@DailyTurkic Percentage of adults who pray five times a day in the “Stan” countries, according to the Pew Research Center.
Pakistanis of course, being good Hindus, are careful to do daily Puja. Namaz of course has the same cognate root as “namaste.”
The Persianate inflected cultures (Tajikistan and Afghanistan) are far more religious than the Turkic kin.
‘puja’ 5 times a day. To …..quote my mitr …
Droll.
Not sure if this is an ‘open thread’, but fairly notable that the US Ambassador to India calls JnK quote “An important part of India” on his visit to Srinagar.
Some belated balancing efforts by the Drumpf Admin, appears to be.
Doesn’t even seem to be Trump that’s doing the balancing. We don’t even know how much of this is actually coming from the institutional positioning set by the state department and the how much from the whims and fancies of individuals.
I appreciate the “good Hindus” thing is an attempt at a joke.
The more accurate explanation for the differences in the attitudes to daily prayer is that most of these Central Asian countries were part of the Soviet Union. Practicing Islam was actively discouraged.
Pakistan is an Islamic Republic. The country was created as a Muslim homeland. Most of us obviously take Islam very seriously.
Pakistanis are a very conservative / traditional mix of Indo-Islamic & Victorian-Yankee overlay (the elite are extremely Westoxicated).
But yes core Pakistan is super-duper atavistically Hindu. They aren’t speaking Persian on the riverbanks of the Indus, that’s for sure..
My mother’s friends are all quite serious about namaz. I don’t know if they pray five times a day but they certainly pray. And these are all women who have worked as medical doctors and are upper middle-class.
As I said, the better explanation is that Pakistan was not ruled by the Soviet Union and practicing Islam was never actively discouraged. If anything, since the Zia era, the country has become more conservative.
Urdu is an Indian language but it is a stretch to call us “Hindu”. We are a 97% Muslim country and most of us would probably take great offense to being called “Hindu”.
Poor countries are also extrenely religious and poor countries where state fails in discharging its duties even more so.
There is absolutely no way that 67% of people in Pakistan pray 5 times a day (maybe one or two perhaps, but people praying 5 times a day can be counted in single digit percentages). These types of stats are mostly made up for engagement so I am surpised why PEW would publish a lie like this..
My family & friend circle is upper middle class religious (2nd most praying demographic in Pakistan), and I think I would say barely 10% pray 5 times.. about 50% would maybe pray 1-3 times and rest don’t really pray much. Maghrib is the most prayed, mosques are usually full for Maghrib, but if you ever happen to attend other prayers, the mosques are entirely empty.
Infact I myself have prayed more Maghribs than I have all other combined.
Most lower classes don’t pray much at all. I have never actually seen the labor class (drivers, security guards etc ever pray). Infact I would say the upper classes (the rich) pray more than the lower classes.
Excellent comment – very high signal
I don’t know which “labor class” you have been associating with.
Anecdotally, our cook takes time off every Friday for Jummah.
My mother’s friends are upper-middle class medical doctors. They certainly pray multiple times a day. Whenever they come over for parties, they are very concerned about prayer time.
Jummah is an exception, even those who dont pray at all pray Jummah.
This is the stipulation in Hanafi fiqh that those who don’t pray 3 consecutive Jummahs are outside the circle of Islam.
But outside of that, never seen lower classes pray much at all. It doesnt mean they are not religious because some of the most unhinged religious idiots come from them. But praying is a very optional matter for them
Also, with regards to large gatherings, even if you have 10% of the regular namazis, they will invite everyone else to pray and all the irregulars will join. This gives off the impression that everyone is a regular, but that’s never the case.
There was an opinion that India got off relatively easily with Islam as assorted turks /turkaman conquered and ruled north India. These were nominally religious.
Unlike Persia which lost its faith to Arabs.
Given half a chance Afghans will go back to being happy.
The turks learnt islam from the iranians and they wete themselves successful in displacing anatolian christians in their very heartland through assimilation.
Persia adopted islam and made it, it’s own vehicle of power. Left to the Arabs most iranic people would never be allowed to become muslim.
This is modern geopolitics rewriting history
While most Arabian tribes showed more affinity towards the Romans and their similar Christian religion, the Hashemties (tribe of Prophet Muhammad) were usually pro-Iranian, which culminated in the Abbasid (Hashemite) rise to power from their base in Iran/Khorasan and it was heavily support by non-Arab Muslims .. Abu Muslim, a Persian, was the architect of the Abbasid revolt and the kingmaker.
I was not referring to the modern persian predilection of thinking islam is some Arab imposition but what was the arab armies initial reluctance towards other groups accepting Islam due to loss of Jizya.
