Bombay Badshah is on vanvas. He earned it. He posted, in passing, personal details of another commenter, which he should never have been examining. He was warned, apologised, and is now serving his time in the forest. Lord Ram took Sita and Lakshman with him for fourteen years. BB is taking the IPL and Dhurandhar reruns for ten days. The proportions are different. The principle is the same. You leave the city when you have offended its order.
This is not a defence of him. It is the opposite. BP must be a safe space for reader, commenter and author. Privacy is the precondition of opinion. If a person cannot post under a handle without a hostile interlocutor looking them up, the room collapses into a lower kind of theatre. We do not run that kind of room.
Engrained Hinduphobia
But his exile is also the moment to say the thing we have been postponing. Hindus on this site have a real grievance, and it has accumulated because the language of liberal discourse equips one side of the argument with a vocabulary the other side does not have. Islamophobia is an institutional word. Hinduphobia is still scratching at the door. The asymmetry shapes every thread:
The grievance is theological in form and racial in substance.
The theological form is the easier half. Mainstream Sunni doctrine treats murti puja as the gravest category of sin, and in the popular register that judgement bleeds from the act onto the actor. The Hindu sits awkwardly inside the classical Islamic categories. The Christian and the Jew are People of the Book. The Hindu had to be argued in. The Quran names Lat, Uzza and Manat, the three Daughters of God whose intercession was admitted into the recitation and then revoked. We have written about this. We stand by it. The Satanic Verses are not so Satanic.
For our part, we are flexible on the metaphysics. God may have daughters, God may have sons, God may have a family, God may have none of these. The doctrine does not stand or fall on the family tree. Intense Hindufication have made us comfortable with a Monotheistic Creator God who keeps company.
Hindustani Classical & the goddess Saraswati
The proof that the animus is racial and not only doctrinal is in the music. Hindustani classical opens with an invocation to the great goddess Saraswati.
The raag system is built on temple time. Bismillah Khan, the greatest shehnai player of the twentieth century, played at the Kashi Vishwanath temple as a daily devotional act and refused to leave Banaras even when offered the world. Bade Ghulam Ali Khan sang to Krishna. The Dagar brothers traced their lineage to Tansen, who took his ragas from Swami Haridas in Vrindavan. Most of the great gharana ustads were converts or descendants of converts within living memory. They knew exactly whose floor they were singing on, and they did not flinch. The doctrine was no obstacle to a Muslim genius bowing to Saraswati. Something else is.
The Ashraf Inheritance
That something else is the Ashraf inheritance. The animus is often concentrated in the descendants, real or claimed, of Turkic, Persian and Afghan settlers who took local wives, ruled the plains for several centuries, and were then displaced. They inherited the racialised contempt of the apex coloniser for the colonised soil. The British, who came next, did not invent this hierarchy. They calibrated it.
The Bengali Muslim solved this by indigenising. He kept his Bengali, his rivers, his rice, his Tagore, and his Nazrul. The Urdu-speaking Ashraf did not. He continued to look upward toward a forlorn Mughal court that, incidentally, conducted its business in Persian and treated Urdu itself as a bazaar tongue. The Mughals would not have spoken to him in the language he now guards. Pakistan is the Ashraf project nationalised at the level of high culture, which is why its prestige axis is a museum of a court that never quite belonged to it, while its demography remains stubbornly Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtun and Baloch. The high culture and the body of the country are speaking different languages.
Doctrinal exclusion in 2026 is not tenable. Racial contempt dressed as doctrine is less tenable still. The bridge has to be built from both ends.
I keep clarifying that I don’t actually care what non-Muslims believe. They are entitled to practice their own religions however they please. It’s no business of mine.
At the same time, it is a fact that Muslims find polytheism particularly off putting. Christians and Jews are “people of the book” because fundamentally we all believe in one God. Idol worship is something else entirely and the mainstream Muslim will continue to find it absolutely unacceptable.
Anyway, my point was only that criticism of any religion will lead to someone or the other taking offense. The point about women’s rights in Pakistan could have been made without the reference to “The Satanic Verses”. I will admit that I found that line offensive.
On Hindustani Music: In India, invocations to Saraswati are common. We don’t sing those in Pakistan precisely because in a Muslim-majority context, it becomes problematic.
There is actually a long history of “Hinduizing” Hindustani classical music. Pandit Paluskar played a large role in this. Professor Janaki Bakhle has written about this in her book “Two Men and Music”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu_Digambar_Paluskar
My ustad (who was from Bangladesh) taught me compositions that refer to Saraswati and to other gods. I have no problem singing “Saraswati tum sur dayani/tum ho vidya mata bhavani” in Darbari or “Shankara mahadeva deva” in Malkauns. I have been singing these compositions from age 11 onwards. It’s a different matter that such compositions don’t fly in Pakistan and one has to sing alternate ones. The beauty of Hindustani music is that such alternate compositions do exist. Many compositions were written in praise of kings or on neutral topics. For example, one of the standard compositions in Malkauns is “Koyelia bole amva kay daar pay”. No one–either Hindu or Muslim– can possibly have issues with nightingales and mango trees.
Lastly, I think this claim of “racial contempt” doesn’t really hold since Indians and Pakistanis are not racially different. Pakistan is a Punjabi-majority country and Pakistani Punjabis are certainly not racially different from their counterparts across the Radcliffe Line.
I discussed the “Hinduization” of Hindustani music in the following post on BP:
https://www.brownpundits.com/2026/04/28/bhatkhande-the-contradiction-of-musics-modernity/
Perhaps it explains why Hindustani music didn’t graft on in Pakistan?
Not really.
The biggest factor was the migration of the Hindu and Sikh elite for India at Partition. They were the affluent class that supported “high culture”. They were replaced by an equal number of Muslims from East Punjab who were from a different social strata and had different tastes in music.
