Betrayed, Arabized

[waz]

I'd say there is some substance in the article. For instance I can't help but notice a glaring change in some Pakistanis who discover "Islam", people who I bracket as "born again Muslims". For some strange reason they begin to hurl abuse at Sufis and anything connected with the unique spiritual past Pakistan has with the Sufi movement. They declare it heretical etc. They seem to forget had it not been for such people (Fariduddin Ganjshakar, Ali Hujwiri), many of them would not be Muslims. They instead choose to follow Saudi, in particular Salafi scholars who advocate a so called "puritan" brand, that stifles spirituality, compels its adherents to follow a strict social code and is quite hostile to other Muslims e.g. Sufis, Shia etc.

 

[Ignited Mind]

Why are only people who focus on 'Islam and Arabia' being condemned here, when there are just as many in Pakistan and India who are 'rejecting their roots' for Western culture and influences?

How many times have you heard an Indian strive to prove his identity as in his connections/roots to his ancestors? How many Indians have you heard trying to prove how they owe their lineage to Turks/Persians/Central Asians/Arabs...raher anything under the Sun BUT Indian.

It all boils down to the collection lack of a sense of national identity.

The basic questions of,

"Who are we?"

"Who were our ancestors?"

"To whom to we trace our lineage?"

and, in Pakistanis' case especially, "How are we different from Indians?"

This quest for a national identity which seperates Pakistanis lineage from India is the root of all that this article talks about.

Indians on the contrary have a very settled and stable sense of national identity.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Not at all - who determines whether adopting Arabic customs, culture and language is 'stupidity' vs the perhaps far more prevalent adoption of "Western customs, culture and language'?

Conservatives would call the latter 'stupid', and liberals the former.

Dear poster,

This discussion has obviously taken the wrong turn, such is he fate of discussion about culture and Pakistan.

The core idea is really simple. Humans learn by copying. Everyone comes from his mother's womb as pretty much a blank slate.

From this very moment of the birth all the way to the time when Allah mian takes us from this world, we copy and we learn and we copy and we learn.

It is us who decide the source of our learning.

Same idea is applicable to the nations. They look around and see who is the most advanced, and who is the stuck at the bottom of the heap.

Successful nations copy and learn from Advanced nations of their time.
Failed states copy from the the pathetic, diseased and backward groups.


There is a tendency among Muslims of Indian subcontinent to feel threatened among the see of non-Muslim. Facing this "perceived threat", they rely on two approaches,

1. Sir Syed, Jinnah approach - Learn English and learn from the West
2. Mullah Mawdoodi approach - hate the West and ape Arabs

--- Arabic culture has nothing to teach others as they themselves are trying to learn from the West. That's why I use the term "ape" as opposed to "learn".


It is our choice as Pakistanis to see the following:

Those who ape Arabs but do not have oil = poverty stricken Yemenis, Jordanians and Egyptians

Those who learn from the Westerner but do not have oil = advanced powerful countries like Japan, S. Korea, India, and now China


Hope this helps.

And please do not confuse learning a language like Arabic, Turkish, Chinese, or English.

Pakistanis have God given ability to pick any of these languages and become masters in speech, and writing.

Peace.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Indeed, some, realizing that their little project is now seriously threatened, want as little light ashed on these basic issues as possible. It's note worthy that they do not have the courage to consider the issues raised in the lead article - after all, why challenge ignorance with education, why impose light on darkness.

Again, my criticizm of your positions, as is the case with my criticizm of your positions on 'reform in the military' revolves around the fact that you continue to be incapable of being specific, and 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' so to speak.

As Santro pointed out to you elsewhere - painting with a broad brush and insulting and smearing what some people hold dear is no way to conduct social discourse and disseminate ideas with a desire for bringing about 'change'.

Your commentary seeks to malign all that is 'Arab and Islamic', ignoring the strong and emotional ties people may have to both of those concepts, rather than focusing on the specific aspects of 'Arab culture and distorted Islamic interpretations' that are the issue.

It is not an adoption of 'Arabic as a language or 'Islamic history over Hindu history' that is the issue (just as the Army's motto is not the issue), it is certain specific aspects of Arabic (and South Asian, Hindu if you will even) culture that are the issue. Rail and condemn those specifics, not all 'Arabis and Islamists'.

 

[waz]

I don't think that's the issue here.

The issue here is how Pakistanis wallow in their Arab connections and what not and simply ignore their roots, connections etc. to the era before they were Muslims, before even Islam had come into being.

For Pakistanis, it seems, T=0 lay at the moment Bin Qasim arrived alongwith all his arabic paraphernalia.

These is stuff that Pakistanis hold sacred like Scientists hold sacred, the Big Bang. It's as if nothing existed before that moment came to pass.

