fuel to the inferno.

The endless persecution of Jews, B'hai, Kurds, Christians, woman (Soraya M is on her way here. She's expected in June) in Muslim nations should be on your agenda. Big Time.

As for "Slumdog," it is a brilliant film made by a brilliant Muslim filmaker, not the first and surely not the last. The magnificent talent among Muslims, the brilliance, is not the problem. You know that. Nor has it ever been claimed that Muslims have no opportunities in India. Also not the problem.

For you the problem is facing yourself squarely and speaking out truthfully. Not an easy task.

I find this article sophomoric, at best -- from the core elements of "Muslim pluralism" to the comments by various Indians (apparently all Muslims). Despite the extremists/fanatics in different faiths and conflicts created by them, India is considered a secular democracy, offering more or less equal opportunities to people with various backgrounds. Those successful owe their success NOT to their faith, but on their individual demonstrated abilities in their chosen fields of interest, hard work and drive.

Like what we has long been the case in other countries : UK, USA, Canada, France. Good that India joins the club.

Eboo Patel seems to have also jumped on the 'pluralism' fad bandwagon, but with some fuzzy understanding, poorly expressed.

One of the core elements of "Muslim pluralism" is, he says, a belief that "God is all-pervasive."
Doesn't Islam also say something like: No other God but Allah (Muslim God) ? Does he include what other religions consider 'God' too ? Or, e.g., a generic 'deity' for Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Christians and others ? Each following his/her own ? I can understand people from other religions as "partners" toward a common goal: serving humanity.

But what is this mumbo-jumbo :

"3) A cultural ethic that seeks to absorb the multiple identities of faith, nation, ethnicity and language, understanding this multiplicity as mutually enriching rather than mutually exclusive."

How do you "[seek] to absorb the multiple identities of faith," and still maintain the identity of one's own religion: e.g., I understand that in Islam, "one-ness" of Allah is inviolable. How does this fir in with the Christian belief: Jesus, the son of God ? Or with multiple Gods as in another religion ?

Look at the rest of the fuzzy language...

I know that 'pluralism' has been defined lot better ... that's understandable when you just jump on a bandwagon.

How do Muslims in general (moderate/liberal, progressive/conservative) -- I can imagine how the Puritans/fundamentalists would react ?

What does that Oscar-winning Muslim musician got to do with all this? Because he apparently converted to Islam, 'coerced' by a dream ? Does Hajj and does other Islamic things ? Or he got musical talents -- something Indian movie-industry liked and promoted.

Rest of the people cited -- said whatever they thought of 'pluralism'. Their comments: equally sophomoric !

Here are some more examples of ethnocentrism or even hatred:

Before the Holocaust there was a constant effort to demonize Jews all over the world, especially Europe.

Lord Cromer, Britain’s proconsul in Egypt (1883-1907), divided humanity into “governing races” and “subject races”, while T. E. Lawrence called Egyptians “worms”. This is hardly different from “vermin”, the Nazi epithet for Jews.

Lord Balfour, whose 1917 declaration handed over Palestine to Europeans, was intensely anti-Jewish and was so disturbed by the possible mass migration of east European Jews into Britain following pogroms in Russia that as prime minister he had the Aliens Act passed in 1905 to block their migration to Britain. And Mark Sykes (of the Sykes-Picot pact fame) called the Jews “the archetype of cosmopolitan financier, rootless money grubber....contemptible”.

Churchill believed that “atheistic Jews” were behind the Russian revolution, and often referred to the Bolsheviks as “bacillus”— a pet Nazi term for Jews. An article “By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill” in the February 8, 1920, issue of the Illustrated Sunday Herald, named Karl Marx, Bela Kuhn, Rosa Luxembourg and others among Jews who were behind “every subversive movement” in the 19th century. He also accused Trotsky of attempting to set up a world communist empire “under Jewish domination”.

Quoting Salman Rushdie or Hirsi Ali does not make these individuals with any depth of knowledge or people with insights about how societies in general operate. These individuals used anti-Islam rhetoric because they knew they could "sell" their products in the West, where they would find a receptive audience.

Back in their native lands they were just individuals with dime a dozen value.

