+- Forums (https://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Trash Can (https://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=20)
+--- Thread: Clash of civilizations (/showthread.php?tid=890)
Clash of civilizations - acharya - 07-29-2004
A CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONSM. LAL GOEL University of West Florida Dr. M. Lal Goel is Emeritus Professor of political science at the University of West Florida, Pensacola, Fl 32514. This is a revised version of a speech delivered at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Pensacola, Florida, June 30, 2002. Email: lgoel@uwf.edu; web site: www.uwf.edu/lgoel . The notion of a clash of civilizations has been with us for some time. British historian Arnold Toynbee used the term in a series of lectures he delivered in 1953. In an article published in 1990, Bernard Lewis wrote that the Muslim rage against the West is Ano less than a clash of civilizations@ (Lewis, 1990, p 60). Samuel P. Huntington, a Harvard University political science professor, has given new currency to the notion of a clash of civilizations. His 1993 article on the topic in Foreign Affairs has gained a global audience. Three years ago, I lectured to a political science class at Pondicherry University in Southern India. To my pleasant surprise, all the Indian students were familiar with Huntington=s argument. This is more than I can say about my students at the University of West Florida. The majority of the Indian students agreed with Huntington=s conclusion. The bipolar division of the world based on ideology is no longer relevant. The world was entering a new period of intense conflict among civilizations. Writes Huntington, It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain them most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future. (Huntington, 1993, P.22)
What is Civilization? Civilization and culture are related concepts. A way of life is called a culture. When the culture of a people becomes complex, for example when a division of labor develops, and when it encompasses tens of millions of people, it is called a civilization. There are hundreds of cultural groups but only a handful of civilizations. AA civilization is the highest cultural grouping of a people@ (Huntington, 1993). Contemporary examples of civilization include: the Western, the Islamic, the Chinese, the Hindu, the Japanese, the Slavic, Latin American, and the African. Historians tell us that civilizations rise and fall with some frequency. Many ancient civilizations, once glorious and powerful, exist no more. Where are Rome, Greece, Egypt, Persia and Babylonia? They are on the ash heap of history. Arnold Toynbee studied 26 civilizations, and of that number only some half a dozen survive today. The Chinese and the Hindu civilizations, however, are unique in their longevity. They go back 4,000 years or even longer. The Hindu Brahmins chant hymns from the Vedas composed at least 2,000 years before the birth of Christ. This is an amazing record of continuity for a civilization. In contrast, Islam has the shortest history at 1,400 years. Some have argued that the relative youth of Islam is the cause of its
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
belligerence. Islam is said to be in its adolescence. I do not agree with these views.
WHY A CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS? First, differences among civilizations are Abasic.@ They involve history, language, culture, social life and religion. Religious differences are perhaps the most fundamental. Different civilizations have different views about the nature of Godhead (male or female, personal or impersonal, benevolent or malevolent), the nature of man (an evolutionary creature or created in final form, godlike or beast-like), and relations between God and man (intimate and friendly, or distant and authoritarian). Civilizations also differ with respect to the concept of the state, liberty, democracy, secularism, pluralism, tolerance and the rule of law. Civilizations develop over centuries. Differences among them are deep seated and will not quickly disappear (Huntington, 1993) Second, the communications and the information revolution have engulfed the globe. This revolution is a two edged sword. On the one hand, the increased communications among peoples tends to narrow their cultural gap. People the world over begin to look, think and act alike. On the other hand, people become more aware of their own culture and how their culture differs from others. Muslims become more of Muslims, Hindus more of Hindus, Slavic more Slavic and so on. People react to the globalizing influence by going back to their roots. Omar Sheikh, the accused murderer of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was born and educated in England but found home in Islamic fundamentalism. Third, modernization erodes local identities. The world over, people have lost affinity for the village, the neighborhood and the family. Fundamentalist religious movements have captured the space vacated by the village, the clan and the family. A personal illustration: I grew up in a small village in the state of Punjab in North India during a serene period 50 years ago. People then thought of themselves as belonging more to the village and less to religion. In a recent visit to my native village, I found that religious differences had assumed nefarious importance. My village has Sikh majority, and Hindu families have left the village and migrated to nearby Hindu majority towns. CRITIQUE I agree with much of what Huntington says. The world conflict today appears to be civilizational in nature and scope. However, Huntington=s argument is flawed in two ways. One, civilizations are not monolithic. They encompass a great deal of cultural and political diversity. The West is divided not only among Catholics, Protestants and Jews, but also between Europe and North America. Catholics and Protestants still fight in Northern Ireland. Political differences between the European Union and the United States have increased. Europe and America do not see eye-to-eye on policy towards Israel or Iraq. Europe is much more critical of Israel and its recent incursions into Palestinian territory and more sympathetic to the Palestinians. Europe also does not support Bush=s warlike stance against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. Hinduism is similarly divided between the North and the South, and between secularists and
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
traditionalists. Islam is even more fractured: Sunni versus Shia, Wahabis versus mainline Muslims, secularists versus fundamentalists, the Arab versus the Turkish. The bloodiest conflict of the second half of the 20thcentury is the decade long war between Iran (Shia) and Iraq (Sunni governed). My second disagreement with Huntington concerns the nature of the civilizational conflict. Huntington argues that the coming world conflict will be between Athe West and the rest.@ The Arest@ includes the entire non-Western world. The central axis of world politics is likely to be the conflict between Athe West and the rest,@ and the responses of non-Western civilizations to Western power and values. I do not think so. There is little likelihood of the global conflict to become a war of West versus the non-West. The non-Western world is not unified against the West. In a civilizational war, the U.S. may well have non-Western allies in Japan and India. My Hypothesis It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in the new world will be between radical Islam and greater part of the rest of humanity. Radical Islam is at war with every other religious sect and culture. Militant Islamic anger is directed against Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Slavs and animists. Examine below the list of groups against whom radical Muslims wage war: Roman Catholics on Mindanao in the Philippines Roman Catholics on Timor in Indonesia Confucians and Buddhists in Singapore and Malaysia Hindus in Bangladesh Hindus in Kashmir and within India itself Russian Orthodox Catholics in Chechnya Armenian Christians in Nagorno-Karabakh Maronite Christians in Lebanon Jews in Israel and in all other places Animists and Christians in Sudan Ethiopian Orthodox Christians in Eritrea Greek Orthodox Catholics in Cyprus Slavs in Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania Coptic Christians in Egypt Ibos in Nigeria United States Moderate Islamic Regimes in Egypt, Jordan and Turkey Militant Islam is in ferment everywhere. AThe Islamic world has bloody borders.@ Why is this so? The explanation may lie in Islamic theology, Islamic history, and the economics of oil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
ISLAMIC THEOLOGY Islamic militancy arises out of its theology. The tenets of Islamic theology may be stated as follows. There is no other God but Allah And Mohammad is the Messenger of Allah La Ilaha Ill Allah wa Anna Mohammad Ar-Rasul AllahLesser prophets are admitted in Islam. Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jesus and other Jewish prophets are recognized, but Mohammad is Final. He is the Seal of the prophets. Islam claims to be a Acomplete@ and a Acompleted@ religion. Islamic God Allah is jealous. He brooks no rivals. He claims sole sovereignty. He proclaims Jihad or Holy War on unbelievers, kafirs. It is obvious that this theology of a single God, a single prophet, a single revelation, a single church or ummah, a single life and a single judgment, leads to intolerance. Islamic intolerance is built into Islamic theology. More important is the doctrine of Mohammad as the Final and the Most Perfect messenger of God and woe to him who questions his legitimacy. A person who criticizes Mohammad is at risk of losing his or her life on charges of heresy. Ba Khuda Diwana Bash, wa Ba Mohammad HoshiyarA critic of Allah may be excused for being a fool, but beware of criticizing the Prophet. Salman Rushdie made the mistake of criticizing Mohammad in a fictional account, The Satanic Verses. The Iranian Islamic regime issued a Fatwa on his life and Rushdie has spent most of the last twenty-five years in hiding. Not all Muslims read the Quran the same way. There are passages in the Quran which preach religious tolerance. For example, one of the verses says: AThere is no compulsion in religion.@ And, again, ATo you your religion and to me mine.@ Moderate Muslims emphasize the tolerant nature of their religion. Extremists, however, have outflanked the moderates and tend to dominate the religious dialog in the Islamic world today. Christian theology is similar to Islamic theology in many respects. Christianity also posits the doctrine of a Single Jealous God, and of the Only Begotten Son. The history of Christianity is dotted with periods of persecution of non-Christians. The Spanish Inquisition of the 16thcentury was an extreme case of this intolerance. Christianity however was reformed during the Age of Rationalism. Secularism arose and gradually the Church and the state were separated. Tolerance of religious diversity became the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
