RajeshA wrote:I consider that Islam and Humanism are two completely antithetical ideological forces, and Muslims being both, i.e. adherents of Islam as well as humans, have a mixture of both, each Muslim endowed with a different mix. "Mystic Sufism" I see as an effort to build a bridge between the Humanism (and cultural traditions) and the Islam of the Muslims. It is an effort by the Humanism side of Muslims to buy peace with their Islam side. The mediation between the two becomes Sufism.
Rajesh ji, here's an attempt to make two substantive points:
1. The conditions for symbiosis and conflict between the Islamofascist body politic and what you call "humanistic" Sufism.
2. The hybridization of original Arabo-Islamist cultural memes with more sophisticated cultures, and the consequences of this hybridization for the expansion or unraveling of Islamism.
Compared to what Indic civilization has been through, Islamic civilization is still a bachcha. But it has been around long enough for us to get some insights into its parts, some of which are integral to it, some of which are acquired, and some of which is a patchwork. With this history, and with our own experience as a civilization, we should be able to understand the nature of the Islamist animal.
RajeshA wrote:When you speak of using Sufism to weaken Islam in the Muslim countries, IMHO you are falling prey to the well-known good cop - bad cop routine
No, my argument was not this naive. I have been drawing a distinction between "malleable" and "established" groups within Sufism itself. But I will try to explore it further here.
I've been around and observed different types of Moslems, and different types of Sufis. I know, for example, the "Sufi" Naqshbandi tariqats HQ'ed in the mohallah of Chaharshanba in Istanbul. Its always been like a little Islamic Republic in the middle of Ataturkist Turkey! Turbaned men, women in hijab, holding out till the day Ataturkism falls. Turkish secularists carried out occasional assassinations of Sufi Sheikhs there. But Chaharshanba is in a pretty good mood these days with the new turn of events there. I've interacted with Gulen followers, who use Rumi as a poster boy and organize whirling dervish dances as PR in the West. But they themselves have a far different attitude.
So I'm aware of the "good cop bad cop" routine. I'm not a naive starry-eyed yuppie Indian Sufi who wants to hold hands with wolves in sheep's clothing and sing Kumbaya. I mentioned the old "missionaries followed by guns" tactic used by the Christian West in a previous post, too.
RajeshA wrote:Islam in its pure form is Talibanism, that we saw in Afghanistan. Sufist tendencies dilute that pure form and make it bearable for the Muslim society.
That's a useful way of putting it. If it were possible to create a condition where Islamism loses its Sufi heart-space, it will culturally implode on itself, and many will abandon the ship. This can be done by magnifying the cognitive dissonance between the Islamofascist objectives and training-routines versus the values of humanistic Sufism. Make the two move in opposite directions.
Historically, after Muhammad's passing, gradually this heart-aspect became a separate sect of Sufis, and they were initially almost an outcaste from Islamic society. It was
Abu Hamed Ghazali who brokered a marriage of the two, making Sufism feed the demographic objectives of Islamism.
Islamism's First Marriage: Saints and Sociopaths
From the time of the prophetic career of Muhammad himself, there have been two seemingly contradictory social strands within Islam's body politic - one based on monopolizing and expanding a new political-religious dispensation, and the other based on the intrinsic human quest for discovery and devotion to God. Let's call the first one "Islamofascism", and the second "Sufism". Since the very beginning, these two had a tension between them.
During Ghazali's time, there were many theological and philosophical sects. Moreover, relations between the Sufi types and the Islamic mainstream society, ulema and governments were very bad. The ulema accused the Sufis of not being loyal to shari'ah. The Sufis despised the ulema as living on the surface of a shell ("qeshr"). Sufis then were irreverent towards shari'ah, towards any duties of expansion, etc.
They were drop-outs from society.
Shari'ah is the ritual glue that holds Islamic society together. It is a training-routine. It consolidates and regulates, it is political and centrepetal. OTOH, tasawwuf is a personal journey, it is individual, subjective, contemplative, and naturally tends to go off at a tangent from all norms.