But your opinion seems to be the lone voice amongst your countrymen, especially on here. Please take a look at the preceding posts where Indian posters are stating quite clearly that it is impossible to be Rajput, Jatt whatever, because you are Muslims and betrayed your ancestors etc etc. There is some truth to Pakistanis ridding themselves of their past but also there are many Indians who refuse to accept that Pakistanis have any connection to this heritage. One went as far as to call Pakistanis the converts and ancestors of barbarians.

 

[jayron]

And as I said, what someone chooses to believe is their personal business - will you condemn and look down upon a convert from Islam to Christianity or Hinduism?

Will you condemn or look down upon an individual raised in a Muslim family in a Muslim society who chooses to consume alcohol, pork and womanize as 'wallowing in Western culture and ignoring his/her roots'?

Why are only people who focus on 'Islam and Arabia' being condemned here, when there are just as many in Pakistan and India who are 'rejecting their roots' for Western culture and influences?

---------- Post added at 01:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:39 PM ----------

Few reasons: 1. The Arab culture was first forced upon the Pak Masses by politicians. Saudi money flowed into Pak and so did their culture. Not because the Arab loved you so much but because of the politics your government chose to play.

2. It is not the western culture that has created the intolerance in your country but the Arab Wahabi culture. One needn't worry if it is just the language that is being adopted. But often times, culture and customs piggy back the language, especially if the language is learnt for religious reasons.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I'd say there is some substance in the article. For instance I can't help but notice a glaring change in some Pakistanis who discover "Islam", people who I bracket as "born again Muslims". For some strange reason they begin to hurl abuse at Sufis and anything connected with the unique spiritual past Pakistan has with the Sufi movement. They declare it heretical etc. They seem to forget had it not been for such people (Fariduddin Ganjshakar, Ali Hujwiri), many of them would not be Muslims. They instead choose to follow Saudi, in particular Salafi scholars who advocate a so called "puritan" brand, that stifles spirituality, compels its adherents to follow a strict social code and is quite hostile to other Muslims e.g. Sufis, Shia etc.

That has little to do with Arabs and more to do with a particularly intolerant interpretation/s of Islam.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

How many times have you heard an Indian strive to prove his identity as in his connections/roots to his ancestors? How many Indians have you heard trying to prove how they owe their lineage to Turks/Persians/Central Asians/Arabs...raher anything under the Sun BUT Indian.

Instead I have heard Indians 'reject' 'Muslim invaders' and denigrate them and their actions plenty of times, as have I Indians who do in fact go out of their way to 'reject' the influences post-Islam in South Asia.

It all boils down to the collection lack of a sense of national identity.

A national identity does not have to be based on any one specific historical era - the issue is a lack of respect from both sides of the ideological spectrum of what the other wishes to believe.

The basic questions of,

"Who are we?"

Pakistanis.

"Who were our ancestors?"

Who cares? We all originated from some tribe in Africa according to the latest studies ...

"To whom to we trace our lineage?"

The above-mentioned tribe in Africa ...

and, in Pakistanis' case especially, "How are we different from Indians?"

The same way Indians are different from the British ..

This quest for a national identity which seperates Pakistanis lineage from India is the root of all that this article talks about.

And what is wrong with such a 'quest to establish a separate lineage'?

Indians on the contrary have a very settled and stable sense of national identity.

Sure - Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims - as Indians - but each also holds dear their religious customs, and the relevance of national identity over religious/regional/ethnic identity can only get stronger if given time and stability/growth/prosperity nationwide, for the most part.

 

[SQ8]

Coming to the two posts which had questioned why is Arabic so dear if the Quran and Islam is for everyone..

Arabic was the chosen original form of the Quran.
Therefore the word of god was presented in Arabic..
Now.. when you decide to translate anything from one language to other .. no matter how meticulous you may be in trying to be authentic.. will you be able to replicate word for word.. letter for letter.. grammatical nuance for grammatical nuance.. metaphor for metaphor the exact content?
No.. you cannot. I have yet to see proof's to the contrary.

The meaning of the Quran .. as in recitation.. in script is only complete in Arabic.
No other language can replicate that ..never will.
What

Means in Quran Arabic.. cannot be replicated in any other language and considered complete.
Every letter in its flow to the other has a meaning unique to the language.
Any attempt to translate it into another language and assume it perfect is flawed.
Each verse is a book in itself.. for those who take the time to read it, and understand it.

Which is why a new Muslim convert is asked to recite the kalimah in arabic..
Otherwise you could simply ask
" Do you believe in god and his last, final.. end of the end.. the main man.. The prophet to end all prophets.."

