Hijaab: The Veil is My Pride

Comments

63 responses to “Hijaab: The Veil is My Pride”

1. 

   Shakir Lakhani

   September 7, 2009

   @ Hend: what about the people who lived in the subcontinent before the Hindus arrived? Weren’t they also wiped out by Hindus (who, I believe, came from Iran and North Asia).

   Reply
2. 

   Momina

   September 7, 2009

   HE

   this link will, insha’Allah, provide details where the Messenger of Allah s.a.w.w. has been mentioned in the Hindu holy books.

   http://www.irf.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=201&Itemid=131

   Towards the end the VEdas are mentioned.

   I will answer the rest, insha’Allah, soon 🙂 am in a hurry right now. Registration Process 😀

   Reply
3. 

   Hend

   September 7, 2009

   MO

   I should clarify a few things here with reference to your comments.

   Islam did reach India before the Invasions 1100AD onwards but the major expansion of it only happned after 1200AD and after the invasions. How we perceive the actual expansion can differ because many would argue that it expanded due to its appeal and as many would argue that defeats and subsequent force was the reason. e.g. Iran accpeted Islam after Arab conquests but in protest adopted Shiaism.

   How it expanded is a moot point now because the perceptions are what shape our thinking. In the context of subcontinental relations, Islam was perceived as Hindus to be forced upon after defeats. BUT the relations between Muslims and Hindus on people to people level started taking shape only further to 1500AD when subcontinental had developed a sizeable population of Muslims which was not present earlier.

   The word invader itself is context ridden. Wasn’t Hinduism a result of invasions or migrations from Iranian plateau and central Asia, which displaced the dravidians and the indigenous tribals? Most of Indic speaking Hindus of India are also therefore actually outsiders, isn’t it? Can someone claim that Hinduism’s spread in India was purely due to its appeal? According to me 99% must be due to mass migration of new people, force and out of necessity. On the other hand there is much better change for modern religions like Christianity or Islam to have a higher score on this regard…but chance for a religion to grow without force or coercion in a location where already there is another religion is less.

   One important correction: Ved or Vedas are among the oldest texts in the world and the four Vedas were written before 100BC with the earlier RigVeda around 2000BC. The first 3 vedas form the foundation of Hinduism. There is no reference to Islam in Vedas. You might be referring to some other text of Hinduism. The first RigVeda being actually the account of Hinduism and its people’s migration from Iranian plateau, central Asia and Afghanistan into the subcontinent. Most of these were written before the arival of Hinduism into subcontinent. The grammar of Sanskrit language was probably developed by Panini (by some historians a Yousufzai Pashtun).

   There is however a reference (in several texts) to the 10th incarnation of Vishnu or Kalki who is regarded by many Shiite sects to be the Prophet. I am not sure about the chronology or exact period of writing of these texts but mostly before 1800 years ago.

   Regarding loyalty of Hindus, I don’t think they were really loyal to Muslim rulers except some high profile generals in Mughal armies. For the most it was merely a question of survival.

   Britishers, yes they did play but I do not describe them as treacherous simply because they were doing what they needed to do to get control of various countries and their wealth. They were do different from any other mercenary or invader or colonialist, we have to appreciate their loyalty to their kings and queens.

   I cannot agree with you that Jizya was a fair tax. Any tax that discriminates between people on the basis of religion cannot be fair. And a ruler who imposes Jizya or demands protection money cannot be loved by non-Muslims, it is very natural. It forms one of the factors when I mention the logic of consequences.

   Greeks historians, NO not just Greeks but every ruler had historians to specifically write their own version of history. Every war had two versions. British did the same but with an added strategy of showing their subjects in such poor and inferior light so as to psychologically subjugate them and build generations of servants and administrators for who the loyalty to British rule became an issue of pride than shame.

   History is a sequence of events. By no measure I seek to justify every one of them. It is just a sequence of right and wrong events thats all. What is right and what is wrong is sometimes clear and some time a matter of perception. I don’t think it is possible to judge those events properly unless we were living in those eras and were subject to the thinking, influences and circumstances of those times.

   The true meaning of learning from history is understand that each event and each action was somewhere related to earlier events. It is not a right thing when people specifically take out events which suit their purpose to promote hatred or division. Such people neither understand history and don’t want to learn from it. People will continue to argue about history, it is natural because we form our perceptions based on where we are born but they should make an effort to understand it.