norm. The West has come a long way in accepting pluralism in matters of religious belief. Christian churches and Jewish Synagogues now exist side by side in the West. Non-Western religions such as Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism have been allowed to establish their places of worship in the West. I learned that in Britain alone, there are 1,500 Islamic Mosques. The so-called New Age or New Thought churches (Unity, Unitarians, Science of Mind, and Practical Christianity) are a rapidly growing phenomenon in the West. These New Age religions borrow a great deal of their theology from the East, especially from Hinduism and Buddhism. The doctrines of Karma, reincarnation, meditation, and yoga are now widely accepted. Vegetarianism has gained ground. The notion of a female Deity is not a strange concept. Pre-Christian and pre-Islamic people were generally tolerant of religious diversity. Hindus, Confucians, Taoists, Shintoists, European Celts, Platonists, and Pythagoreans believed in an inclusive godhead. The older traditions generally recognized many prophets and teachers as being authentic. Many paths to spiritual salvation were recognized and validated. One can climb the mountain peak by taking one of the several paths. By their very nature, the pre-Christian and pre-Islamic religions were tolerant of diversity. Hindu India illustrates the extent of religious tolerance in its history. Christianity came to India with St. Thomas in the first century A.D., long before it became popular in the West. Judaism came to India after the Jewish temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. and the Jews were expelled from their homeland. Both Christians and Jews have existed in a predominant Hindu India for centuries without being persecuted. In a recent book titled WHO ARE THE JEWS OF INDIA? (University of California Press, 2000), author Nathan Katz observes that India is the only country where the Jews were not persecuted: AThe Indian chapter is one of the happiest of the Jewish Diaspora.@ p. 4. In the 7thand 8thcenturies, Zoroastrians or Parsees from Persia (present Iran) entered India to flee Islamic conquest. The Parsees are an affluent community in the city of Bombay in Western India without a sense of having been persecuted. Among the richest business families in India are the Parsees; for example, the Parsee Tata family controls a huge industrial empire. Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the powerful Prime Minister of India, was married to Feroz Gandhi, a Parsee (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi). . The history of China and Japan is similar to that of India in matters of religious tolerance. Buddhism was introduced into China from India peacefully. There is no record of armed conflict between Buddhism and native Chinese religious traditions. Similarly Buddhism came to Japan peacefully. The Shinto and Buddhist traditions are well integrated in Japanese life. In a recent visit to Japan, I noticed that Shinto shrines allowed the worship of Buddhist icons. Christianity also came to Japan peacefully in the 16thcentury. The Jesuit missionaries were allowed to convert people to their faith. The Jesuit missionaries, however, began to teach that the traditional Japanese gods were false. This led to their persecution by the Japanese government. ISLAMIC HISTORY Islam may be dated to 610 AD, when Mohammad began having conversations with Archangel Gabriel. Mohammad=s message one true God named Allah attracted a number of followers. But
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
the leaders of Mecca rejected his new teaching. Conflict ensued. In 622, Mohammad was forced to flee to Medina, some 240 miles to the North. The year of the flight, 622 AD, is significant as it marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar. Mohammad became the leader of Medina and within a few years felt emboldened to raid Meccan caravans. Mohammad=s actions were brilliant and bold. Mecca signed a treaty of friendship and allowed Muslims to enter the city for pilgrimage. This treaty, however, was abrogated two years later. Muhammad felt free to attack and he captured Mecca in a courageous move. He was now an unchallenged leader. By the time Mohammad died in 632 AD at age 62, he had become the supreme figure in all of Arabia. Muslim raids did not stop with the death of Mohammad. Within two years, the holy warriors attacked and conquered Byzantium and Persia, the two powerful empires of the period. They were fired with religious zeal and also dreams of acquiring fabulous wealth. AIt seemed that, armed with faith in Allah, nothing could stop the soldiers of Islam@ (Pipes, 2001). In 712, Arabs captured Sindh on the frontiers of India. In 715 they reached Spain after conquering North Africa. In less than 100 years since Mohammad=s death, the Islamic rule stretched from the frontiers of India all the way to Spain. Victories resumed after a hiatus of three centuries. Believers captured Anatolia (Turkey) in 1071, the throne of Delhi in 1201, and Constantinople in 1453. Muslims felt that they had Divine hand supporting their cause. As Daniel Pipes observes, AIslam=s rapid rise from obscurity to international empire had a touch of the miraculous for Muslims; how could they have attained all this without God=s approval and support?@ (Pipes, 2001). The fabulous military victories demonstrated to the faithful God=s pleasure with their ways and displeasure with the ways of the infidel. Islam=s explosive beginning has implications for modern politics. Memory of early conquest has given to the Muslim faith in his cause. Setbacks are temporary. Eventual world dominion is assured. Early success meant that Muslims did not need to negotiate with the infidel. THE NATURE OF ISLAMIC CONQUEST Islamic conquest was accompanied with much destruction, and the enslaving of women and children. I give below the account of one such conquest. In the year 1,000, Mahmud Gaznavi descended on the plains of North India like a typhoon, pillaging and massacring on his way. Mahmud was a zealous Muslim who felt it to be a duty as well as pleasure to slay idolaters. He was also greedy of treasure. Mahmud accumulated vast amounts of plunder from the destruction of dozens of Hindu temples. The following account of his raids is based on the description of Alberuni, the Islamic scholar who accompanied Mahmud to India. Mathura, the holy city of Krishna, was the next victim. >In the middle of the city there was a temple larger and finer than the rest, which can neither be described nor painted.= The Sultan was of the opinion that 200 years would have been required to build it. The
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
idols included >five of red gold, each five yards high,= with eyes formed of priceless jewels. >The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt with naptha and fire, and leveled with the ground.= Thus perished works of art which must have been among the noblest monuments of ancient India. (Vincent Smith, 1985) At the destruction of another famous temple, Somnath, it is said that 50,000 were massacred. The Sultan also acquired a fabulous booty of gold, women and children, divided among soldiers according to Muslim war tradition: the Sultan claiming the royal fifth, the cavalry man getting twice as much as the foot soldier. Muslims destroyed some 6,000 Hindu temples in the course of their occupation of North India in the next several centuries. In the Islamic world, Mahmud Gaznavi is held up as a glorious figure deserving much adulation. Pakistan has named one of its missiles Gaznavi, after the name of the ferocious Sultan. It is as if Germans chose to name their monuments after Goebbels, the English after General Dyer (the butcher of Jallianwalla Bagh in 1919 in Punjab), and the Americans after Bull Connor (who opened fire hoses on peaceful civil rights marchers in Alabama in the 1960s). The countries of the Near East (Turkey, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, etc.) and the Balkan region (Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, etc.) suffered a similar fate under Muslim conquest and occupation. Christianity and Judaism were the dominant religions in these countries before the onslaught of Islam. Bat Ye=or=s book, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: from Jihad to Dhimmitude, 1996, provides a detailed account of the destruction and pillage that occurred in these countries under Islamic rule. Memories of a grand Islamic empire are alive in the minds of militant Muslims. They believe that they were cheated of world dominion in the 17thcentury, when Islam faced defeat in India and Europe. The Hindu chieftain Shivaji defeated a Mogul army in 1660, and the Turkish army lost in Vienna in 1683, thus turning the tide against Islam. THE ECONOMICS OF OIL Islamic radicalism is two decades old and goes back to the period of the oil boom. The huge wealth derived from petroleum in the Arab Sheikhdoms has given rise to the belief that Muslims are favored by Allah. The extraordinary oil wealth, much like Muslim military victory, is taken as a sign of Allah=s happiness with Muslims and the justness of the Islamic cause. The reader may pursue this argument in Daniel Pipes= In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power, 2001. Petro-dollars are used to spread Islamic radicalism. The Saudi Government and its charities have funded several thousand religious schools or Madrassas, which turn out thousands of half-educated, Koran quoting bearded Muslim fanatics. These schools have been called factories for Jihad. Some 5,000 of these clerical schools exist within Pakistan alone. The oil rich Saudi Arabia preaches Wahabism, a puritanical branch of Islam. According to Fareed Zakaria of
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 8
Newsweek, the Saudi Kingdom has made the biggest Devil=s bargain. It deflects attention from its misrule by funding religious extremism abroad. The war in Afghanistan against the former Soviet Union has also led to extremism and militancy. A rag-tag army of the Holy Warriors defeated a super power, which promoted the belief that religious zeal and the way of Allah could defeat the mightiest of armies. The following appeared in the Christian Science Monitor and illustrates the lengths to which militant Muslims will go to serve their cause. By Robert Marquand | Staff writer October 18, 2001 Hailing from . . Pakistan, Hasan Ali dreams of a Muslim Utopia. The Islamic law student would like to create - through a holy war, if necessary - an Islamic state that spans the globe. All nations would be under the control of sharia (Islamic law), with the locus of authority in Saudi Arabia, "the center of Islam." And for the first act, he looks to Osama bin Laden, "our hero No. 1, our religious leader, our model, our general." Hiding somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan, the gray-bearded Ayman al-Zawahiri shares the same vision, and has been working side by side with Hasan's "hero No.1" for more than a decade. Mr. Zawahiri's life tracks the evolution of modern Islamic militancy - from his arrest at age 15 as a member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood to his place today as the guiding intellect of Mr. bin Laden's Al Qaeda network. Zam Amputan traveled across four time zones from the Philippines to attend a madrassah in Peshawar, Pakistan. He returned home, burning for a jihad. But now he has turned his back on Islamic militancy. These future, present, and lapsed holy warriors have one thing in common: All are deeply etched by a steel-tipped Islamic fundamentalism that's now shaping international events - from the US-cratered roads of Kabul to clashes in Algeria's countryside to the carnage of Sept. 11 in New York . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 9