I’ve discussed all this in detail in my thesis.
Conversely, the artists of some major gharanas migrated to Pakistan at Partition. For example, Ustads Amanat Ali and Fateh Ali Khan moved from Patiala to Lahore. Apparently, the Maharaja of Patiala was encouraging anti-Muslim violence. I was told this by Rustam Fateh Ali Khan (Ustad Fateh Ali Khan’s son). So this is very much a part of their own family history.
And we are talking about people who were court musicians. If even they felt threatened in Patiala, what must the average Muslim have felt?
Why did you find the line offensive?
I think I’ve made this point repeatedly now.
You know very well that Islam is an uncompromisingly monotheistic religion. The whole concept of Allah having offspring is offensive to Islam.
You could have made your point about women’s rights in Pakistan without that reference. It honestly felt gratuitous.
I think when discussing religion (any religion) some sensitivity to what adherents of that religion hold sacred is called for.
Okay, so I am a complete outsider in this conversation, but I feel there are two things that seem to cause a lot of problems in this specific discussion, but also broadly in every post on this blog. I don’t mean to be offensive to anyone.
You (and to be quite frank, everyone here, including me to an extent, I try not to but) have certain experiences with different individuals, and I think kinda you (really everyone) extrapolate it onto the larger categories these individuals fall into. For example, you say that “Muslims find polytheism particularly off-putting. Christians and Jews are ‘people of the book’ because fundamentally we all believe in one God”. This is a natural opinion to have since that is a common mantra used in general discussions and said by some Muslims, except for the fact that this is complicated in the South Asian context. Historically, most Muslim empires in South Asia were mixed in defining who “the people of the book” were, since they even included Hindus in that category. So it is not as straightforward as you are stating it to be. You’re kinda making broad generalizations based on one experience about a broad subject matter. You end up missing a lot of the nuances that exist in these discussions.
The second issue here would be the fact that there are a lot of cultural differences you are not understanding. When you, for example, say that Muslims find polytheists “off-putting”, you are indirectly saying that Indian Muslims find Indian Hindu “off-putting”. I don’t have to explain why that might offend people. Also, I’m pretty sure you unintentionally implied that Hinduism is Polytheistic, which is (from my reading some philosophy) not true due to complex reasons that are kinda long to explain. I feel like I don’t really think you understand how these religions are, since I am somewhat sure that Hinduism or Christianity isn’t a major part of modern Pakistan. Also, both countries share the same ethnic groups, but inhabit different social/political/economic factors that produce different cultural realities. For example, a Sikh Punjabi in India has a different relationship with the government as opposed to a Sikh Punjabi man in Pakistan, even though both individuals are essentially in every aspect. In similar, a Sikh Punjabi Man and Hindu Tamil Women can understand they feeling each have about the government/society in spite of their difference since they live within the confines of the same state.
Again, I am not trying to be offensive here, but there is a lot of issues with broad generalization and clear cultural differences that almost everyone be visibly ignoring in most discussion. In general, people in South Asians seem to not understand a lot hidden details and perspective, which results in feeling offended very often. This spirals into spats and insults.
Excellent comment –
Thanks for your comment. I agree with you that we all have certain biases and preconceptions and we are all guilty of generalizing to some extent.
A few points:
“I feel like I don’t really think you understand how these religions are, since I am somewhat sure that Hinduism or Christianity isn’t a major part of modern Pakistan.”
For the record, I am an American national (I have had to say this repeatedly). I spent all my formative years in the US (from age 6 to age 18).
I understand Christianity perfectly well. I used to sing in the National Cathedral Choir in Washington, DC. I went to church every Sunday. I have the entire Lord’s Prayer memorized. I read an abridged Bible for children at a very young age.
I’m also not unfamiliar with Hinduism. I have studied Hindustani classical music from a young age. I sing Bhajans.
I’m sure it’s a simplification to state that Hinduism is polytheistic and that may not be the case for all Hindus. The point remains that Muslims find the multiple different gods off putting and particularly the worship of idols.
On “people of the book”: This is a doctrine in Islam. It’s not something I made up. Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian or Jewish women without the woman converting. If a Muslim man marries a Hindu woman, she has to convert to Islam.
This is precisely because Islamic law recognizes that Christians and Jews believe in the same prophets that Muslims do and that all three religions believe in essentially the same God–the God of Abraham. The Prophet of God had Jewish and Christian wives. I believe one of them was Maria the Copt. I’m not really familiar with Islamic history since I was raised in a secular family.
Lastly on “spats and insults”– You’re not very familiar with this blog. I have been called an “Islamist” , “Islamofascist” etc. As recently as a month ago, I was directly threatened with violence. So the other side (The “Saffroniate”) is also guilty of causing offense.
Addendum: Razib wrote some years ago on how many scholars believe that Islam was originally an Eastern Christian sect. That post must still be in BP’s archives.
Obviously, believing Muslims will take offense at this theory since we are taught that the Quran is the Word of God and was divinely revealed to the Prophet of God.
However, from an academic viewpoint, this theory does make sense to an extent. It explains why Jesus is the prophet that is most mentioned in the Quran.
Okay, I feel like I should have explained this better. When I said that you don’t understand those religions extensively since it isn’t a major part of Pakistan, I meant that in a different sense. I understand that you grew up in America in your formative years, similar to how I more or less spent about 15 of my first 20 years of life in a non-South Asian country and still do. Nonetheless, my worldview was shaped by my parents and their broader family, whose cultural basis is centred in India, so I naturally am shaped by that worldview even though I didn’t fully inhabit that space for long. Similarly, I would argue that even if you grew up in America, your parents (from what I can ascertain, I don’t mean to pry) who shaped your upbringing grew up within the environment of Pakistan. Even though you were not raised in that enviorment, you are heavily shaped by that culture and you recieve their (the word was looking for that I couldn’t get) “Cultural Subtext”.