I was not aware of the hashemite and was under the impression the abbassids were non arab people who accepted islam despite the Arabs
Ask an Iranian about “the modern persian predilection of thinking islam is some Arab imposition” prior to making such erroneous statements with such certainty.
Iran has been islamic and is responsible for the islamization of the turks, and much of the globe through them.
It is not for no reason that much of the islamic world prior to the later half of the 20th century spoke in persian and persian culture spread far and wide on the back of Islam
These are all documented historical facts without persianization of Islam, the religion would be confined to the Arabian peninsula and north of Africa.
Many modern iranians not liking islam due to the ayatollah does not change the persian character and influence in islam historically.
Amazing, show some grace and accept what you said is completely false; instead of blabbing on about something entirely different.
There’s something called the two centuries of silence which is on the conquest of Iran by the Arabs. There’s a book on it as well.
There is nothing wrong with what I have said.
The persian adopted islam, made it their own and islam through the turks was a vehicle of spread of persian culture and heritage.
Modern day iranians making a distinction between islam and their culture due to influence of the shah does not change history.
You are confusing things, I am not saying that there was no violence involved in this process or that state led coercion had no role whatsoever but to act like the persians were silent in this process and did not adopt and make Islam their own, and use it as another vector of their culture is ahistorical. In any case many Arabs actively dissuaded people from joining, it is later persian led empires like the safavids who were more into imposition and responsible for wiping out all traces of Zoroastrianism.
Islam was imposed on Persia. It really is as simple as that.
You are free to believe otherwise despite facts to the contrary.
It was and it does not make the persian adoption of it and the persianization of islam due to this any more a historical reality.
Even the nationalist iranians who wrote 2 centuries of silence dont deny that islam was made persian by the way. Maybe read a little bit more about this kind of complex sociological phenomenon?
Maybe stop condescending since you are the one who confused two completely separate issues and then went complaining?
//modern persian predilection of thinking islam is some Arab imposition //
This is what started this whole diversion/ discussion.
When modern persians who are anti islam call islam an Arab imposition they are tapping into the well spring of anti Arab narratives to call the very practise of religion in their country today as an Arab imposition.
This is historically wrong, islam practised in Iran was developed by persian themselves and the role of persians in formulating many hadiths shows that even outside of iran the persian influence in islam is very significant.
The policy of Arabs towards Zoroastrian and their zeal for conversion was also rather inconsistent but that is a separate matter of discussion.
Maybe should have written this as ‘modern persian predilection of seeing islam, as practised in their country as an Arab imposition aside’
I was not referring to the modern persian predilection of thinking islam is some Arab imposition but what was the arab armies initial reluctance towards other groups accepting Islam due to loss of Jizya.
Again, pronouncements without nuance or factual backing. Perhaps look at what the Shahnameh says about Islam and the Arabs? See below for ease of reference.
From drinking camel’s milk and eating lizards,
The Arabs have come so far in their affairs,
That they now desire the Kayanid imperial crown…
Spit upon you, O turning heavens, spit upon you!
The untalented servant shall become the king,
Lineage and greatness will no longer matter.
Destruction has pitched its tent inside Iran,
Alas for that crown, and alas for that army!
They shall seek the loss of others for their own gain,
And they will put forward Religion as their shield.
When the pulpit rises up to replace the throne,
This religion will bring nothing underneath it but grief.
Ferdowsi was a muslim and his work only supports my point that this distinction between islam and persian culture is not historical and artificial.
Here are the opening verses of Shahnameh;
Ba-nām-e خداوند خرد / کز این برتر اندیشه بر نگذرد”In the name of the Lord of Wisdom,Beyond whom thought cannot rise.”
ترا دانش و دین رهاند درست / در رستگاری ببایدت جست”Knowledge and faith alone guide you aright,Seek through them your ultimate salvation.”
به گفتار پیغمبرت راه جوی / دل از تیرگیها بدین آب شوی”Seek your path in the Prophet’s word,Wash your heart’s darkness clean in this water.”
که من شهر علمم علیم در ست / درست این سخن قول پیغمبرست”‘I am the City of Knowledge, and Ali is its gate,’Know that this saying of the Prophet is true.”
So what if Ferdowsi was muslim.
Shahnameh captures the history of pre-islamic iran.
“this distinction between islam and persian culture is not historical and artificial”
Bullshit.
Iran and Islam are deeply intertwined and have been for 1,400 years.
Sindh, South Punjab and Islam were deeply intertwined. The Arabs were dedicated Muslims and their conquests are *core* Islamic lands.
The Turks were more conquerors than Muslims. If the Mughals had been Arabs, Islam would have been pressed on far more.