In one sense, this strain of Islamic ideology has been around for at least the past two decades. It's been taught in the proliferating fundamentalist madrassahs in Pakistan. It has been fueled by petrodollars from Saudi Arabia, and preached in mosques from Egypt to Indonesia. And it continues to inspire militant groups such as Al Queda, the Taliban, Islamic Jihad, Abu Sayyaf, and many others. . . One's credentials as a "true Muslim" are increasingly based on a willingness to use violence. In just the past year, the walls of buildings throughout northern Pakistan have become hand-scrawled billboards for "jihadi training," complete with phone numbers. And people are calling. WHAT IS TO BE DONE? Economic reform is often suggested as a solution to militancy. The poverty of Afghanistan is taken as a cause for its political instability. It is also said that the unemployed youth turn to religious extremism for comfort. The poverty-radicalism thesis fails at both the level of the individual and at the level of the society. The 19 hijackers that attacked the World Trace Center were not poverty stricken. Osama bin-Laden is a millionaire. The militants are better educated and often originate from middle class backgrounds. Poor societies are not the hotbed of militants. Bangladesh and Niger are not their breeding ground. Instead, the militants are most likely to be found in the oil rich Middle Eastern countries. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers who crashed into World Trade Center Towers were Saudi nationals. Economic reform is good but it will not lead necessarily to moderation: building factories will not reduce the appeal of religion. Fareed Zakaria, an Indian Moslem with the Newsweek calls radical Islam Aan armed doctrine,@ a term that he borrowed from Edmund Burke. ALike other armed doctrines before it-- fascism for exampleBit can be discredited only by first being defeated.@ When Hitler scored military victories, he was much admired. Many children in Europe and Latin America were named after him. When Nazism suffered defeat, Hitler was maligned and the children were given new names. Bin Laden understands the aura of victory: AWhen people see a weak horse and a strong horse, by nature they prefer the strong horse.@ He claimed that he, bin Laden, was the stronger horse (Newsweek, December 24, 2001, 23-28). America=s war against militant Islam will embolden moderate Muslims to stand up and be counted. The quick eradication of the bin Laden network in Afghanistan has emboldened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 10
President Musharraf of Pakistan to move boldly against militants in his own country. Musharraf would not have undertaken such a risky a venture prior to 9/11. In the changed environment, he feels encouraged. The moderate Islamic intelligentsia has begun to speak up against extremism. In a recent article the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto openly attacked militant Islamists in her country. The clock has begun to turn. Much work remains to be done. It is not over till it is over. A MESSAGE Unitarian members in this congregation are tolerant in religion. They believe in pluralism; they believe that every religion should be respected. My background teaches me similar values of tolerance and respect for different religions. I believe that tolerance is good, but it must not lead to appeasement or passivity. Tolerance must not mean that I am tolerant of someone else=s intolerance. The challenge of radical Islam is global. It affects all of us, including moderate Muslims. You cannot dismiss the conflict between Hindus and Muslims or between Jews and Muslims as ancient hatreds in distant lands. The 9/11 attack on WTC shows that radical Islam is here. The problem of radicalism and militancy will not go away until dealt with. As a first step we scholars have the responsibility to open up radical Islam for critical examination. We must throw the light of reason on radical Islamic theology and its history of imperialism. All extremist ideologies have been scrutinized and exposed, including slavery, the Inquisition, apartheid, fascism, Nazism, colonialism, imperialism, and recently communism. Only radical Islam avoids exposition. I do not foresee a war of civilizations as described by Huntington. I do see a challenge to civilization from religious extremism. I have focused in this article on the threat posed by militant Islam. Religious extremism exists in many countries including the United States. Extremism in all forms whether it originates in Christianity, Hinduism or Islam must be fought everywhere. (Population estimates for different civilizations are provided in an Appendix). BIBLIOGRAPHYSamuel P. Huntington, AThe Clash of Civilizations,@ Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993, 22-49. A shorter version appears in New York Times, June 6, 1993. Bernard Lewis, Atlantic Monthly, September 1990 V. S. Naipaul, Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey, Knopf, 1981.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 11
Daniel Pipes, In the Path of God: Islam and Political Power, Delhi, Voice of India, 2001. Vincent Smith, The Oxford History of India, Delhi, 1985. Smith derives his account of Sultan Mahmudâs raids in India from the account written by Alberuni, the Islamic scholar who traveled with Sultan Mahmud to India. Ram Swarup, Hindu View of Christianity and Islam, Delhi, Voice of India, 1992. Arnold Toynbee, The World and the West, Oxford University Press, 1953. Bat Ye=or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1996. Appendix: Population Estimates for Different Civilizations (2001) (Derived from Population Reference Bureau Data Sheet) Millions Western United States 285 Canada 31 Europe 460 Australia and New Zealand 24 Total Western 840 Latin America 525 Western including Latin America 1,325Slavic Russia 145 E. Europe and the Balkans 115 Total Slavic 260Hindu 800Islamic Middle East incl Iran 210 South Asia 400 Southeast Asia 220 Central Asia 80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 12
Northern Africa 175 Total Islamic 1,085Confucian 1,200 Japan 127 Sub-Saharan Africa 670 World 6,137FOR OTHER ARTICLES ON THE WEB, VISIT: www.uwf.edu/lgoelAsian Americans Religious Tolerance and Hinduism China Threat--A View from India Indo-American Relations in a New Light A Few Observations on Japanese Culture and Politics The God of Small Things--A Review The Myth of Aryan Invasions of India Sri Aurobindo on the Indian Epic Ramayana Sri Aurobindo on the Future Role for India On Human Unity
Clash of civilizations - Guest - 08-07-2004
M. Thimma had posted this link on BR some time ago..
Human Development Report 2004 - PDF file
They dont like the concept that there is anything like "clash of civilisations" and their agenda is to prove it.
Clash of civilizations - acharya - 08-25-2004
Name of the Book Decolonizing the Hindu Mind âIdeological development of Hindu Revivalism
Author Koenraad Elst
Publisher Rupa & Co. , New Delhi
Year 2001
Pages 657 + xvii
Price Rs 595 (HB)
Reviewed By Ayub Khan
In the past decade Belgian scholar Koenraad Elst has emerged as the most prominent advocate of Sangh Parivar in the West. His vociferous defence of the Hindu right is equally matched by his rabid attacks on Islam. In order to escape being branded a bigot he follows a route, which is much popular among anti-Muslim writers these days. He insists: ânot Muslims but Islam is the problem.â (See Koenraad Elst review of Thom Blom Hansenâs The Saffron Wave). Elstâs commitment to the Sangh Parivar can be gauged from the fact that he unabashedly defended it even as the fires of Gujarat were still raging last year. (See Elstâs Dr.Hathawayâs Patronizing Conclusions published at Rediff.com). Such is his importance in Hindutva circles that L.K.Advani quoted him at length while deposing before the Liberhans Commission investigation the demolition of Babri Masjid. Based on his PhD thesis Elstâs Decolonizing the Hindu Mind is a study of the history and ideological development of the extremist Hindutva movement, which he prefers to call âHindu Revivalism.â
In this book Elst tries to promote a humane face of the Hindutva fanatics while at the same time indulging in polemical attacks on Islam and Christianity. He rejects the charges of fascism, fundamentalism, extremism, etc. lobbed against the Hindu supremacist movement, instead opting for the voguish ârevivalism.â It is Elstâs contention that the Muslims along with British were also colonizers of the Hindu civilization and that Nehruvian secularism and Islam are two major adversaries that are obstructing the revival of Hindu religion. Hindu thought he argues is finally coming on its own after âcenturies of being under the shadow of Islam and Christianity.â
This ârevivalismâ is not a recent phenomenon but began in the early stages of the British rule of India by groups like Arya Samaj and Brahmo Samaj under the leadership of influential reformers like Vivekananda, Dayananda Saraswati and Swami Shraddhanand. . Nor is this revivalism limited to those within the Sangh Parivar or other similarly oriented organizations. According to Elst âthe most interesting formulations of Hindu revivalist thought have been provided by individuals outside the said organizations, from Bankimchandra Chatterjee and Sri Aurobindo to Ram Swarup , Sita Ram Goel and their younger friends.â (p.584)
While charting the history of this movement Elst relies almost exclusively on sources associated with Hindu groups giving only partial and that too mostly negative consideration for the other viewpoints. He writes that Arya Samaj leader Shradhhananda became active in Shuddhi work only after discovering Dai-e-Islam , the so-called âsecretâ pamphlet of Khwaja Hasan Nizami, which called upon Muslims to engage in Dawah work. Elst doesnât mention the fact that the activities of Khwaja Hasan Nizami and other luminaries of the Tabligh/Tanzeem movement were a reaction to the massive conversion efforts of Arya Samaj and not vice versa. The Dai-e-Islam was not a âsecretâ pamphlet but was distributed widely in the public. The year 1923 alone, in which it was first published, saw three editions of the book. By 1925 it has already seen its fifth edition. Does any book that was supposed to be secret, ever published on such a massive scale? Additionally Elst doesnât mention that there were similar allegations of a âsecretâ Shuddhi book from the Muslim side. Tabligh leader Ghulam Bhik Nairang had claimed that the Kashmiri ruler Maharaja Ranbir Singh had commissioned a 21-volume Hindi encyclopaedia by the name of Ranbir Karit Prayaschit Mahanibandh (Ranbirâs Great Essay on Repentance), which suggested strategies for converting to the Hindu-fold many neo-Muslim communities in India. This encyclopaedia was alleged to have been secretly circulated among prominent Hindus so that the Muslims remain unaware of the plot. An unbiased scholar should have mentioned this allegation as well but may be that is too much to expect from a person like Elst.