What I mean by “Cultural subtext” isn’t like a cultural assumption of sorts, rather it’s an awareness of a specific detail, one that can’t be defined but still shapes your thinking. An example would be the caste and the specific distinction between Jati/Varna. This is a subject that you can, for example, read about in an academic study, but in conversation, people in India (at least) tend to switch between these concepts quite extensively in a manner that can be easily missed if you don’t have that subtext. When I am to discuss the system of caste and its broader geopolitical implications, you probably mainly look at caste through the primarily varnic view, and I would consistently switch from varna to Jati, then back again. So a lot of misunderstanding can form in this discussion, and we both might miss the main point that we are both making.
An anecdotal experience I remember would be the discussion people had about Race. I am aware of how racial hierarchies exist, function, and the implications they have on Western society after reading important sources and hearing people talk about it. Nonetheless, it is kinda hard for me to understand the underlying racial subtext or practical appearances of such practices since the way of social organization that I internalized in my childhood is the system of Caste. I try to find the commonality between caste and race in order to understand Racial subtext in this manner. Another example was how, for the longest period of time, it was for me to understand “Nativism” within right-wing Western politics until I saw a similar trend emerge in Kuwait and Kerala (the places I grew up in). It provided me with a form of nativism that was comprehensive within my worldview and one that supplements my theoretical understanding gained by learning from others and written material.
Now, all these “Cultural subtext” includes a large amount of what I would call “Cultural triggers” that build on the “Cultural subtext”. Like kinda like a metaphor that Slavoj Ziziek said once (I am paraphrasing): everyone is at a wedding anniversary party celebrating a couples 15th anniversary, but I everyone including the couples know they are on the path to a divorce. Everyone talks about this subject in the form of metaphors and subtext convey the information out loud because it would lead to a complete mess of thigs. “Cultural triggers” are kinda like the divorce; it exsists in the background of everyone’s mind (conciously or unconsciously), but don’t say it out loud or else it will a lot make a mess of things since it is very sensitive subject that should be handled with care.
My point should be getting somewhat clear, although I am still having a hard time explaining this. You (I include everyone and myself, I am not trying to single you out here or such thing) tend to say a lot of things that have very specific cultural subtext and touch, let’s say, very touche “Cultural triggers”/subject matter. Most of it seems to be unintentional, but it still leads to a lot of extreme emotional responses. Mind you, I am not trying to excuse either the “Saffroniate” (whoever that includes) or the reverse in how they discuss things, but I feel like the indirect subtext further amplifies a negative response. I would like to provide an example of “Cultural trigger”, but it’s something that is more innate in nature, thereby making it hard to describe, and something that would be intuitively recognized. God, I feel like I wrote poorly enough that this sounds like gibberish.
As a side note, I don’t believe that Islam was a sect of Eastern Christianity. I would argue that Islam is more an extension of the pre-Islamic Arabian religion in a similar fashion to Neo-paganism, kinda being an extension of modern Christendom. In more specific terms, the Neo-pagan movement started kinda of as an effort to revive the old “pagan” religions, but it also wanted to oppose the broader values within the common Christian worldview. So Neo-paganism ended up rejecting a lot of Christian elements (including pagan aspects syncretized into Christianity) when forming their belief system, but they still ended up being shaped by Christianity in an inverse manner. Islam seems to have followed a similar path, rejecting major aspects of the original religion.
Mind you, I am not denying that Christianity and Judaism existed in the region, naturally having an influence on the formation of Islam. At the same time, I remember an academic figure (I forgot the finer details since it’s been a while) who mentioned that Judaism and Christianity in Arabia were kinda unique to the region of sorts. Like these religions were extreme offshoots (often considered heretical) of their original mainstream counterparts, which is kinda why many of the Jewish and Christian references in the Quran don’t align with mainstream parts of the religions that existed contemporaneously. These religions might have syncretized with the pre-exsisting arab religions. This isn’t an area of interest or expertise, so I might be missing a lot of information.
This is post-worthy btw
Thanks for your comment.
I agree with your argument about “Cultural Subtext”.
But I will clarify that even though my parents grew up in Pakistan, they were both well aware of Christianity. The upper middle classes of Pakistan used to send their children to Catholic schools since those were the best educational institutions around. My mother went to the Convent of Jesus and Mary and my father went to St. Anthony’s. My mother recalls doing catechism and saying the Lord’s Prayer. She was taught by Irish nuns.
This “Cultural subtext” also obviously applies to the “Saffroniate”, There is a lot of reflexive Islamophobia that occurs on this site (not as much now as a few months ago). I have personally been called an “Islamist”, “Islamofascist” etc– not so much because of my religious views but because this is a go-to insult for a Pakistani nationalist. So the other side needs to introspect as well.
This is why it is better not to criticize anyone’s religion. If it has to be discussed, religion has to be discussed in an academic and sensitive manner.
On Islam being a sect of Eastern Christianity: I believe this was Patricia Crone’s thesis.
Obviously, Muslims are taught to believe that our religion was divinely revealed. The Jews and Christians had stopped following Allah’s religion the way He wanted so he had to send down a new prophet in order to correct the religion. Islamic belief is that Islam is the final revelation and that it is for all times and places. There can be no prophethood ever again.
However, from a historical point of view, it makes sense that Islam grew out of–or at least was strongly influenced by–Christianity. It has been pointed out that Jesus and Mary are mentioned prominently in the Quran.
I think this is a good comment and I also agree with most of what you have said.
I do want to state that ‘Idol worship’ IS against Islamic (and Christian/Jewish) tenets and Hinduism is classically a religion of idol worship. I have stated this before that I don’t think Hinduism is a religion but a group of seperate pagan traditions combined by a somehwat common mythologies that the Brahmins believed in. In that sense, Hinduism is similar to Greco-Roman or Norse religions.