Most spiritual teachers taught that ritual systems merely serve the individual's journey. This is the dominant view in most spiritual traditions within different world religions. But Islam seems different. Most Islamic scholars seems to hold that the individual journey must start with obedience to shari'ah and end with realizing its absoluteness. This is the dominant view within Islam, including Islamic Sufism (though there are plenty of verses in the Qur'an which can challenge that).
All religious-cultural systems are beasts that want to subsume everything else into a nexus that feeds itw own stability and growth. Disseminate, convert, engage and retain humans. What Ghazali did was to circumscribe Sufism and cause it to serve the Shari'ah body in all aspects. Ghazali arrived at a powerful merger.
Its a more sophisticated game now, no doubt about that. However, that doesn't change the basic fact of the cognitive dissonance. Ghazali even touches upon this in his book Al-munqidh min ad-Dalaal, and tries to impress upon the reader that God opens the heart of the chosen one to obedience to shari'ah and sunna.
Yet, from time to time, the ulema establishment has still turned on Sufism and persecuted them, to "discipline them". Each time, someone came back and re-did what Ghazali did. E.g.
Sheikh Ahmad Sirhindi of the Indian subcontinent re-did what Ghazali did in Persia.
Said Nursi's legacy is the fuel of the Gulen movement in Turkey today. Etc.
Nevertheless, conditions can occur where this marriage finally breaks apart. After all, there's a chapter in the Qur'an which says that after 3 failed attempts at reconciliation, talaq occurs!
The most significant threat from Indic civilization is what gave the likes of Sirhindi and Aurangzeb nightmares - the gravitational pull away from the absoluteness of shari'ah, of something that they can touch, feel and see.
I'm not a fan of Huntington, but one could say that Islam failed to completely kill Indian civilization. They left unfinished business behind; in fact, they actually helped effect a new form of an old civilization. Plus they are currently facing the West in renewed confrontation.
Indic civilization has already been through the process of seeing that tension between ritualistic and social rigidity and spirituality, undergoing spiritual movements that resolved the conflict, and even had our traditions forcibly broken, and so developed the capacity to accommodate different outlooks. Indic civilization has demonstrated that forms can wither away, but new forms can emerge that will still make the same God accessible.
Islam doesn't get this yet. Some of them get it philosophically, but they haven't been through it yet. Islam has been overrun by semi-nomadic peoples, and it has over-run more civilized peoples.
But the opposite hasn't yet happened -- it hasn't yet been overwhelmed by more civilized peoples. The modern era beginning with the colonization by the West is still a work in progress, and so far their reactions have exposed their weak spots - civilizationally, and ultimately theologically.Today it is faced by Western philosophical, military and economic domination. It is paranoid that God is best represented by only a particular juristic form that must be preserved at all costs.
This is India's point of entry into the game, because the West doesn't not have the ability to give something acceptable to Moslems in this respect, IMHO. We are culturally much closer and better able to interface.
To give a practical example of the consequences of Islamic belief paradigm versus India's: Guru Gobind Singh knew the Qur'an by heart, but he wasn't practicing Islamic form. Most Moslems cannot accept him as Moslem, even if they like Guru Nanak and other Gurus. Guru Nanak sacrificed deer (or goats?) at Kurukshetra and fed the assembled people meat as prasaad. The Brahmins of Kurukshetra threw a fit as expected -- but many Hindus will not doubt the Guru's elevated spiritual status. You can see the difference in understanding here.
This is subtle, but crucial.
Psychology shows that deeper than the human need for possessions, deeper even than sex, deeper than social status, is the need for a sense of direction in space and time (what we call sthaana-prakalpana). Shari'ah is the box that holds all of these. Unfortunately or fortunately, real spirituality begins after these are irrelevant. What is vyavaharika and what is paramarthika? But Moslem scholars don't know if spiritual access can survive the overturning of tradition. This is the soft spot in the region of Islam's encounter with modernity.
In this globalized environment, where education across cultures is converging to a great extent, there is more scope for a renewed penetration of ideas. In fact, when some Moslem countries go the extra mile to brainwash and shield their people from other cultures, even that sooner or later becomes apparent to their people. Aam aadmi is not stupid.