One cannot but help notice Elstâs attempts to whitewash the horrible heritage of the Hindutva movement. He defends RSSâ less than patriotic record during the freedom movement by creating lame excuses. Hence RSS founder Hedgewar kept his outfit away from Gandhian agitation âpartly for safety reasons, not to endanger the young sapling, and partly because he had a metapolitical project in mind.â (p.145) We have often read this infamous statement of Golwalkar from his book We,Our Nationhood Defined: âFrom this standpoint, sanctioned by the experience of shrewd old nations, the foreign races in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverance Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e. of the Hindu nation, and must lose their separate existence to merge in Hindu race; or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment- not even citizenâs rights.â Elst explains it way away as a âjuvenile mistakeâ on part of Golwalkar and that he (Golwalkar) himself withdrew it and that a majority of Hindu nationalists have never read it. One only needs to look at the statements of current RSS chief Sudarshan where he routinely asks Muslims and Christians to Indianise (read Hinduise) to realize the falsity of this argument.
If we are to believe Elst, the Bharatiya Janata Party is more secular than other parties and that RSS is Boy Scouts like organization whose members think that it deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for their âconstructive work.â (p.155) According to him BJP has outdone even the Congress and other secularist parties in reaching out to the Muslims. He criticises the BJP ministers for not introducing even an ounce of Hindutva when they are in power. They are simply too nice. (p.245). They have gone soft and are acting like the âsecularists.â The growing militancy of Parivaris is simply not good enough for him. He is pained by the token gestures that BJP makes towards Muslims. Downplaying RSSâ shrewd tactics he says it is a âbig dinosaur in a small brain.â (p.234) He is exasperated with the RSSâ culture of âanti-intellectualismâ and argues that other parties profit from this scenario. A glaring omission from the book is the analysis of RSSâ propaganda machinery. It is really surprising how Elst could miss the Sanghâs masterful use of catchy slogans, provocative art and inflammatory rhetoric. The RSS is anything but innocent when it comes to propaganda but Elst blissfully ignores it. Anyone with some familiarity with the Sanghâs tactics knows that all these gestures of goodwill towards Muslims are just a façade to mask its real dangerous intentions and to gain acceptability in the populace. Elst himself hints towards this when he writes that the shift from âHinduâ to âIndianâ in the formation of BJP was not due to conviction but to fear. (p.158) At another place he admits that âanti-Muslim feelings are hiding just beneath the surface of Muslim-friendly statements.â (p.362)
While the Sangh is hiding its anti-Muslim feelings Elst is more forthcoming in his animosity towards Islam and Muslims. He is smitten by the age-old biases about Islam. Two fanatical writers namely Sita Ram Goel and Ram Swarup shape his views on Islam. A careful study of these pseudo-historians indicates that there is nothing original in their works. They have just recycled the old orientalist works with the addition of inflammatory comments. For Elst however these two characters are heroes and whose books all Hindu revivalists should read. He says that the Islamic civilization did not create any substantial contribution in the development of India and there is nothing special about the Indo-Saracenic architecture. He says that Muslims did not work towards the elimination of caste-system in India but only preserved it. He falsely claims that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) never enjoined class equality. (p.398) Obviously he has not read the last sermon of the Prophet (SAW). Elst narrates with relish the myth about the execution of 900 Jews at the order of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in Madina without realizing that this has been debunked long time ago by classical Islamic scholars like Ibn Hajar and Imam Malik and recently by Barakat Ahmed in an article in The Journal of The Royal Asiatic Society. Similarly other arguments made by messrs Sita Ram Goel etc have been refuted but Elst would care less. In the bizarre world of Elst and his Hindutva fellow travellers Islam is to be blamed for all the ills of the Indian society as well as the world. From child marriage, caste inequalities to violence and poverty.
In his maniacal zeal Elst hopes for a similar destruction of Islam as had happened to Communism. He wants the Parivar to concentrate more in attacking the Islamic belief systems. He writes: âBut the implosion of Soviet Communism has alerted people to the possibility that giants on clay feet can crumble surprisingly fast, and in particular, that Pakistan and the rest of the Islamic world may soon see the collapse of their dominant ideology from within.â (p.591) It looks like he needs a refresher course in world history. Islam has survived much more destructive scenarios (civil wars, Mongol invasion, dismantling of the Caliphate, etc) in its history than the one it is currently facing. If Elst and his fellow daydreamers think that they can destroy Islam by indulging in pedestrian attacks they are simply fooling themselves.
With regards to Indian Muslims Elst once again repeats the many urban myths that they are a pampered lot, always start riots, are multiplying at an alarming rate etc. If these claims are true then why are Muslims still so down trodden and impoverished ? In discussing the alleged Indian Muslim power to ban books Elst makes a patently false claim. He says that Richard M.Eatonâs Sufis of Bijapur is banned in India because in it âa few marginal sentences casts an unfavourable light on the Sufi tradition.â (p.318) According to Dr.Richard Eaton this book was never banned. As a matter of fact when the book went out of print with its original publisher, Princeton University Press, it was picked up by Munshiram Manoharlal in New Delhi and is still available from them.
Elst accuses other India watchers of not meeting any Hindutva leaders in their research while at the same time he himself has not interviewed any Muslim to get his viewpoint. Not one Muslim, not even the BJP ones, figures in his long list of people that he has interviewed. His hostility towards the Muslims is evident when he describes the mild-mannered Syed Shahahbuddin as a âproverbial fanatic.â Compare this with that of Elstâs description of Advani whom he calls a âsoft-spoken gentlemanâ who had tears in his eyes when his vandals destroyed the Babri Masjid. Expectedly Advaniâs tears were shed not at the demolition of the Babri Masjid but at the âbreakdown of RSS discipline.â (p.175)
Regarding Babri Masjid Elst continues his blame game by pointing fingers towards Narasimha Rao and V.P.Singh. He writes: âI was told at the BJP office that Prime Minister V.P.Singh had suggested to Advani that he create some public opinion pressure on the Government concerning Ayodhya. That way, V.P.Singh (who rejected the claim that the disputed building was a âmosqueâ) could explain to his Muslim supporters that in the face of such mighty pressure, he would be unable to keep his promise to give them the disputed site. So, possibly that is how the BJP decided to have the Rath Yatra.â (p.174) V.P.Singh has always denied this charge.
With regards to Narasimha Raoâs governmentâs involvement in the demolition of the Babri Masjid Elst writes: âConsider the matter from his (Narasimha Raoâs) viewpoint: as long as the âmosqueâ (for the BJP, âthe disputed structureâ; for commentator Girilal Jain, âthe non-mosqueâ) was standing, the BJP could use it as a rallying-point, a visible âsign of national humiliation imposed by the invader Babarâ kept in place by the âpseudo-secularistâ Congress Government. On the other hand, if the building was demolished in a BJP-related action, this could be used against the BJP and the whole Hindu movement, viz.as a reason to dismiss the BJP state governments and ban the Hindu mass organizations. This is at any rate what effectively happened; the Ayodhya theme was killed as a BJP vote-getter, and the BJPâs march to power was temporarily reversed.â (p.175)
Apart from Muslim bashing Decolonizing the Hindu Mind throws up some interesting sides notes as well. For example that one of the nieces of L K Advani converted to Islam and married a Muslim man with his blessings. According to Gurudatt Vaidya, a prominent Arya Samaji,Jana Sanghi, Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, Jan Sangh leader, died of a heart attack in his prison cell because he ate two chickens against his doctorâs orders. So much for Sanghâs advocacy of vegetarianism.