While high level Hindu and Buddhist philosophies are excluded, the common folk religion classified as Hindu today is most definitely considered ‘idol worship’ by the Abrahamic religions who have a fundamental disdain for this. Both Christians and Muslims in their early developmental phase were heavily persecuted by ‘idol worshippers’ for spreading the universalist message so the rebuke is built into their basic tenets .
HOWEVER, Muslims in South and South East Asia have cultural familiarity with Hinduism that Western and West Asian Christians/Jews/Muslims do not. This cultural similarity and inheritance, is why Muslims in these regions mostly do not care who Hindus worship in their temples and their homes. The Sufi strain in Islam was also very syncretic and did not seek to rebut Hindu religion or promote rebellion against Hinduism or Hindu tradition in new converts to Islam, rather than just bring people to accept Islam. Politically as well, as you note Hindus were granted the status ‘people of the Book’, Buddha and Krishna were considered messengers of God by many, to bring Hinduism into the Islamic legal framework.
This type of acceptance for Hindus is simply not there in the West. There is a reason why open display of idol worship in places like US seem to invite contempt from Christians and a lot of hate for Hindus. The Jews see Hindus with disdain for idol worship and the hardline strains of West Asian and Middle Eastern Islam does as well. One of the reasons why I think Indian foreign policy aligning with US/Israel/GCC will fail spectacularly in the long term.
It is unfortunate how Hindutva today has exploited anti idol worship tenets in ‘Abrahamic’ religions (and their historical usage at some times during war) to completely subvert the history of last 1,000 years and poison the Hindu-Muslim relations that developed organically in South Asia. However it appears that the course we have taken is now irreversible.
I think there is a lot of missing information here. For one, Christianity isn’t about iconoclasm, and it isn’t even a subject matter that’s discussed in length by anyone, since you know icons/idols are a part of churches. I can only think of one person who cared about iconoclasm: the Byzantine emperor Leo III the Isaurian and his ban on religious symbols. Even this was closer to a rare anomaly than the norm; hell, witchcraft and magic were discussed more than idols.
Also, the closest religion to the Greco-Roman and Norse religions is Christianity. The main conflict between the Roman state and the early Christian community was more centred around the cult of the emperor. Specifically, during the early days of the Roman Republic, it was considered a taboo for a ruler to deify themselves into a god, and there were multiple bans. As the empire started to get going, the early emperors, like (well, dictator) Julius Caesar and Augustus, created the cult of the god-emperors where they deified themselves. Naturally, Christianity came into conflict with this practice, eventually resulting in its persecution. At the same time, the Roman state purged many groups as well, like the Manicheans, the mystery cults of Greek and Roman gods such as Dionysus, the Jews, etc., so Christianity wasn’t a specific group.
Over time, Christianity syncretised with the Roman religion quite extensively and absorbed a lot of its practices. For example, the bread and wine offering in Christian religious ceremony harks back to a similar offering made by ordinary Romans to their gods in the old days. The churches have received donations in a fashion like votive offerings at Roman temples. The same thing happened with the Norse religion, including the hymning that is used in churches in Europe today, which stems from styles of hymning in the old religions. So, the boundary between Christianity and the old religions was more porous than people, it even extended into philosophy, as Neoplatonism was a major influence on early Catholic theology.
Also, your point, America, is kind of off since they aren’t exactly religious in the traditional sense. For one, Christianity has been declining over the years alongside the rise of a highly atheistic population, and even those who identify as religious tend to be more “spiritual”. Also, most of them don’t authoritatively follow their religion and generally are highly selective about practices. The church these days serves more as a community centre. Even then, idol worship isn’t a major point of discussion, and I am pretty sure the hardcore followers hate all religions that aren’t Christianity, including Islam.
Also, I agree with your point that Hindus were given the status of “People of the Book”, but I think there is a lot of missing information. For one, Hinduism isn’t a collection of traditions since they have very overarching theological ideas and clear denominational divides. There are roughly three main divisions within the broader denominations: Vaishnavism, Shaktism, and Shaivism. Many of the major traditions roughly fall into one of these strands; for example, the Tamil population is closely interrelated to Murugan, who seems to be distinct from other traditions, but Murugan (or Mahasena) is a part of the Shaivite branch. Similarly, Manasa is a major part of Bengal’s religious landscape, but she is a part of the Shakta tradition. Shaivism holds to a complex theology centred around the theme of self-sacrifice, while Vaishnavism holds to a theology of self-surrender, and Shaktism isn’t usually a hybrid crossover between these two theological ideas. There are layers here, but that would require a complex examination of Tantra, Bhakti, Ritualism, and other themes, which takes too long.
As a side note, you order in reverse: the Brahmanical groups within the Hindu religion tend to be closer to literal Idol worship in contrast to the non-Brahmanical groups that don’t hold that belief. A good example is the Lingayat community (a non-Brahmanical group), who are the most organized Shaiva sect and explicitly know for unflinching monotheism as well as iconoclasm.
Lastly, Hindutva is more complicated than just the issues with Idols since there is a lot of class, caste, and other intersections that play a bigger role, which takes too long to explain. I don’t know what the opinion of Jews is about Idols. Although I feel like the term ” idol worship” is vague here, what does this mean exactly? Is it the literal seeing of idols as gods, and how do icons (symbols of divinity) that representations of god fit in here? Also, do you define idolatry as a purely physical phenomenon, or would it have psychological elements?
1) I don’t agree with your take on Christianity, since you are conflating Catholic iconography with being pagan. This is what the Jews and a lot of literalist Muslims do, but the fact is that Christianity (including Cathloicism) still is a monotheist universalist religion that was pretty anti-polythiesm. It eliminated all pagan religions from Europe (including Greco Roman, Norse, Celtic, Slavic paganism). There was early syncretism and the Church adopted a lot of pagan practises wholesale to accept converts, but after seizing power, pagans were often persecuted by the church and it’s chirstian kingdoms. Cultural practises were absorbed (which is common everywhere) but almost all other gods were destroyed. Then came the Reformation, which made Christians even more puritan.