"Yo"

"congratulations.. and welcome to the club.. , please feel free to join us for the next protest/BBQ against Israel"

The Quran in its Original form is the identity that is constant for Muslims.. the place to look to when you are lost.
The one thing you know for sure will never be corrupt. When you recite it you know you are not reciting a tainted line.
What it meant 1400 years ago.. it still means it today..

Otherwise.. you can dither translations and interpretations in various languages..
And soon additions subtractions and multiplications of commandments, anecdotes.. and everything else will follow.

Those that preach hate through Islam, or distort it... do so by teaching the Quran selectively.. and in an ironic twist.
Do exactly what liberals essentially demand.. "learn only what is required".. leave the rest for those who should care about it.
The TTP preacher says "blow up the Pakistan Army soldier because it is said in this ayat that kill kafir's on the battlefield and the quran says these people are Kafir.. ".. and that is enough for the poor soul... because the rest is withheld from him.
The liberal requests.. " forget the Khutbah of the prophet in Arabic.. read it urdu, or Punjabi.. or Seraki if you wish.. The meaning of the message is important.. not the original message itself..why bother and burden people with terse and difficult Arabic.."

Heads or Tails.. its still the same coin.

 

[muse]

Thank you for your post Santro - it is of course completely wrong headed - to begin with you have "imagined" that all things have changed but Arabic has not - this is the obvious weakness of your argument -- but there is a more fundamental flaw in your position, not just that you have posited Allah as a Arab (and therefore your ill considered position Arabophobia equals Islamophobia), that Quran in Arabic is somehow different than in any other language - this of course besides being an argument for arab cultural chauvanism/imperialism of the 7th century, has another flaw - namely that Arabic was "chosen" - this "Semitic" chosen business is anathema to islam because Islam is a Dawa, an invitation, open to all, forever, therefore Islam is about redemption through faith, not about being "chosen".

If you review the "Making of the Modern Maulvi" thread, you will begin to understand why the argument about the possible corruption of Quran (if it is the word of God, can it be corrupted, Hainji???) was and is, primarily about the cornering of knowledge it's commercial value :

Gilani compares the ‘crisis’ of the so-called ilmi gharanas during the colonial era with the situation that prevailed two centuries earlier when the disintegration of the Mughal empire had disturbed the smooth lifestyle of the purveyors of knowledge. Faced with economic hardship, they had to abandon the profession of knowledge and take up that of soldiery and had joined different local armies fighting with each other to gain control of relatively smaller tracts of land. Fortunately for them, they were traditionally well versed in using both pen and sword. However, as a result of such economic crisis, the search for knowledge declined and the institutions that imparted religious education were badly affected.

It becomes abundantly clear that what concerns Gilani — and all the‘reform’ or ‘educational’ movements among Muslims of the subcontinent — is the economic interest of the shurafa who had monopolised knowledge, physical power and land, to the exclusion of everyone and everything else.

 

[muse]

What is amazing about the responses to this thread is thaqt none of the respondents, especially the Pakistanis have answered whether it is a general good for the Pakisani state that it's citizens are loyal to an idea and a ideology of another country, whether a pakistan in which an alien language and culture is one in which it's citizens can identify with

And really what is the appeal of the desert for which we must give up being Pakistanis?? The Pakistan army wants to imagie Islam binds, like it bound East Pakistan (wait those were short dark "others" not arbis like us) and of course the paluchi and Pashtun don't seem to find much truck with this Islam business - what gives?

 

[Jango]

Coming to the two posts which had questioned why is Arabic so dear if the Quran and Islam is for everyone..

Arabic was the chosen original form of the Quran.
Therefore the word of god was presented in Arabic..
Now.. when you decide to translate anything from one language to other .. no matter how meticulous you may be in trying to be authentic.. will you be able to replicate word for word.. letter for letter.. grammatical nuance for grammatical nuance.. metaphor for metaphor the exact content?
No.. you cannot. I have yet to see proof's to the contrary.

The meaning of the Quran .. as in recitation.. in script is only complete in Arabic.
No other language can replicate that ..never will.
What

Means in Quran Arabic.. cannot be replicated in any other language and considered complete.
Every letter in its flow to the other has a meaning unique to the language.
Any attempt to translate it into another language and assume it perfect is flawed.
Each verse is a book in itself.. for those who take the time to read it, and understand it.

Which is why a new Muslim convert is asked to recite the kalimah in arabic..
Otherwise you could simply ask
" Do you believe in god and his last, final.. end of the end.. the main man.. The prophet to end all prophets.."

"Yo"

"congratulations.. and welcome to the club.. , please feel free to join us for the next protest/BBQ against Israel"

The Quran in its Original form is the identity that is constant for Muslims.. the place to look to when you are lost.
The one thing you know for sure will never be corrupt. When you recite it you know you are not reciting a tainted line.
What it meant 1400 years ago.. it still means it today..