In short Elst is a very useful writer for the Parivar even though he admits that the relationship has soured because of his criticism of RSS. But despite that it appears that the Parivar is taking him seriously. The very selective appointments of Sangh oriented individuals in scientific, educational, cultural and literary councils, and attempts to re-write the history, aggressive campaigns against Muslims and other minorities, all indicate that slowly but surely Elstâs recommendations are being implemented. The relationship between the two is mutually beneficial. The Parivar gets a seasoned and ardent advocate for its agenda in the West and Elst (a self confessed apostate from Christianity and one whose sole source of income is writing) gets an ideology to hold on to, apart from the material benefits that come along with it.
Clash of civilizations - acharya - 08-26-2004
About The Name "Hindu"
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/about_the_name_Hindu.htm
By Stephen Knapp
I feel there needs to be some clarification about the use of the words âHinduâ
and âHinduism.â The fact is that true âHinduismâ is based on Vedic knowledge,
which is related to our spiritual identity. Such an identity is beyond any
temporary names as Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or even Hindu. After all, God
never describes Himself as belonging to any such category, saying that He is
only a Christian God, or a Muslim God, or a Hindu God. That is why some of the
greatest spiritual masters from India have avoided identifying themselves only
as Hindus. The Vedic path is eternal, and therefore beyond all such temporary
designations. So am I calling the name âHinduâ a temporary designation?
We must remember that the term âhinduâ is not even Sanskrit. Numerous scholars
say it is not found in any of the Vedic literature. So how can such a name truly
represent the Vedic path or culture? And without the Vedic literature, there is
no basis for âHinduism.â
Most scholars feel that the name âHinduâ was developed by outsiders, invaders
who could not pronounce the name of the Sindhu River properly. Some sources
report that it was Alexander the Great who first renamed the River Sindhu as the
Indu, dropping the beginning âSâ, thus making it easier for the Greeks to
pronounce. This became known as the Indus. This was when Alexander invaded India
around 325 B.C. His Macedonian forces thereafter called the land east of the
Indus as India, a name used especially during the British regime.
Later, when the Muslim invaders arrived from such places as Afghanistan and
Persia, they called the Sindhu River the Hindu River. Thereafter, the name
âHinduâ was used to describe the inhabitants from that tract of land in the
northwestern provinces of India where the Sindhu River is located, and the
region itself was called âHindustan.â Because the Sanskrit sound of âSâ converts
to âHâ in the Parsee language, the Muslims pronounced the Sindhu as âhindu,â
even though at the time the people of the area did not use the name âhinduâ
themselves. This word was used by the Muslim foreigners to identify the people
and the religion of those who lived in that area. Thereafter, even the Indians
conformed to these standards as set by those in power and used the names Hindu
and Hindustan. Otherwise, the word has no meaning except for those who place
value on it or now use it out of convenience.
Another view of the name âHinduâ shows the confusing nature it causes for
understanding the true essence of the spiritual paths of India. As written be R.
N. Suryanarayan in his book Universal Religion (p.1-2, published in Mysore in
1952), âThe political situation of our country from centuries past, say 20-25
centuries, has made it very difficult to understand the nature of this nation
and its religion. The western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to
trace the true name of this Brahmanland, a vast continent-like country, and
therefore, they have contented themselves by calling it by that meaningless term
âHinduâ. This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use by any of our
Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It seems that political
power was responsible for insisting upon continuous use of the word Hindu. The
word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian literature. Hindu-e-falak means âthe
black of the skyâ and âSaturnâ. In the Arabic lan
guage Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful and ridiculous to have read
all along in history that the name Hindu was given by the Persians to the people
of our country when they landed on the sacred soil of Sindhu.â
--------------------
Article:
About The Name "Hindu"
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/about_the_name_Hindu.htm
By Stephen Knapp
I feel there needs to be some clarification about the use of the words âHinduâ
and âHinduism.â The fact is that true âHinduismâ is based on Vedic knowledge,
which is related to our spiritual identity. Such an identity is beyond any
temporary names as Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or even Hindu. After all, God
never describes Himself as belonging to any such category, saying that He is
only a Christian God, or a Muslim God, or a Hindu God. That is why some of the
greatest spiritual masters from India have avoided identifying themselves only
as Hindus. The Vedic path is eternal, and therefore beyond all such temporary
designations. So am I calling the name âHinduâ a temporary designation?
We must remember that the term âhinduâ is not even Sanskrit. Numerous scholars
say it is not found in any of the Vedic literature. So how can such a name truly
represent the Vedic path or culture? And without the Vedic literature, there is
no basis for âHinduism.â
<b>Most scholars feel that the name âHinduâ was developed by outsiders, invaders
who could not pronounce the name of the Sindhu River properly. Some sources
report that it was Alexander the Great who first renamed the River Sindhu as the
Indu, dropping the beginning âSâ, thus making it easier for the Greeks to
pronounce. This became known as the Indus. This was when Alexander invaded India
around 325 B.C. His Macedonian forces thereafter called the land east of the
Indus as India, a name used especially during the British regime.</b>
Later, when the Muslim invaders arrived from such places as Afghanistan and
Persia, they called the Sindhu River the Hindu River. Thereafter, the name
âHinduâ was used to describe the inhabitants from that tract of land in the
northwestern provinces of India where the Sindhu River is located, and the
region itself was called âHindustan.â Because the Sanskrit sound of âSâ converts
to âHâ in the Parsee language, the Muslims pronounced the Sindhu as âhindu,â
even though at the time the people of the area did not use the name âhinduâ
themselves. This word was used by the Muslim foreigners to identify the people
and the religion of those who lived in that area. Thereafter, even the Indians
conformed to these standards as set by those in power and used the names Hindu
and Hindustan. Otherwise, the word has no meaning except for those who place
value on it or now use it out of convenience.
Another view of the name âHinduâ shows the confusing nature it causes for
understanding the true essence of the spiritual paths of India. As written be R.
N. Suryanarayan in his book Universal Religion (p.1-2, published in Mysore in
1952), âThe political situation of our country from centuries past, say 20-25
centuries, has made it very difficult to understand the nature of this nation
and its religion. The western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to
trace the true name of this Brahmanland, a vast continent-like country, and
therefore, they have contented themselves by calling it by that meaningless term
âHinduâ. This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use by any of our
Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It seems that political
power was responsible for insisting upon continuous use of the word Hindu. The
word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian literature. Hindu-e-falak means âthe
black of the skyâ and âSaturnâ. In the Arabic lan
guage Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful and ridiculous to have read
all along in history that the name Hindu was given by the Persians to the people
of our country when they landed on the sacred soil of Sindhu.â
<b>Another view of the source of the name Hindu is based on a
derogatory meaning. It is said that, âMoreover, it is correct that this name
[Hindu] has been given to the original Aryan race of the region by Muslim
invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author, the word means slave,
and according to Islam, all those who did not embrace Islam were termed as
slaves.â (Maharishi Shri Dayanand Saraswati Aur Unka Kaam, edited by Lala Lajpat
Rai, published in Lahore, 1898, in the Introduction)</b>
Furthermore, a Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari,
published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of the word Hindu as âchore
[thief], dakoo [dacoit], raahzan [waylayer], and ghulam [slave].â In another
dictionary, Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat (Part One, p. 615) the Persian meaning of the
word Hindu is further described as barda (obedient servant), siafaam (balck
color) and kaalaa (black). So these are all derogatory
expressions for the translation of the term hindu in the Persian label of the
people of India.
<b>So, basically, Hindu is merely a continuation of a Muslim term that
became popular only within the last 1300 years. In this way, we can understand
that it is not a valid Sanskrit term, nor does it have anything to do with the
true Vedic culture or the Vedic spiritual path. No religion ever existed that
was called âHinduismâ until the Indian
people in general placed value on that name and accepted its use.</b>
The real confusion started when the name âHinduismâ was used to
indicate the religion of the Indian people. The use of the words âHinduâ and
âHinduismâ was used frequently by the British with the effect of focusing on the
religious differences between the Muslims and the people who became known as
âHindusâ. This was done with the rather successful intention of creating
friction among the people of India. This was in accord with the British policy
of divide and rule to make it easier for their continued dominion over the
country.
However, we should mention that others who try to justify the word
âHinduâ present the idea that rishis of old, several thousand years ago, also
called central India Hindustan, and the people who lived there Hindus. The
following verse, said to be from the Vishnu Purana, Padma Purana and the
Bruhaspati Samhita, is provided as proof, yet I am still waiting to learn the
exact location where we can find this verse:
Aaasindo Sindhu Paryantham Yasyabharatha Bhoomikah
MathruBhuh Pithrubhoochaiva sah Vai Hindurithismrithaah
Another verse reads as: Sapta sindhu muthal Sindhu maha samudhram
vareyulla Bharatha bhoomi aarkkellamaano Mathru bhoomiyum Pithru
bhoomiyumayittullathu, avaraanu hindukkalaayi ariyappedunnathu.