   Reply
4. 

   Momina

   September 7, 2009

   Yes I did read it :D.

   As you said, history has different versions. All the events you mentioned do have another version. The events before the British Raj.

   Anyway, that is not what I am interested in…that is a personal choice which aspect of history is acceptable to one’s mind :)…that includes all of us.

   But certain things i believe have to be accepted by both sides. Islam did reach India before the invasion by the first Muslim Arab.
   The Ved/Veda (once again correct me if I am wrong in spelling it) refers to Islamic Monotheism and also has references to the arrival of Muhammad (s.a.w.w.).

   One important thing, i never meant to speak about Hindus being loyal to Britishers in a negative way. Maybe my using the term…changed loyalties….sounded that way…but what I meant is that the Hindus tried to remain loyal to whoever were the current rulers. I explained it was done so to gain ground or maybe simply for security purposes.

   Most of what I know about Indo-Pak history isn’t from school textbooks :). My school didn’t emphasise much on that. It is the various books written by different authors belonging to different nationalities.

   As for the Britishers they had planned and come into India, that is understood. C’mon, we can’t deny that. Even they will not deny it…lol.

   The Jizyah (protection tax – no one can harm any non-Muslim or his/her property) is imposed during Islamic Rule. Anywhere, they would have imposed it. It was imposed on the Jews in Madinah. So we cannot say it was done due to an unfair system.

   India did prosper a lot, at least, during Farid Khan’s era (Sher Shah Suri).

   Coming to the point Yes, the fact is we should learn from our past to prosper in the future, insha’Allah.

   Lol…really all this history debate made me think in the middle why were we talking about this in the first place?

   To conclude, once again, I agree that we should learn from history (any version of it 😉 ).

   Hmm, just a question (no link with this discussion) was it the Greek…or? Don’t remember it much…but someone actually asked a person to write their history in terms that will glorify them.

   Reply
5. 

   Hend

   September 6, 2009

   MO,

   Obviously people from Indian and Pakistan are reading different version of the pre-partition histories from their text books. I was almost tempted to give you what you might call Indian version of history but that would not serve any purpose. I would rather provide examples based on logic of natural outcomes which we both might be able to agree with.

   Hindus have lived in the region spanning from Afghanistan to Nepal and down to Sri Lanka since 4000 years. Islam is a new religion about 1400 years old. The reason I have stressed again and again that the history of Hindu Muslim relation is too complex to be summarized in a simplistic manner is because there have been so many events which can be interpreted if different ways.

   Before 1100AD there were never any invasions into Hindu kingdoms from anywhere. After the advent of Islam suddenly began a wave of invasions from the west (read about Allauddin Khilji, Muhammad Ghori etc.) to expand and spread Islam. These invaders according to me set the tone of Hindu-Muslim relations for centuries to come. Not only did they invade and take money, they destroyed temples e.g. Muhammad of Ghazni destroyed the Somnath temple in Gujarat 16 times. In some cases, they killed kings and population which did not agree to accept Islam. Auranzeb for example re-instate the Jaziya tax on non-Muslim. The Muslim invaders for the first time made Hindus aware that they were Hindus. Dishonouring of enemy women was not a practice in Hindu kingdoms and read out Padmini of chittor where women jumped into burning flames to save themselves from being raped.

   Let me insert example from Kashmir here where Sikandar Butshikan (man known as the Idol breaker) completely wiped out (genocide) of Hindus from the valley who did not accept Islam and supplanted the population with some outsiders from his troops. The demography of Kashmir valley was changed thus.

   I could go on with the list but let us stop here as I am just trying to make a point about invaders. Another thing, practices like chopping off hands, parading a defeated king’s head, burning off eyes with hot rods were unknown in Hindu kingdoms where generally a defeated king was let go with honour after admitting defeat. Read about the above invaders and you will find even they lost first wars and were let go honourably but they returned.

   The brutality of invasions followed by a sense of enslavement completely changed the dynamics and if you now go back to the logic of natural outcomes which I mentioned above you will perhaps realize that the consequence of all this was quite predictable.