When I speak of engaging with Sufism, it is because that is the locus of the cognitive dissonance at the heart of Islamism's nervous need for jeehard.
There is nothing Chankian about my thinking either - I consider it an open act of assistance to help them mature past the tribalistic model. To confront them at the heart of their religion and raise the question - without arguing unnecessarily. Their own minds will unravel. They can then ask questions about my religious beliefs, or they can check it out on the internet or other pervasive media these days!
Many middle-class Indians had historically converted to Islam because Islam at that time was internationalist, it gave them a wider perspective even in a material sense, wider opportunities. By encouraging Moslem students from Moslem countries to come to our universities, their artists to interact with ours, their businessmen to come to us, etc., we are creating an impact. Note that business classes are frequently the core of the Islamist movements today - Turkish business networks behind the Gulen group, the bazargan in Iran, etc.
Theologically, there are two types of psycho-spiritual profiles in Sufism:
1. One, where the adherents are motivated by awe and obedience to God and fear of being disobedient to scriptural injunctions. This group is the one that can be easily manipulated and used by the Islamist ulema, since they provide or influence the interpretation of scriptural injunctions via the norm of "
taqlid". The fact is that in the very beginning, Shi'ism emphasized personal contemplation of meaning of verses, which they called "ijtihaad". However, modern Shi'ism has merely solidified into another taqlidi church, where ijtihaad is only possible by the Shi'a ulema!
2. Second, where the adherents are motivated by a deep desire to be in the proximity of the companions of God or his servants. This group are much less amenable to manipulation by "religious authorities" and communal regimentation.
Both these categories are discussed in Indic spiritual literatures. I hope the Tejo Mahalaya Naga Babajis here don't go ballistic if I quote Indic literature now.
I just want to put down the way I'm thinking about it, and make a point out the original resources India has at her disposal. So say the Goswamis of Vrindavan:
bhaktau pravRttir atra syAt tach-chikeerSha sunishchayA |
shAstrAl lobhAt tach-chikeerShu syAtAm tad-adhikAriNau ||
“According to devotional scriptures,an exclusive desire to engage in the practices of bhakti is the cause of engaging in bhakti. Bhakti of two different natures is born from fear of scriptural injunctions and from intense spiritual greed respectively; accordingly,there are two kinds of candidates for bhakti-sadhana .”
In Indic traditions, both these are accommodated, with a minimum of friction, hatred and persecution. Its not that its absent, or that historically we haven't had our crazy episodes of sectarian conflict, but we have grown from it. Now its time to give the "gift" to the mid-East. Its time they grew up!
Rudradev wrote:I agree with you that the Islamic world is in crisis today, and may even be ripening for influence by the agents of non-Islamic psycho-spiritual traditions. However, we Indics are nowhere near ready to exercise the necessary quantum of influence abroad.
History shows that when Europe was coming out of the dark ages:
1. They competed with the Islamic world for access to the real engines of wealth, such as India, while defending their borders and making claims to lost civilizational land in the Levant.
We, too, have legitimate claims to land in TSP, etc. We will also be increasingly competing for influence in Islamic Africa, SE Asia, etc.
We have to find room for positive engagement with one part of the Islamic world while we are simultaneously in a position of conflict in another part of the Islamic world (TSP). This is a geopolitical imperative, IMHO. We have no time for every Indian to become a twice-born Brajbasi.
2. They imbibed education and culture from Islamic sources, leading to their own renaissance.
We have alrady received whatever is needed. We only need to re-organize, which is already happening.
There is good evidence that we also broke out of some cultural degradation due to exposure to the Islamic and Western threat over centuries. Those old cultural forms actually prevented what you want -- the widespread access to and ownership of Indic heritage by mango Indians.