Both of these verses more or less indicate that whoever considers the land of
Bharatha Bhoomi between Sapta Sindu and the Indian Ocean as his or her
motherland and fatherland is known as Hindu. However, here we also have the real
and ancient name of India mentioned, which is Bharata Bhoomi. âBhoomiâ (or
Bhumi) means Mother Earth, but Bharata is the land of Bharata or Bharata-varsha,
which is the land of India. In numerous Vedic references in the Puranas,
Mahabharata and other Vedic texts, the area of India is referred to as
Bharata-varsha or the land of Bharata and not as Hindustan.
Another couple of references that are used, though the exact
location of which I am not sure, includes the following:
Himalayam Samaarafya Yaavat Hindu Sarovaram
Tham Devanirmmitham desham Hindustanam Prachakshathe
Himalyam muthal Indian maha samudhram vareyulla
devanirmmithamaya deshaththe Hindustanam ennu parayunnu
These again indicate that the region between the Himalayas and the
Indian Ocean is called Hindustan. Thus, the conclusion of this is that all
Indians are Hindus regardless of their caste and religion. Of course, not
everyone is going to agree with that.
Others say that in the Rig Veda, Bharat is referred to as the
country of âSapta Sindhuâ, i.e. the country of seven great rivers. This is, of
course, acceptable. However, exactly which book and chapter this verse comes
from needs to be clarified. Nonetheless, some say that the word âSindhuâ refers
to rivers and sea, and not merely to the specific river called âSindhuâ.
Furthermore, it is said that in Vedic Sanskrit, according to ancient
dictionaries, âsaâ was pronounced as âhaâ. Thus âSapta Sindhuâ was pronounced as
âHapta Hinduâ. So this is how the word âHinduâ is supposed to have come into
being. It is also said that the ancient Persians referred to Bharat as âHapta
Hindâ, as recorded in their ancient classic âBem Riyadhâ. So this is another
reason why some scholars came to believe that the word âHinduâ had its origin in
Persia.
Another theory is that the name âHinduâ does not even come from the
name Sindhu. Mr. A. Krishna Kumar of Hyderabad, India explains. âThis
[Sindhu/Hindu] view is untenable since Indians at that time enviably ranked
highest in the world in terms of civilization and wealth would not have been
without a name. They were not the unknown aborigines waiting to be discovered,
identified and Christened by foreigners.â He cites an argument from the book
Self-Government in India by N. B. Pavgee, published in 1912. The author tells of
an old Swami and Sanskrit scholar Mangal Nathji, who found an ancient Purana
known as Brihannaradi in the Sham village, Hoshiarpur, Punjab. It contained this
verse:
himalayam samarabhya yavat bindusarovaram
hindusthanamiti qyatam hi antaraksharayogatah
Again the exact location of this verse in the Purana is missing, but
Kumar translates it as: âThe country lying between the Himalayan mountains and
Bindu Sarovara (Cape Comorin sea) is known as Hindusthan by combination of the
first letter âhiâ of âHimalayaâ and the last compound letter ânduâ of the word
âBindu.ââ
This, of course, is supposed to have given rise to the name âHinduâ,
indicating an indigenous origin. So people living in this area are thus known as
âHindusâ.
So again, in any way these theories may present their information,
and in any way you look at it, the name âHinduâ started simply as a bodily and
regional designation. The name âHinduâ refers to a location and its people and
originally had nothing to do with the philosophies or religion of the people,
which could certainly change from one thing to another. It is like saying that
all people from India are Indians. Sure, that is acceptable as a name referring
to a location, but what about their religion, faith and philosophy? These are
known by numerous names according to the various outlooks and beliefs. Thus,
they are not all Hindus, as many people who do not follow the Vedic system
already object to calling themselves by that name. So âHinduâ is not the most
appropriate name of a spiritual path, but the Sanskrit term of sanatana-dharma
is much more accurate. The culture of the ancient Indians and their early
history is Vedic culture. So it is more appropriate to
use a name that is based on that culture for those who follow it, rather than a
name that merely addresses the location of a people.
Unfortunately, the word âHinduâ has gradually been adopted by most
everyone, even the Indians, and is presently applied in a very general way, so
much so, in fact, that now âHinduismâ is often used to describe anything from
religious activities to even Indian social or nationalistic events. Some of
these so-called âHinduâ events are not endorsed in the Vedic literature, and,
therefore, must be considered non-Vedic. Thus, not just anyone can call
themselves a âHinduâ and still be considered a follower of the Vedic path. Nor
can any activity casually be dubbed as a part of Hinduism and thoughtlessly be
considered a part of the true Vedic culture.
Therefore, the Vedic spiritual path is more accurately called
sanatana-dharma, which means the eternal, unchanging occupation of the soul in
its relation to the Supreme Being. Just as the dharma of sugar is to be sweet,
this does not change. And if it is not sweet, then it is not sugar. Or the
dharma of fire is to give warmth and light. If it does
not do that, then it is not fire. In the same way, there is a particular dharma
or nature of the soul, which is sanatana, or eternal. It does not change. So
there is the state of dharma and the path of dharma. Following the principles of
sanatana-dharma can bring us to the pure state of regaining our forgotten
relationship with God. This is the goal of Vedic knowledge. Thus, the knowledge
of the Vedas and all Vedic literature, such as Lord Krishnaâs message in
Bhagavad-gita, as well as the teachings of the Upanishads and Puranas, are not
limited to only âHindusâ who are restricted to a certain region of the planet or
family of birth. Such knowledge is actually meant for the whole world. As
everyone is a spiritual being and has the same spiritual essence as described
according to the principles of sanatana-dharma, then everyone should be given
the right and privilege to understand this knowledge. It cannot be held for an
exclusive group of people.
Sanatana-dharma is also the fully developed spiritual philosophy
that fills whatever gaps may be left by the teachings of other less
philosophically developed religions. Direct knowledge of the soul is a
âuniversal spiritual truthâ which can be applied by all people, in any part of
the world, in any time in history, and in any religion. It is eternal.
Therefore, being an eternal spiritual truth, it is beyond all time and worldly
designations. Knowledge of the soul is the essence of Vedic wisdom and is more
than what the name âHinduâ implies, especially after understanding from where
the name comes.
Even if the time arrives in this deteriorating age of Kali-yuga
after many millennia when Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and even Hinduism (as
we call it today) may disappear from the face of the earth, there will still be
the Vedic teachings that remain as a spiritual and universal truth, even if such
truths may be forgotten and must be re-established again in this world by Lord
Krishna Himself. I doubt then that He will use the name âHindu.â He certainly
said nothing of the sort when He last spoke Bhagavad-gita.
Thus, although I do not feel that âHinduâ is a proper term to
represent the Vedic Aryan culture or spiritual path, I do use the word from time
to time in this book to mean the same thing since it is already so much a part
of everyoneâs vocabulary. Otherwise, since I follow the Vedic path of
sanatana-dharma, I call myself a sanatana-dharmist. That reduces the need to use
the label of âHinduâ and also helps focus on the universal nature of the Vedic
path. Therefore, I propose that all Hindus begin to use this term
sanatana-dharmist, which not only refers to the correct Sanskrit terminology,
but also more accurately depicts the true character and spiritual intention of
the Vedic path. Others have also used the terms sanatanis or even dharmists,
both of which are closer to the real meaning within Vedic culture.
Clash of civilizations - Guest - 11-02-2004
America's Current Predicament - Subhash Kak
Clash of civilizations - Guest - 11-24-2004
An interesting take on the "clash of civilizations" by George Thundiparambil on Sulekha..
Faith, Civilization and Eurocentric Racism
Clash of civilizations - Guest - 11-25-2004
Reg the name given to the Country , in Doordarshan they call not India but Bharat.For ex , in tamil DD they say "bharatha arasu" meaning GoI.
Clash of civilizations - Guest - 02-05-2005
Gill saheb disagrees with Huntington. In essence i think what he is trying to say (or maybe its the way i understand this) is that as long as religion (dogma) holds centrestage the clash is a reality but if dogma fails then there is no clash. But what if reason itself becomes dogma ? or dogma becomes reason ?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Fight dogma with reason
KPS gill
If the US National Intelligence Council's projections for year 2020 (in its report Mapping the Global Future) are to be believed, the global war on terror is not going all that well. Future prospects remain fraught with danger and uncertainty for a fairly long time to come. "Over the next 15 years," the report asserts, "religious identity is likely to become an increasingly important factor in how people define themselves."
And again, "Radical Islam will have a significant global impact... rallying disparate ethnic and national groups and perhaps even creating an authority that transcends national boundaries." The report goes further on to project a "fictional scenario" of the emergence of a "New Caliphate", that could "present a serious challenge to the international order" though it may not be "entirely successful".
