Let Shiva’s Holy Lingam come back to Mecca before we talk of syncretism

Interesting thread on Ayodhya with Ms. Gogoi, who is a Nehruvian.

Since Hazrat Asia is still in hiding my natural empathy for Pak, Islam & the Mughals is on the ebb. I won’t forgive Pakistan for this until they disproportionately compensate her and her family publicly for this illegal sentencing

I use to be like Ms. Gogoi arguing for the Mughal and Muslim legacy in South Asia. But these matters aren’t really very difficult to solve; let Hindu gods, rituals and ceremonies creep back into Muslim Holy Sites.

While I was waiting for last night’s podcast (which is proving to be very popular mA) to start I was listening to some nice Urdu music (to curate for the Sherbert Socialites) and listened again to Afreen Afreen. To be honest it’s not my cup of tea (I was especially moved by Kapil Sharma’s rendition of a sad Punjabi folk melody; the Persian in me yearns art to be always melancholic, tragic & nostalgic) but the first line in it is about the spectacular caves of Ajanta. I was a bit taken aback but the only way forward for a true Decolonisation of the Subcontinent is bringing back syncretism on both sides (Shiva Lingams have a place in Allah’s Abode before Mohammed smashed the idols).

16 thoughts on “Let Shiva’s Holy Lingam come back to Mecca before we talk of syncretism”

  1. I wish you would stop bringing Pakistan into what are India’s internal issues. Pakistan’s treatment of Aasia Bibi or the Blasphemy Law in general really has nothing to do with a formally secular state allowing a minority place of worship to be destroyed. It is possible for two things to be wrong at the same time.

    As for Shiva lingams in Allah’s abode, it is for Muslims to decide what is acceptable in their religious spaces.

    1. Pakistan is a good example of a Muslim-majority state.

      If Muslim minorities demand the rights of a liberal democracy then they must show that they can extend same rights to their dhimmis/kafirs

      1. No. “Hazrat” is a term used only for religious figures. You cannot impose your standards on other people.

        Your “empathy” for Pakistan seems to have changed to distaste. How about trying to remain objective?

          1. “Saintly” is going a bit too far.

            Anyway, mixing Pakistan’s internal problems with the destruction of a mosque in a supposedly secular state doesn’t make much sense to me. I’m done here because I don’t want to keep responding to increasingly anti-Pakistan remarks. Cheers.

          2. innocent, saintly, truth , etc are over the top. She is simply caught up in a primitive socio-legal system which shows no sign of getting better.

        1. // No. “Hazrat” is a term used only for religious figures. //

          That is untrue for both Arabic (hædhræh) and Urdu. It simply means “present” or “presence”, as in “eminent presence”.

          “Hazrat” shares the same Semitic tri-root as “huzur” and “haazir”. E.g. an Urdu sentence “hamein nahiN malum, lekin in hazrat ko shayad pata ho ki ye train kahan jaati hai” is perfectly valid and nobody would accuse the speaker of blasphemy/impropriety if spoken in quotidian usage.

          1. That was not the context in which Zack was using the term. “Hazrat Aasia” is going way too far. She is not an religious figure or a saint, though she has been treated shamefully by the Pakistani legal system.

        2. By the way, hazrat is NOT reserved for religious figures. In fact it is now fairly common to describe both the Kashmiri poet Iqbal Lahori and the Gujrati politician MA Jinnah as “Hazrat Allama Iqbal” or “Hazrat quaid e azam”. It is also used semi-facetiously on the street as “hazrat”, so there is really no need to create a new blasphemy category about misuse of the term “hazrat”..

          btw, Zachary, the common “wedding song” version of ChiRiya da chamba (sung commonly at Mehndi ceremonies) is closer to the one by Musarrat Nazir: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVCHV8vyg0o

          1. I was not trying to create a new blasphemy category. I have mainly heard “hazrat” applied to prophets and other religious figures.

            In any case expecting people to use “Hazrat Aasia” while calling the Prophet of God by his first name seems a bit contradictory. But to each his own.

  2. Gogoi is assamese i suppose. They are neo-hindus/ “cultural” hindu in that sense, so the ethnic part of their identity leans heavy (like bengalis,mallus, tamils etc), so its not surprising that she hardly understands Hinduism/hindutva.

    Also more knowledgeable, non north indian folks hardly get the Ram temple movement ( statements like “whole movement was also manufactured, until the 80s nobody even cared”,
    “Has any credible proof been presented to prove that a temple did exist in the place” shows how much she “knows”) , so its not a surprise that she doesn’t get it either. Similar to how north Indian hindus doesnt get Sabrimala either. Its understandable.

    1. Even if a temple did exist, there is never any excuse to tear down a minority place of worship. Not in a secular state.

Comments are closed.

Brown Pundits