Also, we have seen and developed the ability to hybridize and propogate our culture. This is important for our flexibility and agility as we move into a cultural encounter, without losing balance. There was definitely a cultural rennaissance in N. India that saw this happen. Same thing is again happenning after our contact with the West, and this time we're arguably ahead of the curve compared to the rest of the Islamic world. Note to others: Acknowledging positive outcomes from our historical engagement with Islam doesn't mean I came out of Romila Thapar's musharraf. Its just a fact used in assessing strengths and vulnerabilities.
3. Another section of European propoganda openly criticized and attacked some of the core despicable tendencies of Islamism, even demonizing them.
Dandavat pranaams to the TMahalaya folks here for their great work in this regard. No really, I'm serious! The only problem I have with Brihaspati ji is that he attacked me as a p-sec and whatnot before even hearing me out - just because he disagreed with the opinion that there is space for positive non-fascist interpretations of the Qur'an, which is how many Sufi groups happen to see it.
4. Later, as their power grew, they started injecting new ideas and manipulated Islamic sects. (In Iran, the growth of Bahai'ism is considered a British plot).
This is the subject of this thread. You are right that India is not ready to do much of this right now. But IMHO, I have argued that we can engage with Islamic sectarianism in a different manner from Western mischief, at a totally different level - a level that ultimately helps everyone, rather than just creating mischief.
All these happened not one after another, but somewhat in parallel as far as European containment of Islamism was concerned.
Also, at a popular level:
1. I agree that by and large, most Indians today are ignorant of their heritage, or lack the motivation to benefit from it themselves, much less propogate it. However, there is a significant section people emerging, as people move up Maslow's pyramid.
2. Such people are bound to look around, Indians tend to be naturally open-minded, and some Bangalore yuppies may listen to Sufi pop instead of Thyagaraja. I don't even think its necessarily a bad thing, but its upto us to also create popular culture.
Ramana-garu, that I've seen many, many practicing Sufi Moslems get into kirtan groups, also doing hatha-yoga. Some Sufi-inclined women marry Indian men. I think this intersecting social space is a more important focal area for us than for them, because of our strengths that need to be mined and used.
Rudradev ji, the lack of Indic organization could actually be a strength in this space. Guru-shishya parampara is actually an ideal method. We already see some Xian and Moslem groups prohibit their followers from doing yoga, because of their fears! But they're not so effective in preventing most followers. It would be much more difficult if everything was openly affiliated with Hindu cultural nationalist groups, especially given that some of them openly air views such as Brihaspati ji, etc.
3. Fourthly, we need to recognize and appreciate the potential for good in Islam, and not blindly demonize them. Even the greatest spiritual leaders India produced over the last few centuries acknowledged the good, even when there was no political compulsion to do so. This is important because it leaves the door open. A caged tiger is a more dangerous foe. As I said, we need to create space for positive engagement with Moslems in one part of the world while we simultaneously engage in conflict with Moslems in another part of the world.
In order to do this without feeling that we are forced to, I say let's do it candidly, going to the heart of the matter, at the level of people-to-people contacts, and sponsor art, philosophy and music symposia!
Islamism's Second Marriage: Tribalism and Urban Civilization
Islamism is a primal, political, colonizing force that has brough it thus far. It has proved incredibly viable, adapting and surviving in different environments, among different older civilizations.
1. Although it emerged from a primitive society and immediately encountered sophisticated civilizations, it wrested control, adapted, hybridized and thrived.
2. Although it was, in turn, overrun by other semi-civilized hordes, it survived genocides and near extirpation, only to bounce back with greater puissance.
3. Although periodically riven by factionalism within, it has united in the face of a non-Islamic foe, due to a type of brotherhood inculcated by its shari'ah and communicated to all converts to the faith.
Point (3) is due to the work of people like Ghazali and Rabbani, as indicated above.
Points (1) and (2) are due to the memetic combination achieved between the tribalistic primitives of Arabic culture, and the sophistication of mainly Persian culture, augmented by Westernization today.
The
dynamics of Islamism derive from the tribalistic memetic primitives of the Arab culture and mindset. These memes were/are shared by other semi-nomadic cultures such as the Mongols, Turkic peoples, several African peoples, and Afghans.