This is completely different than what happened in India w.r.t Islam, infact not even close. Islamic rulers often allied with Hindus and even provided patronage to temples which is why Hinduism continued to thrive even in core areas of Muslim rule.
2) Yes — understood ‘Hinduism’ is complex and diverse, but you cannot claim that Hinduism is one religion and then claim completely different and opposite and conflicting ideologies to encompass it and then say that this is because Hinduism accepts everything. If it accepts everything, it is not a religion.
There are two ways non-hindus see Hinduism:
a) They categorize what they see. They see ‘Hindus’ worshipping different gods in the form of idol worship, they categorize this as idol worship. This is the layman view because laypeople don’t get into the details, they believe what they see.
b) They try to understand the differences in different strains of Hindu philosophies, and they find that these are seperate religions entirely – some idol worship and some not.
There is very little difference between core beliefs in Christianity, or core beliefs in Islam. So from this vantage point, Hinduism cannot be seen as one religion with completely different set of beliefs. Obviously you will not agree, I’ve seen many Hindus even argue that Buddhism and Sikhism are just part of Hinduism, despite those two explicitly stating they are not, so this is a dead-end argument.
3) When Christians or Muslims become irreligious, they don’t suddenly start accepting paganism or pagan practises. Europe has turned mostly atheist and yet it did not restart it’s pagan religions. Even most neo-pagans in Europe are just larping, they are just atheists who think they can reconnect to their roots by cosplaying as pagans.. actual historical pagans believed in their gods and their powers.
This is why I don’t think Americans leaving religion will make them more tolerable to paganism, especially a form of paganism practised by a non-white race that is successfully replacing many of them at the top.
4) The export of Western philosphies of individualism, marxism, feminism, democracy is related to the white man’s burden and directly stems from Christian culture and it’s universalist message to export and impose it’s ideas on others, while Islam’s continued resistance towards these ideals is Islam’s way of resisting it.
5) Jews consider everyone as ‘idol worshipper’ apart from themselves and Muslims. In their theology, the Jews are the chosen people, the Muslims are goys (dumb cattle), and the idol worshippers are either to be taken slaves or not worthy of life. Since they never had any real power over a multi-ethnic and multi religious empire, their worldview is very black and white, powered by their own militant conservativism which came about as a survival mechanism to preserve their identity in exile. They have absolutely no nuance.
I don’t rate them highly.
I think Q is one of those pretending to sleep but his points need to be addressed —
Hinduism is one religion precisely because of its polymorphic view of the divine: all gods, avatars, and forms are manifestations (saguna Brahman) of the single, formless ultimate reality (nirguna Brahman). The tradition explicitly teaches that the same infinite Brahman appears in countless forms for the sake of devotees—just as light refracts into many colors yet remains one source. Nirguna paths (Advaita, certain bhakti and jnana streams) go straight to the root object, Brahman itself; saguna paths simply use the manifestations as valid, temporary ladders. This is not “accepting everything indiscriminately”; it is a coherent philosophical framework that recognizes multiple valid routes to the identical goal.
The outsider’s layman critique—“they worship idols, so it must be polytheism”—is the same superficial gaze that would misread Catholicism as “polytheism” for praying to Mary and saints for intercession, or subcontinental Muslim practice as “grave worship” for the widespread dargah veneration of Sufi saints and the reverential handling of the physical Quran as a sacred locus of divine presence. In each case, the devotee is not confusing the form with the ultimate; the form is a sanctioned bridge to the formless. Hinduism simply makes this layered reality explicit and doctrinal rather than embarrassed about it. Diversity of expression does not fracture the religion; it proves its sophistication.
You cannot equate Christianity with Hinduism. This is not a serious argument.
Christianity is very clear that there is only one God. Christians believe in the Ten Commandments. As I mentioned on another thread, the first commandment is literally “I am the Lord your God. Thou shalt have no other God before me”.
The notion of the Holy Trinity does not negate monotheism. God has three forms: the father, the son and the holy ghost.
That said, Islam does consider Christianity to be insufficiently monotheistic because for us Allah cannot have a son. The Quran is very clear on that.
I am not clear on the finer points of Christian doctrine (though I used to go to church every Sunday when I sang with the National Cathedral Choir) but from an outside perspective it is very confusing that Christ is at the same time God and God’s son.
Whatever the finer points of Hindu philosophy, Muslims see idols being worshiped. We find that viscerally offensive.
Idol worship is the worst possible thing in the monotheistic worldview. That’s just a fact.
Of course, Hindus are entitled to do whatever they want. But you can’t pretend not to understand why Muslims are disgusted by idol worship.
Whatever the finer points of Hindu philosophy, Muslims see idols being worshiped. We find that viscerally offensive.
Idol worship is the worst possible thing in the monotheistic worldview. That’s just a fact.
Of course, Hindus are entitled to do whatever they want. But you can’t pretend not to understand why Muslims are disgusted by idol worship.
Wow! Cannot believe a self-confessed Left-Liberal would use this language for another religion. Then again, good to keep having my priors confirmed and reinforced everyday.
I literally wrote that Hindus are entitled to practice their religion however they like.
Muslims are also entitled to feel the way we feel. Idol worship is something we find offensive on a visceral level.
Why do you even care what Muslims think about you?
Since you like calling out other people’s reading comprehension, this is a case where you should examine your own.
You and Q seem to be under the illusion that Dharmic/Hindus like me want to be accepted into “monotheism” club and that you guys are the gate keepers. I am reiterating our core view of ultimate reality and refuse your opportunistic straw manning of our traditions.