Clearly, Samuel Huntington's thesis of the "clash of civilisations" continues to exert very significant influence on the imagination of American strategic planners and intelligence analysts. The danger here is that, if as crucial a player in the international arena as the US continues to be driven by this paradigm, it could well produce the circumstances for its partial and devastating realisation. The "clash of civilisations" thesis has elements of a self-fulfilling prophecy - the more we believe in it, the greater the probabilities of its realisation.
The strategies of the "war against terrorism" in the current global context will have to be far more complex than has been the case in the recent past, particularly in ensuring that the counter-terrorism response to Islamist extremist terrorism does not translate into a campaign against Islam itself, or against Islamic communities. Regrettably, the images being carried across the "Muslim world" appear to suggest widespread belief that the community and the Faith are themselves under siege.
The exception to this broad stream of responses is India itself, which has long been targeted by a Pakistan-backed terrorist movement that has sought to claim an Islamist justification. Aberrations apart, India has been extraordinarily successful in separating its counter-terrorist response from the administrative and psychological orientation towards the larger community itself. Indeed, this has been the Indian experience against religious-identity-based insurgencies and terrorist movements in the past as well.
The 1984 riots notwithstanding, the Indian constitutional order and the narrow targeting of the terrorists in Punjab - compounded by rising atrocities by the Khalistani terrorists against the Sikhs themselves - eventually ensured the collapse of the terrorist movement in that State. Similar trends are visible in Jammu & Kashmir, where a combination of disenchantment with the terrorist enterprise and Pakistan's opportunism and abuse of the Islamic identity for its own strategic ends, as well as the high proportion of fatalities inflicted on Muslims by the terrorists have drastically eroded the recruitment base of the Islamist separatists.
Extremist, insurgent and terrorist movements based on religious identity - and not just on the Islamist identity - need to be understood in the peculiar contexts within which they are currently being provoked. These are, in essence, reactions against modernity, symptoms of a distress provoked by trends towards modernisation within stagnant communities, of the social and moral confusion resulting from the challenge to the supremacy of the fundamentalist line of thought that has long been propagated uncontested in many countries, as well as in many sub-cultures within larger and sometimes pluralistic communities.
The violence of the Islamist response is, in fact, an index of the fears and frustration at the realisation that the ways of thought and of life the fundamentalists favour are losing popularity, and that they have, themselves, become a minuscule minority within Islam. Under the circumstances, the only way to reassert their supremacy - even if temporarily - over the larger community, is by developing organisations like the Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the multiplicity of violent Islamist groupings that have proliferated across the world.
This, precisely, is also what had happened among the supporters of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale in the Punjab, as extremist elements within the enormously tolerant community and essentially pluralistic Faith found their narrow and bigoted interpretations of the tenets of Sikhism being rejected by the larger community. The result was a Khalistani terrorism that, crucially, overwhelmingly targeted members of their own community - more than 65 per cent of all civilians killed by the terrorists were Sikhs. So indeed, is it the case in other religious identity based movements. In J&K more than 85 per cent of all civilian casualties inflicted by terrorists are among Muslims.
The crisis is the more urgent and is intensifying among Muslims, as the community spreads into Europe and the Americas and comes face to face with the complex realities of modern societies, modes of production and lifestyles. Even more subversive has been the impact of the spread of contemporary technologies of communication - most significantly, television and the internet - that have resulted in the near complete dismantling of state constructed barriers to information flows, and have exposed hitherto isolated societies to new ways of life and thought. These trends have been enormously subversive of all orthodoxies, and have inspired fear and immense insecurity among fundamentalists of all faiths and in all societies - and not just in the "Muslim world". Today, radical and sometimes violent orthodoxies are gaining strength among most of the other major Faiths of the world as well - Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism, even pacifist Buddhism (for instance, in Sri Lanka) have created radicalised minorities who seek to impose their intolerant and exclusionary vision on reluctant others.
What is not sufficiently appreciated among those who are analysing contemporary conflicts is the fact that all great reformist Faiths of the world - including Islam - have been infinitely subversive in their origins. They destroyed prevailing orthodoxies long before they were themselves corrupted to be transformed, in turn, into a new orthodoxy. This truth contains the seeds of the inevitable destruction of the contemporary fundamentalist reassertion. Even as fundamentalist violence - both against "external enemies" and against their own communities - escalates, their agenda and actions are coming under increasing scrutiny and increasingly from members of their own Faith. If these inherent propensities are to be strengthened, counter-terrorist thought and strategy will have to extricate itself from its bloody obsession with daily body counts (though, regrettably, this must remain the quotidian business of the bulk of counter-terrorist forces on the ground) to understand that the current conflict is essentially a contest of ideas, and the modern world - with all its unquestionable flaws and inequities - is on the right side of history. The revanchist movements based religious dogma can claim transient control of the global centrestage only through violence.
Long years ago, Teilhard de Chardin had espoused the idea of the "noosphere", a "planetary thinking network" - an interlinked system of consciousness and information, a global net of self-awareness, instantaneous feedback, and planetary communication. With the internet and contemporary communication technologies, this "planetary network" has, in substantial measure, been realised, and is being constantly exploited, both by the forces of liberty and by its enemies. It is through the strengthening of these integral and global interconnectivities, through their continuous and deeper penetration into the recesses of poverty and dispossession among marginalised populations, through, crucially, a radical investment in and reform of education, that a final victory will be shaped. What most frightens bigots and fundamentalists across the world is the progress of science which destroys the irrational myths that underpin the cosmology of religions, and puts the power of knowledge into the hands of the people, robbing the professional interpreters of the Faith of their cabalistic powers. This, then, is the weapon that will secure the eventual victory of reason and science over dogma and violence.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clash of civilizations - dhu - 06-23-2006
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->January/February/March, 2006
BOOK REVIEWS
What if Rome's Pagan Religion Had Prevailed?
An persuasive book explores the repercussions of Christianity's ascendency in ancient times
By Tara Katir, Kapaa, Hawaii
<b>God against the gods: the history of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism</b> is the latest from the pen of Jonathan Kirsch, author, journalist and attorney. In this book, Kirsch details the earliest historical conflicts of monotheism and polytheism as they occurred in ancient Europe, North Africa and the Middle East up to the death of Emperor Julian on June 26, 362 ce. His contention is that from its first historical appearance in ancient Egypt, monotheism has been an intolerant belief system. Monotheism's intolerance created conflicts then, and it continues to create conflicts that plague us today. Westerners who take pride in their monotheistic belief's bringing "civilization " to those of polytheistic customs may find Kirsch's analysis sobering and disconcerting.
Over thousands of years, recounts Kirsch, human cultures have worshiped a host of diverse Gods and Goddesses. This polytheistic worship of the Divine, while not totally benign, historically did not create conflict between neighboring peoples. As Symmachus, a pagan governor of the fourth century ce declared, "What does it matter by which wisdom each of us arrives at truth?" (See his entire speech in defense of paganism at url With this flexible posture toward worship of the Divine, little conflict would arise between worshipers of different Gods and Goddesses. Kirsch asserts, "The core value of paganism was religious tolerance--a man or woman was at liberty to offer worship to whatever God or Goddess seemed most likely to grant a prayerful request, with or without the assistance of priests and priestesses." However, in a small geographical area of the Western world an event occurred which presaged a change in humans' personal relationship to the Divine. This development would set in motion what was to become a devastating polarization of enormous proportions--all in the name of divine worship.
In the fourteenth century bce, a young Egyptian pharaoh, Amenhotep IV, through the power of his absolute rule, commanded the Egyptians to worship but one God. This revolutionary move to restrict worship of the Divine to one God would set the stage for what was to become a 3,000 year bloody and acrimonious conflict over how human beings worshiped. "Like Moses [who lived a century later], who is shown in the Christian Bible to condemn the worship of a golden bull and other graven images, Amenhotep rejected all the traditional icons of paganism and chose a simple geometric shape to symbolize the God Aton." Amenhotep repudiated all the Gods and Goddesses in favor of a single God. No idols were fashioned in Aton's image because his was a form that could not be imagined; rather Aton was symbolized by a circle of gold. Amenhotep closed all temples to other deities and had their ritual worship suppressed. Statues were shattered and their names and images literally chiseled off existing monuments. While his radical religious practices were short-lived, the ultraist paradigm shift he initiated would be practiced in the extreme by a legion of believers in this new monotheistic worship.
Monotheism, in its exclusive devotion to the worship of one God, has inspired a ferocity and fanaticism that are mostly absent from polytheism, says Kirsch. He explains, "At the heart of polytheism is an open-minded and easygoing approach to religious belief and practice, a willingness to entertain the idea that there are many Gods and many ways to worship them. At the heart of monotheism, by contrast, is the sure conviction that only a single God exists, a tendency to regard one's own rituals and practices as the only proper way to worship the one true God. The conflict between these two fundamental values is what I call the war of God against the Gods. It is a war that has been fought with heart-shaking cruelty over the last thirty centuries, and is a war that is still being fought today."