I remember Hirsi Ali appearing on Comedy chanel's Colbert Report where Steven Colbert took Hirsi Ali to task pointing out the faults in Islam she was pointing out could also be found in the Bible.
She was unable to respond.

davidmatthews Author Profile Page:

But as Salman Rushdie has pointed out, Muslims have great difficulty in cohabiting in a peaceful manner with non-Muslims. And there are still very strong anti-Semitic and anti-Hindu sentiments among Muslims. Hiding these facts won't help anyone.
*******************************************************************

People in every culture think that their way of life is the best way of life and others are bizarre, strange and unfit for survival. This phenomenon is not limited to any one religion or culture. It is called ETHNOCENTRISM.

Pick up any introductory text book in anthropology and you will find hundreds of examples from many cultures of the world.

In their caste system, Hindus give unequal treatment from birth to death for different castes. Even the shadow of the untouchables is defiling.

Jews have and still use all kinds of epithets for Palestinians and Arabs.

And the Europeans used epithets like vermins for Jews.

well boo boy is at it again, pretending islam is a religion and then pretending it is peaceful.
islam is about as peaceful as the nazi's were.

But as Salman Rushdie has pointed out, Muslims have great difficulty in cohabiting in a peaceful manner with non-Muslims. And there are still very strong anti-Semitic and anti-Hindu sentiments among Muslims. Hiding these facts won't help anyone.

boo boy is at it again. pretending the death cult of islam is just so wonderful.
well its about as wonderful as a nazi death head division. oups - i was not supposed to write that because ISLAMICS had their own death head division during ww2 when they fought for the nazis.
there is only one difference between nazi's and islamics, islamics are still in power, for now.

A.R. Rehman is successful not because he is a converted Muslim but because he was born with this talent. After all, talent is inborn, not acquired. You will notice that his music is not religion based and the lyrics in his songs are hardly religious, so why should you credit his fame to the fact that he is Muslim. Whatever the good things in Islam, it is also true that this religion is very intolerant and has very strict code of conduct from which you can deviate only at your own peril unlike Christianity and Buddhism.

Mr. Eboo and Akbar would be wise to read an editorial in Hindustan Times 2 days ago by Vir Sanghvi detailing the differences between societies which are the same race/breed/stock but one is Islamic majority (Pakistan) and one is Hindu majority (India).

Mr. Sanghvi cited the case of 3 Indian Oscar winners- all non-Hindus (2 Muslims and a Sikh)- on which all Indians rejoiced and felt great pride in. The Indian press had the Oscar winners on headlines for about a week. Mr. Sanghvi rightly questioned whether in a majority Muslim nation (Pakistan), it would ever be possible for a non-Muslim to reach such a high level and whether the whole nation would rejoice in that person's world acclaimed success.

In case of A.R.Rahman, Mr. Sanghvi, pondered whether a Muslim resident of Pakistan who converted to Hinduism would even be left alive under the Sharia.

Let's take another case of Bangladesh to counter Mr. Patel's claim of "Muslim tolerance of pluralism". Thousand of Indian soldiers sacrifised their life and limb for Bangladesh's independence. Bangladesh turned around and declared itself an Islamic Republic- an in-your-face insult to Hindus living in their country. Again Bangladesh and Indians are same race/stock/breed etc.

Again the fact is wherever Muslims are in majority or any signicifant minority, they want superiority of Islam established and infidels killed and driven out.

Eboo, Eboo, Eboo,

Until the warmongering, death to all infidels/apostates, anti-female, polygamist and "world domination by Islam" passages in the koran, aka the worst book ever written, are deleted, your words simply have no meaning.

Well, the Pakis are the same breed as Indians. How come they became so intolerant and hateful?

The fact is whenever Muslims come into majority- it is goodbye minority rights and equality and even the minorities themseleves (Pak's Sikh/Hindu population before 1947 was about 25 percent and now it is less than 2 percent). Even Indian Muslims have engaged in massacre of civilians in order to create another Islamic nation in India. Kashmir is one example.

The 16th Century Mughal Emperor Akbar once wrote, "Divine mercy attaches itself to every form of creed ... The eternal God is bounteous to all souls and conditions of men."
***********************************************

He also founded a new religion called Din-i-ilahi whose first principle was "There is no God but God, and Akbar is his prophet" Doesnt quite make him a good Muslim, I would think.

Incidentally, would anybody like to comment on the Shia-Sunni break-up in India?