You are (deliberately?) misunderstanding what I’m saying.
I have explicitly written that Hindus are entitled to believe in and do whatever they want. It’s not my concern.
At the same time, Muslims have the right to feel the way we feel about idol worship. For us, it is literally the most disgusting thing anyone can do.
It is a core part of our tradition that the Prophet Abraham destroyed the idols in the Kaaba.
Anyway, I’m not here to get into a long religious discussion on this. So feel free to have the last word.
**Whatever the finer points of Hindu philosophy, Muslims see idols being worshiped. We find that viscerally offensive.**
**Of course, Hindus are entitled to do whatever they want. But you can’t pretend not to understand why Muslims are disgusted by idol worship.**
Sorry, this is full blown Hinduphobic.
Why?
You have no right to tell other people how to feel. My feelings are not in your control.
Idol worship disgusts me. It disgusts all believing Muslims.
The point is that this doesn’t need to matter to you.
I don’t care if you call me “Hinduphobic”. You can do it every day for all I care. You’ve made many comments on here demonstrating that you are an anti-Muslim bigot. So we’re in the same boat.
Well, there is a different connotation behind “Idol worship” in the socio-political context of India that doesn’t exist in non-Indian countries. Historically, the term “Idol worship” has been used to disenfranchise Hindu populations and even destroy religious structures, whose impact is felt to this very day. Also, the term is very general, and you have not fully clarified what you mean by Idol worship; is it the use of religious iconography, or would it be people believing the idols are divine in and of themselves?
A comprehensive example from the Indian side would be the Hindu Vaishnava, stating that they find non-vegetarian food disgusting and find the choice made by non-vegetarian individuals morally wrong. On the surface, it is fundamentally an opinion that can be held by a person irrespective of others’ opinions. However, vegetarianism has been historically used in a manner that disenfranchised people of lower caste groups, more heterodox sectarian views, and members of other religions. This context transforms a mere opinion into a subtextual support of conservative political practices that often persecute other groups, even if you don’t support such a position. There is also the issue that these statements exsist in a grey area between free speech and a dog whistle for prejudice.
Grave worship and saint worship actually straddles the line pretty closely bewteen monotheism and polytheism. The argument given is that the saints are simply intercessionary due to their esteemed status in the eyes of God, and that appealing to them to intercede on behalf of themselves in front of God is acceptable. However the big difference is the theology behind it, even those venerating the saints know they are powerless and will not be able to do much.
This concept usually always straddled between monotheism and polytheism since the peasants often ascribed supernatural powers to the saints themselves independent of God.
The first time I travelled through rural Sindh, I realized that many people, often the non-literate sections of society, were Muslims in name but practised polytheism. It was different than Hindu polytheism but they most certainly ascribed independent supernatural powers to the saints which is clearly prohibited even in the sects of Islam that allow saint veneration. The only thing was that since they did not make their intentions clear, their actions could not be judged as polytheism openly.
We both know that Hindus do not actually believe that they are praying to one all powerful diety when they pray to Ganesh for luck or Kali for revenge. This is the difference.
—
I don’t think Hinduism is one religion, but Hindus definitely think so.
But think of it like this:
Muslims & Christians are very big on proselytizing, when some one accepts Islam members of the community would literally throw a celebration. And yet we have literal sects like Ahmadiyya who are considered outside the folds of Islam, even when they identify as Muslim, have 99% of similar beliefs to orthodox Islam and just differ on one core tenet. Things are very similar in Christianity.
Now consider the contrast with Hindus, who claim other religions as part of Hinduism (Buddhism/Sikhism) whereby those religions explicitly state they are not Hindu and want nothing to do with Hinduism.
This is the dichotomy, while Islam proselytizes yet still excludes heresy, Hinduism claims different beliefs and religions and tries to do the same with Islam and would have even succeeded if Islam in India did not hold firm in its tenet.
This is why Hinduism is not *a* religion, because it simply accepts everything. It’s an oxymoron to think that completely different core belief systems are part of the same religion.
At best, it’s an ethnic identifier, and it’s literally in its name: Hinduism (Hindu being historically a geographical term) and the name Hinduism popularized by the British.
Hindus today may want to unify under a common banner, but let’s not pretend this was always the case historically.
I don’t mean to be insulting, but I don’t think you understand any of these religions here. Firstly, most religions that have existed historically have used a large amount of religious iconography and symbols for the longest time. Islam (and Judaism; I’m not fully sure) has a weird relationship with iconoclasm that is an anomaly rather than the norm. If you say tha Hindu are idol worshipers since they have religious iconography, then by extension that would equally apply to Christians. Secondly, Christians in Europe quite frankly did not like anyone of any religion, even other Christians. Most Christian monarchs did things like expelling jews or, you know, the Reconquista that killed and expelled non-Christians (including muslims), or the religious wars between protestants and catholics. Also, the Roman Empire persecuted anyone who didn’t follow their religion before they became Christians and persecuted non-Christians after becoming Christians; I doubt it was Christianity, rather it was the fact that Romans were assholes like that.
Additionally, the gods of the old religions weren’t “destroyed” (whatever that means); they were reintegrated into the new theological system. Many Norse and Celtic gods were made into human heroes who were carried in the culture. A similar thing happened in India, where the Yaksha and Naga cults were submerged in the newly emerging Hindu complex. Also, Hindu and Muslim rulers in India have literally destroyed each other’s religious complexes in addition to providing patronage to different religious groups. This seems to be more of a cultural difference between Europe and India rather than a religious one.