The Turks always had very strong ethnic pride and knowledge that predated both their Muslim faith and Persian culture; whereas for the Arabs, Islam and Arabness were essentially one.
No one is denying the deep history of islam in iran. But one cannot claim Persian culture=Islam
Certainly cant quote shahnameh, which covers the history of persian civilization before the arab-islamic conquest, to make such a wrong claim.
There is a lot of persian history prior to the islamic conquest that is relevant even today.
Incidentally, Queen Kaikeyi, the third wife of King Dasharatha of Ayodhya, was from Persia. She brought dogs as a part of her dowry when she got married and move to Ayodhya.
I had no idea about that..
Islam as we know it is due to persian culture, not that they are the same.
There is nothing contradictory about following islam and being part of persian heritage and culture. If anything, one cant be muslim without being persian.
Ferdowzi and the shahnameh is anti arab but not anti Islam.
So your assertions are the following:
a. If you are muslim, you have got to be persian.
b. If you are persian, you need not neccessarily be muslim.
c. The distinction between the two is artificial.
And you quote the Shahnameh to make this claim. It’s obvious you have not read the Shahnameh (If you have then these assertions are even more damning ).
Jai Ho Captain sahib.
No, my assertions are the following:
1. Islam was made their own by persians and is an intrinsic part of persian identity.
2. Because of the role of persians in spreading islam to turkic tribes and their own role in spreading islam, many many people who are muslim are also culturally persian even if they are not ethnically so.
3. Modern persian and those who only listen anti muslim persian nationalists for their knowledge cant change the above two facts no matter how much they argue otherwise.
4. You can be persian or iranic ethnically and not be muslim, this is a basic fact that I dont know why you think contradicts point 1
5. The shahnameh is not anti islam or anti muslim, attempts to use the shahnameh to claim there is a distinction between persian culture and islam shows that knowledge of perspiration of islam is lacking from the one making this kind of assertion. It also means that they think Islam is what Arabs do and say which os historically and even in the present inaccurate.
All the above that I have written is backed by sociologists and historians all over the world in both Iran and elsewhere. It is the assertions to the contrary that props up an artificial distinction between persian culture and islam and put them in conflcit that are not backed historically
//Iran and Islam are deeply intertwined and have been for 1,400 years.//
Yes exactly, one csn say a lot of what is islamic todsy is a result of persians adopting and remaking islam in their image.
Being under a coercive state that made Islam advantageous does not undermine this adaption and acceptance.
//The Turks were more conquerors than Muslims. If the Mughals had been Arabs, Islam would have been pressed on far more.//
If anything the Arabs outside of north africa and parts of Iraq have been poor spreader of islam.
The turks are largelt responsible for islamization of anatolia, bangladesh and large parts of India. Were quite brutal as well and most of their failure is not due to lack of trying but due to islam and christianity being weaker against systematic religions with institutions, popular acceptance and wide knowledge of the religions theology though Islam has admittedly been more successful in displacing buddhism and christianity, nonetheless.
Shahnameh is not a historical book and it was not meant to be.
Ferdowsi wanted to preserve persian culture but within a islamic framework.
//“this distinction between islam and persian culture is not historical and artificial”
Bullshit.//
Ferdowsi and the spread of persian culture by Turkic tribes islamized in Iran are accepted by the whole world. Islam is what it is today due to persian culture entering it and giving it the form it has.
No persian culture= No islam as we know it today.
I have read the shahnameh and I also know what it means to the persians. Your assertions regarding it are ridiculous.
Your other sweeping opinions which you couch under phrases like “the whole world” cannot be accepted in good faith since you provide zero references so one cannot verify. Your personal opinions hold zero value.
The shahnameh is not anti muslim or islam.
You think it being anti Arab makes it so is a commentary on the persians who you are taking all your knowledge not some accepted fact by scholars and academics all over the world.
I dont want to start with giving reference because then you will start trying to accuse the reference I provide of bias and all that I have written are accepted historical and present facts. Modern persian of a particular viewpoint not accepting it does not change history.
“The shahnameh is not anti muslim or islam.” Obviously it is not.
“You think it being anti Arab makes it so” . LOL, Since I have read it, I know for a fact it is not, but nothing has ever stopped you from irresponsibly judging others 🙂
“not some accepted fact by scholars and academics all over the world” “I don’t want to start with giving reference”
ROFL..now look who is peddling “unverifiable claims” . Never mind these mysterious historians and scholars you never ever name and cite..It is obvious have not read the Shahnameh and you don’t even know what it stands for and its relevance for the persian people.
I am signing off Captain sahib. Salute.
I know how important the shahnameh is.
That is why I corrected Naak de Guerre when he tried to use the shahnameh to claim there is a distinction of persian culture and islam.