No wonder Islam was a neat fit for their minds. Because Arabo-Islam was combined with Persian civilization, it became a potent civilizing force, bringing vast human populations into the light.
Consider the following. When the Russians first annexed the steppe, they had lots of trouble with Kazakhs and other Turkic trbes there. These tribes were not Moslem at the time. Finally, after failed attempts to subdue them by various inducements and their religion, they made a decision. They imported Persian preachers to convert the Kazakhs to Islam. That did the trick. They became a lot easier to govern. Similarly, it was Persian Moslems who propogated Islam to Mongols and Turks, not Arabs. Same with India, which then developed an Indo-Islamic culture.
The point is that Islam has survived and thrived by latching onto larger more sophisticated cultures. By doing this, it made itself useful as a civilizing medium to some human groups, at the expense of other more civilized groups. However, a saturation point for that mode of development has arguably been reached at this point in history, IMHO. Islamism has to evolve and move up the value-chain in order to remain competitive. If it doesn't then it will stop and move backwards, regress and unravel - like Talibanism in Afghanistan. Large sections of their own population will not find it useful anymore.
Today, Turkey is trying to emerge as an Islamic Sunnni leader. They certainly are leaders in all the CA stans, apart from Hizb-ut-Tahrir. They are also emerging as Islam's channel to the West. This is again because, apart from their Persianization, they are now Westernized. The West is the new "host" for them. So they're still benefitting. Will the new Turkish Islamism move up the value chain? I dunno. Personally interacting with Turks, I find that although they have an external patina of Persian and Western culture, they're still very tribal underneath. There's a clear difference between the mango Turk's mentality and the mango Pesian's mentality.
In order to prevent the reinvigoration of Islamism, it has to be separated from its cultural feeding grounds.
1. This can be done by widening the gap between the those who root for greater implementation of Arabo-Islamic primitives of shari'ah, and the culture-seeking educated masses in Moslem countries. As calls for "more shari'ah" increase, we should be prepared to provide an alternative space for those who would prefer it.
Then the decision becomes stark. Talaq is round the corner, or they have to evolve their ideas and dilute Ghazali and Rabbani. Also ,by allowing many Moslems the ability to move up civilizationally through interaction with us, it decreases the deeper drive for conquest.
2. This can be done by engaging more deeply with Persia, at least culturally, in order to draw them into our cultural space -- just like they did to us during the prime of Perso-Islamic civilization. That means not just Iran, but also the Kurdish cause. Note that Kurds are are interesting composite. Some are Sunni, some Shi'a, and some are in non-Moslem offshoots like Ahl-e-Haq and Yazidi. Some are even Zoroastrians!
Persian culture, often not acknowledged by Arabs and Turks, is the historical pride of Moslems. That has to be given prominence. I am confused why the US is cooperating in isolating and defacing Iran's footprint on Islamic history, moving the locus of Shi'ism from Qom to Najaf, etc.
The point of this post was to highlight that it is the internal tensions within Islamism that we are targetting. Just by tinkering with the balance of these forces, a lot can be achieved.
Options for Islamism:
1. Evolve, or
2. Implode
Sorry for the longwinded post. Just some thoughts.
The same aggressively communal folk will also be paranoid about importing Pakistani brides because they don't believe Indian men can cast any influence on the offspring! Apparently the only scenario of engagement and influence that cuts through the density of their small-hearted hatred is a post nuclear armageddon where Indians supposedly swarm and take over the mid-East!! You consider this a healthy and useful influence on "strategic" discussions??
I am astonished that even a mention of "similarity" between Sufism and Vedic definitions is intolerable to them! They cannot see the positive upshot of any historical "manthana" in their self-professed posturing on "daiva-asura sangraama"!
), was the invasion of Islam into India worth the agony that India has experienced? are the supposed "gems" worth all the territory India has lost? are the "gems" worth the death, poverty, loot, and rape? are the "gems" worth the desertification of Northwestern Bharat, which was once agriculturally rich, but has now become a vast desert of marauders filled with poverty (i'm sure you know of the "gem" where irrigation systems and canals were systematically destroyed by fanatical invaders)?