As for the rest of your argument, there are massive differences between Islam and Christianity. As a person who was raised in a very conservative Christian family, I can say without the shadow of a doubt that there are massive theological rifts between the two religions, especially in relation to free will, sin, original sin, the Son of god, hell/heaven, the holy trinity, etc. Monotheism is a part of Christianity, but it doesn’t take any more precedence than the other concepts. I mean, most American Christians, for example, don’t exactly like Muslims any more than they like Hindus, so there is a clear difference. Furthermore, many of the people who become irreligious in the West end up going down two paths: hardcore atheism that rejects religion as a whole or new age spiritualism that invovles that mix of Christian and non-Christian elements like tarot readings, astrology, crystals, belief in rebirth, meditation, and some even engage in Secular Buddhism. Also, I am pretty sure both of these groups are just as likely as their religious counterpart to oppose other organized religions like Islam. Organized religion is just not well-liked in the West; I doubt they care about it being pagan. The export of feminism and other things is due to power structures that have less to do with religion and more to do with historical patterns of colonisation.
Lastly, most followers of other Dharmic religions like Buddhism and Jainism, in my experience, seem to understand Hinduism quite well, actually. Christians, Jews, and Muslims specifically seem to have a harder time since they don’t have the same theological basis, so most end up working with social stereotypes about Hinduism (but also Buddhism, Jainism, and other religions). The reverse cultural stereotypes also exist. In the end, most of these are stereotypes that reflect people’s lack of education on different subject matter. I read a lot of history and philosophy, which, from my perspective, presents a very consistent view of both Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain religions. Furthermore, within Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, Christianity, alongside more out there Hindu groups (like the heterodox Kaula sect, for example) are seen as heretical since it fails to meet their religious regulations. Condemnation aganist others religions has existed in Hindu works as well, so they have clear theological positions, and there are more core beliefs like Karma, Rebirth, Self, Brahman, etc. that they are unwilling to change. They have a lot of sectarian divisions, but that’s very common in India, where every religion has deep-seated sectarianism.
You claim that “the gods of the old religions weren’t “destroyed””
This can be proven wrong easily on two accounts:
1) Incorporating a god as a mortal in your newly adopted mythology is the same as destroying that god. That god’s status is now demoted from divine being to just some hero. This is destruction in of itself.
2) Nobody seriously worships Thor, Odin, Zeus, Jupiter, Isis, Anbubis, Hubal, Baal etc. These gods were completely destroyed by Christianity and Islam. You are trying to make the case otherwise but there is no real proof and I just don’t see it.
__________________
If you ask anyone, on any continent today which living religion today they associate with idol worship, they will not hesitate to name Hinduism. It’s extremely apparent.
I just don’t understand why Hindus don’t actually own this, rather trying to prove that Hindu religion does not have explicit idol worship.
____________________
Yes there are. But we aren’t talking about the differences in the two religion’s theology, free will, after life concepts.
We are talking about their relationship with paganism, polytheism and idol worship.
In that sense, these two religions are extremely similar, infact the Christians have been much more hardcore than Muslims in advocating against pagan belief.
And let’s not pretend to downplay monoetheism as a tenet of Christianity. It is the most central tenet. They invented the contradictory concept of Trinity to reconcile their creed with the monotheistic requirment. The Jews don’t buy it and the Muslims are skeptical but still accept them as a monotheistic religion due to some early Christian sects rejecting Trinity.
______________________
You are trying to list down Hinduism as an organized religion. It’s just not an organized religion man, it doesn’t even have a name of its own.
You can be a Hindu if you are born to a Hindu caste, even if you explicitly reject “Karma, Rebirth, Self, Brahman,”. Look at how Indian law defines who a Hindu is.
This should just tell you that this is not an organized religion like Islam or Christianity, but more like an ethnic religion which is no different than other pagan religions of Europe and Near East.
In any case let’s agree to disagree
I’ve known about this blog since X.T.M and Razib discussed it’s creation as part of SepiaMutiny’s closing and have been a regular reader.
I can’t remember the last time I posted. But between your incredibly obsolete and misogynistic takes and this comment, I overcame my usual aversion to engaging with online arguments.
So to clarify your argument is that Abrahamic religions have a theologically baked-in contempt for Hindu practice, this contempt is historical and foundational, and therefore… Hindus who take offense at being called idol-worshipping pagans are the real problem? That’s neither convincing or an acceptable position. That’s just saying well “Islam says Hindus are wrong” and then acting offended when the recipients aren’t call it out for the bullshit circular reasoning it is.
The whole bit about South Asian Muslim tolerance is doing a lot of heavy lifting here too. You’re basically saying “the good Muslims learned to overlook your embarrassing idol worship” which is still a pretty condescending position, just wrapped in comparative generosity.
And that last paragraph about Hindutva is also faulty. Your comment is why Abrahamic traditions have deep, legitimate, foundational reasons to view Hinduism as theologically inferior, and then turn around and blame Hindutva for poisoning interfaith relations? The thousand year history you’re asking Hindus to charitably reframe includes quite a bit that had nothing to do with Sufi syncretism.
You seem incapable of introspection or nuanced views if your conclusion is “and that’s why Hindu grievance is mostly manufactured.”
I can see why you’re interested in curbing women’s freedom in the name of tradition. A troglodyte such as yourself couldn’t attract a woman if she had other options.
Welcome to BP, Ruhi; wow you have been with us since the beginning! We substantively agree with your comment bien sur..
This is just total strawman.
-Nowhere did I imply that Hinduism is inferior or superior.
-Nowhere did I act offended (it’s almost impossible to offend me)
I don’t see why you would be offended by the monicker ‘idol worshipper’ since it only has negative connotation in Abrahamic religions and not in Hinduism. If you are non-Abarahamic, why are you even offended? It’s like a Brahmin calling us Maleech. I understand what that means and what it implies but I take no offence.
The contempt in Abrahamic religions for idol worship is the same contempt (or perhaps much less) than Shahkari Hindus may have for meat eaters or Mlecchas (the Mleccha contempt is a bit hidden and underlying, but its there). Is that a condescending against meat eaters? Should we get offended?