Otherwise.. you can dither translations and interpretations in various languages..
And soon additions subtractions and multiplications of commandments, anecdotes.. and everything else will follow.

Those that preach hate through Islam, or distort it... do so by teaching the Quran selectively.. and in an ironic twist.
Do exactly what liberals essentially demand.. "learn only what is required".. leave the rest for those who should care about it.
The TTP preacher says "blow up the Pakistan Army soldier because it is said in this ayat that kill kafir's on the battlefield and the quran says these people are Kafir.. ".. and that is enough for the poor soul... because the rest is withheld from him.
The liberal requests.. " forget the Khutbah of the prophet in Arabic.. read it urdu, or Punjabi.. or Seraki if you wish.. The meaning of the message is important.. not the original message itself..why bother and burden people with terse and difficult Arabic.."

Heads or Tails.. its still the same coin.

The exact point I was trying to explain to Subramanian and some other guy. The Arabic can never be translated word for word. Therefore the meaning and gist is more important for us.

 

[Kazhugu]

And NOTHING is lost when they are translated??
The nuances of one language.. are perfectly overlaid onto the other??

in that case do you think a non-native speaker will understand the same nuances as good as a native speaker ?

 

[muse]

Interesting that many Indians like the British but not Arabs why because you are afraid of Islam????

Are Pakistanis not affraid of this Islam?? Who are the army fighting?? Who is blowing up Masajid, who is killing Namazis in Sajdah??

But look at what the author asks - let one just one Pakistani come to answer:

I will take liberty to speak for me and the third generation, I belong to too, who has the privilege to breathe in the airs of this still-not-so-pure-land and is much Pakistani now. I’m not going to mourn the Indus Valley civilization, but what is the substitute they offer me if it’s not desert? I refrain from whining about the bitter reality that I don’t have the clue of half of indigenous literature that has been written in Persian, but to say what do they have in the pipeline for me? I have nothing against whatsoever version of religion, but how would they justify the attacks on the shrines of my land? I’m all for endorsing their policies, but what is the vindication they have of myriads of dead bodies of my country-fellows? I’m ready to relinquish Khusrow, Ghalib, Bhittai, Bhulla, Rahman Baba and Gul Khan, but can they introduce me to the single one of this stature?

 

[Jango]

Coming to the two posts which had questioned why is Arabic so dear if the Quran and Islam is for everyone..

Arabic was the chosen original form of the Quran.
Therefore the word of god was presented in Arabic..
Now.. when you decide to translate anything from one language to other .. no matter how meticulous you may be in trying to be authentic.. will you be able to replicate word for word.. letter for letter.. grammatical nuance for grammatical nuance.. metaphor for metaphor the exact content?
No.. you cannot. I have yet to see proof's to the contrary.

The meaning of the Quran .. as in recitation.. in script is only complete in Arabic.
No other language can replicate that ..never will.
What

Means in Quran Arabic.. cannot be replicated in any other language and considered complete.
Every letter in its flow to the other has a meaning unique to the language.
Any attempt to translate it into another language and assume it perfect is flawed.
Each verse is a book in itself.. for those who take the time to read it, and understand it.

Which is why a new Muslim convert is asked to recite the kalimah in arabic..
Otherwise you could simply ask
" Do you believe in god and his last, final.. end of the end.. the main man.. The prophet to end all prophets.."

"Yo"

"congratulations.. and welcome to the club.. , please feel free to join us for the next protest/BBQ against Israel"

The Quran in its Original form is the identity that is constant for Muslims.. the place to look to when you are lost.
The one thing you know for sure will never be corrupt. When you recite it you know you are not reciting a tainted line.
What it meant 1400 years ago.. it still means it today..

Otherwise.. you can dither translations and interpretations in various languages..
And soon additions subtractions and multiplications of commandments, anecdotes.. and everything else will follow.

Those that preach hate through Islam, or distort it... do so by teaching the Quran selectively.. and in an ironic twist.
Do exactly what liberals essentially demand.. "learn only what is required".. leave the rest for those who should care about it.
The TTP preacher says "blow up the Pakistan Army soldier because it is said in this ayat that kill kafir's on the battlefield and the quran says these people are Kafir.. ".. and that is enough for the poor soul... because the rest is withheld from him.
The liberal requests.. " forget the Khutbah of the prophet in Arabic.. read it urdu, or Punjabi.. or Seraki if you wish.. The meaning of the message is important.. not the original message itself..why bother and burden people with terse and difficult Arabic.."

Heads or Tails.. its still the same coin.

The exact point I was trying to explain to Subramanian.

Arabic into Urdu will never get you the same thing
Try translating it word for word, and the order is mixed up, and hence no sense is made. So, a Tafsir or true gist is more useful.

And did'nt this thread get closed?