It is funny that you think a book that looks down on Arabs and portrays their entry and spread of their culture as something negative to persian is not anti Arab. Or that a huge part of persian culture is not distinguishing themselves from the Arabs, is not a sign of anti Arab tendencies in persian culture.
Anyways you are probably misunderstanding what I am saying so unless you clarify that for me nothing I write will.makw sense.
You don’t just shift goal posts. You move to the next football field itself :).
Anyway, you have not read it so no point engaging.
The shahnameh was not the topic of discussion in the first place.
It was brought up ( wrongly I might add) by Naam se Guerre to make a disticntion between persian culture and islam, that it was never meant to do.
You ignored the context and just started throwing accusations, I am not the one who brought up the shahnameh and I certainly did not try to use it to make distinctions between the culture of the people who produced it and their religion.
Rest if you think I have said anything wrong about it, you can always point it out, you just have to read what I actually write.
Furthermore what do you exactly have a problem with?
That shahnameh is cultural history and not an account of what actually happened?
That it is written in a muslim cultural framework which is why the Zoroastrianism presented in it lacks many of the other deities, aligned with ahura Mazda That were worshipped and is heavily monotheistic?
That it’s existence is proof of persianization of islam and shows like ferdowsi there is no distinction between being a muslim and being a persian?
Be specific instead of throwing accusation.
LOL…You have not read it 🙂
I have read it a couple of years ago.
One of the things that prompted me to see how a muslim can be in praise of zoroastrian kings, that is when I learnt about the deep imprint persian culture has had on islam.
I also learnt how much of our understanding of Zoroastrianism purposely undermines its henotheism.
Anyways since you have no answer to my points disputing any artificial barrier put up between persian culture and islam and are trying to make a discussion on whether I have read the shahnameh or not( I have but you are not interested in accepting this), I will take this as a sign thst you have no counter to my points on persianization of islam.
Yes Captain, Salute!
At least come up with better jokes if you are not interested in putting forward an argument.
Nah, these are the only jokes I have.
Very sad.. let me play the world’s smallest violin to cheer you up.
https://shahnameh.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/literary
Excerpt:
Ferdowsi’s claim to fame rests largely on his deliberate invigoration of Persian as a literary medium, thus preserving not only the history of the Iranian people, but also the language in which it was recorded.
Is this an argument against me saying that shahnameh is not a historical book?
Or it being within a islamic framework?
Perhaps this,
//Shahnameh is not a historical book and it was not meant to be.
Ferdowsi wanted to preserve persian culture but within a islamic framework//
You should quote what you are responding to otherwise I cant understand why you are acting as if I am.not aware of its history and significance especiallt its role in preserving persian.
Nothing of your excerpt goes against my main point. The shahnameh is not a history text in the modern sense, it is a chronicle of persian cultural history, like the odyssey or illiad.
Along with the invocations of Allah, praise of Mohammed and Ali, the Zoroastrianism presented in Shahnameh is heavily monotheistic, the only other divine being, Srosh being a messenger in line with angels like Gabriel and ahirman explicitly being shown as a temptor of humans like the devil.himself.
The diverse deities worshipped under traditional zoroastrian religion are not even referenced, basically the religion of the kings of yore is one that a muslim can relate to and be proud of
A few years ago a tongue in cheek comment by an Iranian to an arab on an YouTube video –“next you guys invent a new religion, please keep it to yourself. “
Anatolia was VERY Christian until the early 20th. Greek, Armenian & Assyrian, it’s a vacuum the Kurds have filled?
Most of the christians in the early 20th century were largely around the fringes of the core anatolia heartland.
Near to Greece proper, and closer to Armenian heartland which was closer large before the Armenian genocide.
The core area of anatolia with even important sites like Cappadocia was assimilated into a Turkish identity under the ottomans, showing that any persistentence of christians, jews or other religions is not due to Turks being nominally religious but cultural and social factors preventing complete assimilation.
Is Istanbul “close to Armenian heartland”?
Wasn’t Istanbul’s Christian population in early 20th century almost 50%?
All cities pre mass urbanisation would have had majority minority but peasant hinterland..
It’s the Calcutta & East Bengal example.
Istanbul is former Constantinople that had a lot of greek speaking christians.
Armenian christians and Armenia itself was much more numerous and larger prior to the conquest.
I don’t know if this is technically an “Open Thread” but the other one is too messy now.
I wanted to share this tribute to my third grade teacher who I found out passed away recently.
For context, I went to a Montessori school where many of the teachers adopted Sanskrit names. Some of these teachers were also disciples of Sri Chinmoy.
https://www.onenessfamily.org/about/founders-blog/a-tribute-to-madhavi-sharon-ray