Personally I have no contempt for idol worship, but if you want to be offended just because the explanation does not match your expectations, I have nothing more to say.
Very few movements had as big an influence of the emergence of political hinduism as the Arya Samaj, which was deeply anti-idolatry. The AIML cited them often as a primary example of Hindu revivalism and militancy that they believed would eventually lead to the marginalization of Muslims in a Hindu-majority India. (Btw, one could also make the case that chanting or recitation are more foundational practices than worshiping murtis or images). Mentioning this because it can be considered counter-intuitive. Hindutva thought was developed in great part by avowed atheists, and the anti-idolatry, anti-caste, vedic revivalists are the most motivated hindu nationalists, not necessarily the temple-centered institutional part of the religion. I suppose its analogous to how modernists and not ulema were at the forefront of the Pakistan movement.
+1
I think Arya Samaj was inspired by Islamist revival movements of the 19th century. They wanted to draft a common Hindu identity (like Islam and Christianity) argued for the infallibility of the Vedas (like Islam and Christianity) and promoted monotheism (like Islam and Christianity), were proselytizing (like Islam and Christainity).. it wanted to compete with these religions and drew from within its fold the charactertistics needed to compete against Islam and Christianity. It was not different from Islamist revival movements of the 19th century as in it was attempting to do the same.
And yes, AIML cited it because it saw it as a threat. Pre 1857, the Muslims did not consider themselves a minority in India (even though by numbers they would be only 15-20%. This is because they did not really see Hinduism as one religion. With Arya Samaj making these claims, that not only the Hindus are one, but they are against Muslims, this made them realize they may be a minority that can be subjugated by this new supermajoirty being created by the British. India is a caste society and a lot of Ashrafs claimed foriegn ancestry and did not fit into this caste society, in any puritan movement their status was in doubt if they did not get power. This was one of the reasons why Pakistan movement took off.
This is also relevant to this discussion. It’s a review of a new book by Faisal Devji entitled “Waning Crescent: The Rise and Fall of Global Islam”.
https://scroll.in/article/1091280/waning-crescent-a-biography-of-the-journey-of-islam-from-divine-faith-to-ideological-system
Incidentally, I have sung the ghazal by Mir Taqi Mir that is mentioned in the book and which contains the famous couplet
Mir ke din-o-mazhab ko ab puchhte kya ho unne to
Qashqa Khincha, dayr men baytha, kab ka tarq islam kiya
Why do you ask Mir about his religion and school?
He’s daubed saffron on his forehead and is sitting in a temple
Having long abandoned Islam.
This couplet comes from the ghazal “Ulti hogayee sab takdirain/ kuch na dawa nay kaam kiya” which has been sung by many artists including Begum Akhtar.
Excellent post XTM. Couldn’t agree more on all your points.
It will however take a considerable effort in unlearning rigid notions reinforced since a very long time along with a self-realization and a willingness to overcome theological doctrine.
Thank you for your kind words.
Yes we have to always learn, unlearn and relearn. This is why we get a little worried about the comment boards hehe; we try not to be attached to our opinions but reflect on them.
This is also relevant to this conversation. Not directly since it doesn’t really have anything to do with Hinduphobia as such. But it is relevant when discussing the tensions between liberalism and fundamentalism in Pakistani society. It’s still probably the best novel I know that does this despite the fact that it was published in the 1990s.
https://www.brownpundits.com/2026/05/07/the-black-album-between-liberalism-and-fundamentalism/
In the Braj region at least, there is a common saying which goes something like – the newly converted Muslim eats onions excessively. The fervour of those who are aware of their past always is always something behold. I suppose what we see here is the elite version of the same phenomenon. If the project of Islamic conquest had been completed – like in Iran, Malaysia or Indonesia, we’d see the same subcontinental Muslims own their roots in order to distinguish themselves in the broader Islamic world.
btw Rama was not exiled because he committed any wrong.
Yes sorry we should rephrase..
https://www.news18.com/opinion/opinion-muslims-must-decide-if-they-want-to-keep-opposing-bjp-en-bloc-or-engage-with-it-ws-l-10083621.html?fbclid=IwdGRjcARuMEZjbGNrBG4vYGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHt3tK_cRIdZKBXn2BKRKIsEUB3Ewc0fXS6GAYuL2t-Hv3asyCcdql7hE7xF6_aem_SI00l4XRVY-1Hn2hKtALSw
The above article also deals with form if Hindufobia by Muslims in India repeatedly not voting for BJP. The author calls for introspection.
One is capable of introspection only when one uses one’s own brain, instead of blindly following a diktat.
Sorry, but this is borderline Islamophobic.
Muslims are entitled to practice our religion exactly as we see fit. Just as others are entitled to practice their religions as they see fit.
Those who use their own brain are often branded as Sarkari Muslims unfortunately.
The gatekeepers generally tend to be the vocal minority – yet another instance of the ‘tyranny of the intolerant minority’.
I came across this edict from Asoka Samrat. I will simply quote it here
“….the restrictive policies discouraged unnecessary slaughter of animals, advised people to avoid despicable and useless beliefs and practices, and emphasized restraint in glorifying one’s own faith.”
2500 years later, unfortunately, top two religions are those that proselytize vigorously at the cost of social harmony. Such wise words, imagine how progressive and thoughtful that society must have been.
Why was Asoka samrat almost forgotten? Was it just the social disintegration because of instability or was it deliberate ? We remember and recollect Mahabharatha and Ramayana like they happened a few hundred years ago.
Ashok wasnt forgotten in particular.
Indian memory had also forgotten Samudragupta – arguably the greatest conquerer from India.
Compared to Samudragupta – Ashok finds a passing reference in Puranas.
India had forgotten a lot of its ancient historic kings.
Even Kautilya’s arthashashtra was forgotten.
And why is that these great emperors were forgotten?