   Now let us go to the Mughal period where really the tone of relations consolidated. Most Muslims by this time were deeply loyal to Mughals and saw them as their own. The Hindu loyalty was divided. Bereft of military power and options they had were limitad. Resist and be wiped out (with families) or bide time till regime was overthrown. This is not to say that Hindus were totally anti Muslim. Take example of the 3rd war of Panipat where Hindus of North India mainly remained neutral in the war between Durrani and Peshwas (Western Marathas) because they even saw Peshwas as as invaders. Even the Central Marathas did not join Peshwas in the war…thus the relations in this era were rather based on politics. But Muslims and Hindus grew apart during this period due to differing loyalties and differing treatment by rulers.

   Going to the British era…to say Hindus changed their loyalty to the British in a nagative manner, does not make sense. Again to back to the logic of natural outcomes. What else do you expect from people who were subjugated, ruled over, taxed more, were killed indiscriminately and under severe pressure to convert to survive? Many Muslims viewed British as someone who were taking away their control while many Hindus saw them as a neutral power which took away the religious factors from the oppression.

   We say British took over India by their treacherous methods however if you look hard and deep you will find that the situation was ripe for them. After the aforementioned 3rd war of Panipat, there was no power left in the whole region including today’s Afghanistan which was able to counter them. British did not win big wars, they just went on making small alliances till they were in control of almost entire India. Very few significant wars really took place.

   Whether British favoured Hindus is hugely debatable. It is quite possible that in the initial years they did not trust them and thus denying them of opportunities but I think same thing happened to some non-Muslim communities such as Marathas who resisted the British too hard. There were special policies in place to keep these people out of power, opportunities, employment and trade. The advantage was with people who readily joined the British system of education, which (by natural outcome of the reasons) happened to be Hindus, Parsis and Anglo-Indians. The example you have that educational institites were temples and Muslims were required to do puja seems an isolated example (and thus more suitable for divisive arguments) than a general characterization of the period.

   Christians wanting a country…are you referring to Goa? A state with 50% Christians? The portuguese rule there is one of the worst examples of tyranny. Couple with special concessions to Christians…why would a Christian want to give it up and join an overpopulated, impoverished, democratic country which took away their special status? Makes no sense..right? Nothing to do with behaviour of Hindus…just plain logic of natural consequences.

   Your last statement is interesting. Yes any nation would probably behave like that but I don’t think Hindus did worse than any other people would have.

   If you observe this long narrative keenly, I have not blamed Muslims or Hindus because according to me they both were playing according to the circumstances and they did what they needed to do. I am not even blaming the invaders or their actions because they did what their times and era required them to do. I don’t even blame anyone for partition because again the leaders did what the history and the times required them to do at that point. I am trying to simply unfold the event in history to show that the Muslim-Hindu relations in South Asia are far more complex than most people realize. Even my understanding can be wrong in some cases and I am always open to changing my opinion if I am personally convinced that a more accurate account exists.

   Anyone would tries to blame one or the other party by drawing simplistic conclusions or worse case by twisting history to suit or justify past political actions is simply misguiding people. Unfortunately most people in India and Pakistan are fed on this very diet. They grow up reading different history books, different interpretations and when they talk to each other they are simply repeating the rhetoric.

   I conclude this by going back to my logic of consequences. Whatever has happened in the past was and whatever is happening today is a consequence of something that happened earlier. Which means everything we do today also has a consequence. We need to learn history from a neutral perspective because there does not always have to be a right or a wrong party, every action is related to an earlier event and the blame game or bias actually hinders us from gathering a deeper understanding.

   Sorry for this rather long post. I hope you will read it.

   Reply
6. 

   Momina

   September 6, 2009

   @HE

   Oh, no problem, apology accepted.

   Hmm…even though, the debate here is a far cry from the topic the post is about I couldn’t stop myself.

   The fact is, Muslims were not treated well, especially, in the years before the partition.

   As you said, Hindus were used to being ruled over. Whoever was ruling over them they would become very loyal to them, obviously, to gain ground.

   When the Britishers entered India with their treacherous method and then began ruling over it, Hindus realised who the new rulers would be. They changed their loyalty and remained loyal to the new rulers.

   Muslims were not used to being ruled over. The British Rule hurt their dignity as well as monetary status. The Britishers didn’t trust Muslims (they dethroned them after all) and didn’t treat them well at all. This feeling reached its optimum level after the revolution in 1857.