In our world today, Islamic tradition is easily targeted as the origin of religious terrorism or religious fanaticism. Kirsch points out, that, <b>to the contrary, "It begins in the pages of the Bible, and the very first examples of holy war and martyrdom are found in Jewish and Christian history. </b>The opening skirmishes in the war of God against the Gods took place in distant biblical antiquity, when Yahweh is shown to decree a holy war against anyone who refuses to acknowledge Him as the one and only God worthy of worship." Biblical myth turned to recorded history with the Maccabeean warfare waged against the pagan Syrian king and later, when the Zealots fought against the pagan emperor of Rome.
Kirsch gives readers the derivation of the word pagan, which helps us understand how truly acrimonious this warfare was in the past and remains today. Derived from the Latin paganus, pagan originally meant someone who was a country bumpkin, or a village dweller. The Roman military used pagan to denote a civilian as distinguished from a soldier ready to fight. Kirsch explains, "The Christian rigorists regarded themselves as soldiers, ready to march forth as crusaders in a holy war, and they characterized anyone who refused to take up arms in the service of the Only True God as a civilian, a slacker, a paganus."
Kirsch also provides readers with the historical usage definition of the word atheist. "Ironically, the word atheist was first used by pagans to describe Christians because they denied the very existence of the Gods and Goddesses whom the pagans so revered. What to Christians was as an act of conscience, the pagan saw as an act of disloyalty and disrespect. All that was required of them was some simple demonstration of their civic virtue."
This rigorism--extreme strictness in enforcing religious belief and practice--was not always expressed through self-discipline or self-affliction. Kirsch explains that rigorism is possible only when men or women become so convinced of their version of truth that it becomes a matter of life or death. <i>"<b>Turning inward, </b>rigorism may inspire a true believer to punish himself by holding back a bowel movement </i>or feeding himself on raw vegetables [examples from hermits of early Christianity]. <b>Turned outward,</b> however, rigorism may inspire the same man or woman to punish others who fail to embrace the religious beliefs that he or she finds so compelling. Rigorism in one's beliefs and practices can readily turn into the kind of zealotry that expresses itself in unambiguous acts of terrorism. The very first use of the word zeal in the Bible is used to describe God's approval of an act of murder, one Israelite murdering another Israelite and his Midianite lover."
In the modern world, rigorism or religious terrorism, inexplicably has been carried out by monotheists against other monotheists--all followers of the Abrahamic religious traditions, Muslims, Jews and Christians. "The worst excesses of the Crusades and the Inquisition were inflicted by Christians on Jews and Muslims, all of whom claimed to believe in the same God. But the first casualties in the war of God against the Gods were found among those tolerant polytheists whom we are taught to call pagans." Rigorists today are found a plenty--Christian fundamentalists who murder physicians who perform abortions, Islamic suicide bombers who murder innocent people in public places, Afghani Taliban extremists who blasted apart the 1,600-year-old Bamiyan Buddhist statues, Catholic and Protestant extremists in Northern Ireland bombing one another--to name only a few.
Kirsch focuses on the reign of Emperor Julian, the last polytheistic emperor of Rome. Historically called "The Apostate " because of his conversion from Christianity to Paganism, Julian issued a tolerance edict in 362 decreeing the reopening of pagan temples and the restitution of temple properties. This was in stark contrast to his predecessor, Constantine I, who legalized Christianity and suppressed paganism. In the end, monotheism's final triumph at the death of Emperor Julian in battle with a Christian army was not so much a spiritual defeat of polytheism, but rather the political success of monotheism. Kirsch states, <b>"They were both driven as much by grudges and grievances as by true belief, and <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>intimate family politics mattered as much as the wars and conspiracies in which they were engaged." </b></span>Julian's life was ended by a spear thrust two years into the pagan counterrevolution of his reign. Kirsch and other historians have speculated what our world would be like today if Julian had lived and succeeded in "bringing the spirit of respect and tolerance back into Roman government and thus back into the roots of Western civilization, and even more tantalizing to consider how different our benighted world might have been if he had succeeded."
<b>Once in control, Christianity spread across Europe with a vengeance. </b>Kirsch writes of Christian monks who, in the third century ce, "Urged on by the most militant of the bishops, took it upon themselves to search for and destroy any expression of paganism that they could find. They delighted in pulling down altars, smashing statuary and ruining shrines and temples. They set upon any unfortunate man or woman whom they suspected of engaging in pagan rituals of worship."
At the end of Kirsch's book, I was compelled to conclude that little had been accomplished during this 3,000-year conflict of monotheism versus polytheism, which often segued into political gain. <b>And nothing had been gained by the creative and grim techniques of torture, warfare and missionary zeal--usually masquerading as educational opportunity and social aid--</b>to effect change in those whose worship of the Divine was somehow unacceptable. The monotheistic origins of this proclivity Kirsch outlines; yet what readers may ponder is the appalling ferociousness of the killing--all in the name of God. Ending with a chronology of events, a list of major historical figures, bibliographic notes for each chapter and an extensive biography, the book invites readers to research for themselves monotheism's virulent struggle for supremacy over polytheism.
Jonathan Kirsch, God against the Gods--the History of the War between Monotheism and Polytheism, Penguin Putnam Group Publisher, 375 Hudson Street, New York, New York 10014; US$25.95; 336 pages.
http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2006...d_against.shtml<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clash of civilizations - Guest - 06-29-2006
<b>Terrorism, Fundamental Islam, and Darwinian Evolution </b>
Posted Sep 30, 2001 in BiologicalEvolution forum
(From http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1 )
In spite of all assertions and explanations by its members, Islamic culture cannot and will not accept Western values, ethics, attitudes and Western social-political standards and practices. These are plainly and clearly competitive evolutionary threats to the survival of fundamental Islamic faith and culture, to the whole-hearted devotion to it. Western culture thus invokes Islamic terrorism, to counter this offensive threat to its survival and to its proliferation.
Islamic institutions and orgasnizations, wherever they are, by inherent Islamic cultural devoutness, are either cooperative with fundamental centers or practically controlled by them.
By basic evolutionary survival instinct Muslims declare and play-act tribute to things Western wherever/whenever they have to or when it gains them respite or an advantage. They rightly rely on the tragic naive mistaken assumption of Westerners who take it for granted that everyone, e v e r y o n e, thinks Western and believes Western and has Western morals/ethics....which is of course not the case.
We are witnessing a classical Darwinian evolution scenario of groups' survival competition between Cultures, ways of life, values and attitudes. At the present phase of the struggle Western Culture, off-guard in its pathetic and tragically naive relevant attitudes and assumptions, allows and enables the uncompromising competitive Fundamental Islamic Culture to take root and grow in its midst unsupervised and uncontrolled thus self-fostering its own clearly upcoming adversities.
This threat will no more cease and disappear from Western Society than an unopposed cancer ceases and disappears from a functioning living tissue, and it would be even more painful and disrupting, socialy/economically, to overcome this threat than for a living tissue to overcome a cancer.
------------------
Oct 1, 2001 ,
Ed Evans: Dov, you write: >By basic evolutionary survival instinct Muslims declare and play act tribute to things Western wherever/whenever they have to or when it gains them respite or an advantage.<
There's some serious error in Cartesian Dualism in your words. You're trying to tell us that a metaphysical ideology "evolved"?
-------------------
Dov: Dear Ed, What I am telling you re why/how fundamental Islamic terrorism evolves and grows is based on my 77 years of life experience, since my birth and childhood among Muslims.
Re the philosophic aspects and the Dualism doctrine:
1) I report barely my observations of the behaviour of subjects.
2) I confess that I do not know anything about Cartesian Dualism.
3) Yes, I do regard Human social and cultural aspects as a bio-media that evolves in terms of Darwinian evolution.
DH
Clash of civilizations - Guest - 07-28-2006
(1)PS 2 July 2006
The pathetic and tragically naive Western attitudes assumptions are displayed even today, in Israel, by quite a few Israeli Jews of various convictions/hopes/precepts.
-----------------
(2)PS 22 July 2006
What Is Western Culture
Per my concept "Western culture" is the ongoing dynamically evolving science-informed culture, tinted with aspects of a variety of regional/national/group/religious backgrounds. Its essential characteristic is a continuous flexible adaptation to ever evolving science-informed findings-comprehensions, with various degrees and modes of concurrent dismissal or modification of group's traditional supernatural cultural phenotypic aspects.
------------------
(3)PS 28 July 2006
TV debate re fndmntl Islam vs Wstrn mentalities
Here it is, if you have'nt seen it yet...
> http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=...1050wmv&ak=null
Clash of civilizations - Guest - 01-30-2007
London debate at YouTube