   With time, Britishers gave more preference to Hindus. During the Congress Rule educational institutes were established in Mandirs and Muslim students were also required to study there and first had to do pooja of the idols. Then the national anthem of Bande/Vande Mataram (correct me if I am wrong) and so on.

   Th Muslims naturally wanted a separate state. The Muslim public.
   However, I don’t think all the leaders who wanted a separate Muslim country wanted it purely on the basis of freedom for Muslims. Quite frankly, there were leaders who were atheists.

   The public, of course, wanted freedom from tyranny.

   If you remember the chapters in history books, the Christians also formed a separate party (like the Muslim League). Later on, they reached an agreement with the Congress and merged with them. The point is, the Christians were also not what would be called happy with the behaviour of the Hindus.

   This is all straight facts.

   You see, when a nation that has been ruled for centuries comes into power it might behave how the Hindus did.

   Reply
7. 

   Hend

   September 2, 2009

   SL
   Muslims opted for partition out of concern that in a single democratic country they would be a minority and thus would be ruled by a Hindu majority. This is a perfectly valid concern because Muslims had not been ruled by Hindus in last 800 years out of which the last 150 years were under British rule. I don’t see any conflict or proof of Hindu/ Indian oppression here…do you?

   Christians and Naga tribals thinking of own country? What stuff are you reading? Balochis and Sindhis thinking of their own country…might be more palatable, but your claim is dubious.

   India having problems with neighbors…
   Bangladesh – this case is obvious isn’t it…unfortunately religion played a part here too…let us club it with Pakistan case.
   China – Because of Tibet
   Bhutan – Please do research
   Nepal – I agree India made some mistakes but common man hating India? Are you that common Nepali man? Go and ask them if they would rather be neighbours with Pakistan…you may not like the answer. There might be some disagreements at government level but no issues between people. Both countries have open border – no visas.
   Sri Lanka – This is one case where I would have blamed India till recently but after the mass Murder committed by Rajapakse brothers and I have begun to think otherwise. Bombing of heavily populated areas! Millions in prison camps! In this age? These guys should be tried for war crimes.

   When ‘British India’ turned into a group of independant countries, a number of unresolved border issues and conflicts surfaced. This does not mean India created these problems (as you would like to believe).

   Again I would have expected you do know this already than repeat the kind of questions we hear coming from right wing or fundamentalist people who are not interested in really knowing the answer.

   Reply
8. 

   Shakir Lakhani

   September 1, 2009

   Hend: OK, let’s say you’re an Indian, so the debate has to be India-Pakistan relations. But since India is 80-85% Hindu, it inevitably turns into a Muslim-Hindu debate. However, you will admit that only Muslims opted for partition (although in those days Christians-Nagas-were also thinking of having their own country, but they couldn’t succeed). So tell me, as an Indian, why does India have problems with almost all its neighbours? Go to Nepal, the common men there hate India. Same is the case with Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan and China. Why can’t India live in peace with its neighbours?

   Reply
9. 

   Hend

   September 1, 2009

   SL
   I called myself (you know who = hindu) just because you started turning this debate into a debate about how hindus have been persecuting muslims. the moment you start thinking of me as a hindu or an indian this debate is over because then rational thinking takes a back seat.

   you need to go back to your posts and read them again.

   “my parents had to flee from Hindu mobs killing Muslims in 1947”
   “It was, in fact, the treatment of Muslims by Hindus that led to the creation of Pakistan (to provide a safe place for Muslims).”

   statements like these serve no purpose but simply expose your one dimentional thinking. (this also answers your question). honestly i was disappointed that you chose to push the debate about veil in a different direction.

   our generations have grown up on history taught to us by our governments and propaganda made by media and clergymen. I have said again and again, the history of sub continent and specially hindu-muslim relations is complex, it is not black and white and no side can claim complete innocence.

   if we want to be able to debate with each other in an objective manner then we must learn to accept the history from a neutral standpoint and give up the self-righteous renditions of propagandistic history lessons. but you are just looking for someone to trade accusations with then I am sorry it cannot be me.

   Reply
10. 

    Shakir Lakhani

    September 1, 2009

    @ you-know-who: when did I say i hate Hindus? My family doctor is a Hindu, and we have many Hindu families as our neighbours. We’re very comfortable having Hindus as neighbours and friends.

    Reply