Shahab Ahmed tells us up front that he is not going to answer the question “what is Islam?”. And of course, he does not really do so, but the title (misleadingly) suggests that he will, and in the course of the book, he comes perilously close to trying (and failing) to do so without outright saying he is going to do it. In short, Shahab himself seems confused about what he is trying to achieve here. The book is a description of some (but certainly not all) aspects of Islamic culture as it developed and expanded, especially AFTER the initial Arab phase of empire building. And it is a long argument with various seen and unseen opponents who want to define Islam as some ONE thing. In the course of this argument, Shahab wants to show that Islam was very varied, but he also wants to show that it is not infinitely varied. In the course of an overly long book, he manages to show that Islamicate societies (a term he does not really approve of) had a very wide variety of beliefs and practices, though they also remained anchored within a certain tradition and in continuous argument with particular foundational texts. All of this may be a surprise to extreme puritanical Islamists AND to more or less ignorant anti-Islamists, but should be no surprise at all to anyone else. Why wouldn’t there be a lot of variety? Anyway, if you happen to spend your life arguing with people who have a very monochromatic view of Islam, then you can keep this book handy in order to prove otherwise. It is good for that.

Beyond that, it is a rich compendium of anecdotes (he has read VERY widely and quotes extensively from hundreds of sources) and you will learn a lot about the “Balkans to Bengal complex”, a cultural zone that Shahab Ahmed is particularly fond of and regards as archetypically Islamic. Incidentally, you will also be able to prove to your friends that Islamic history is characterized by an official/theocratic prohibition of alcohol AND a simultaneous cultural fascination and widespread use and even praise of alcohol, complete with social practices that incorporate regular use of alcohol (e.g. in poetry recitals and courtesan dance performances… though this also being a work of apologetics, the “courtesan” part is not highlighted). What you will NOT find is any mention of how the Islamic empire was created in the first place. Military force and politics are almost completely absent from this cultural history of Islamdom. Make of that what you will. But it is worth keeping in mind that the geographic region extending from the Balkans to Bengal did not just magically happen to switch religions, it was conquered…Still, the the book is worth reading if you want to know more about the cultural history of the core-Islamicate region. It is more or less useless as a book of history. And it is somewhere in between when it comes to theology and philosophy.

Overall, this is high class and erudite apologetics, and the anecdotes collected herein will stand the test of time; but I suspect that the postmodern arguments and apologetics will not age well. When the current phase of history has passed, readers will wonder why Shahab Ahmed is wasting their time with convoluted and wordy arguments about how legitimate or illegitimate this or that simple-minded view of Islam actually is. Then again, maybe postmodernism will not fade away as completely as I imagine (or wish for) and future generations will continue to be fascinated by the verbiage that just seems like waste of space to me.

Time will tell.

Post Script: A friend commented that “you cannot expect him to say more than that..” and I am adding my answer to this review:
I certainly expect a good historian (even a “cultural historian” ) to say much more than that!  I happen to be reading Tomb’s “The English and their history” at the same time and the difference is night and day. With Tomb’s book you actually get an attempt at describing the English and their history and culture and so on, with systematic, rational and evidence-based theorizing and refutation of theories. Whether you agree with his particular view or not, you get what he is saying and you get what he is arguing against. Much of the time, you get something close to a “full picture”. With Shahab Ahmed, you are in much more scattered territory and big aspects of history are skipped entirely; Worth reading, but less for its argument, more for its varied and interesting bits of information.

The Pakistani elite has quietly secularised. And far from hollowing the state out, this is precisely how Pakistan became what it was always designed to be: the successor state to British India’s Muslims. Islam was the vehicle. Pakistan is the destination.

Islam remains the public language of legitimacy.

Privately, among the stakeholders who actually run the place, the operating priorities are entirely secular. The society on the ground is conservative and devout. The class at the top, the one that keeps the state alive, believes in Pakistan far more than it believes in Islam.

It helps to separate three things that we mean by Islam. There is Islam as faith, the private conviction of the believer. There is Islam as identity, the badge of who one is and whom one stands with. And there is Islam as state language, in which Pakistan explains itself to itself and to the world.

The elite has not surrendered the third, and it has not wholly shed the second. What it has let go of is the first as a terminal value: the notion that the purpose of the state is to realise Islam, rather than to deploy it.

Faith has gone from ultimate to instrumental.

This migration is what we mean by secularisation. This is not the familiar story of liberalisation. We are not saying Pakistan grew tolerant, or irreligious, or fond of gin. We are saying something narrower and stranger. Pakistan’s elite secularised the priorities of the state without secularising its language. Strip away the Islamic vocabulary and look at what the stakeholder class optimises for, and the list is unmistakable: state survival, strategic depth, military capability, sovereignty, national prestige, and the reproduction of the elite itself.

These are not Islamic priorities. They are Prussian ones. What has emerged among the men who keep Pakistan going is a finely tuned, military-bureaucratic nationalism, disciplined and unsentimental, for which Islam is the flag and not the engine.

Prussia describes the temper of this elite.

For the fate of the faith itself, the better analogy is France. A revolutionary creed, once it triumphs completely, turns ceremonial. No one in the Fifth Republic argues about Robespierre over breakfast, not because the Revolution failed but because it won so totally that the nation absorbed it and stopped debating it. The principle became the backbone.

A French republican today need not be a Jacobin, need not want the Terror back, to hold 1789 sacred; the founding is revered precisely because it is finished, no longer a live programme anyone is required to enact.

Islam in Pakistan is travelling that road. It won its argument in 1947. It produced the state, and having produced it, it no longer needs to function as a working programme. It becomes instead the national myth: sacred, unexamined, saluted on every occasion and enacted on almost none. A Pakistani patriot can revere the idea that made Pakistan without wanting an Islamic state, in just the way a French one reveres the Revolution without wanting another. This is why the secularisation is so hard to see. The reverence is genuine and loud; it simply no longer governs. The founding faith has been elevated into myth and quietly retired from the business of running anything.

It is thus worth dwelling on the Crescentiate.

Among the loudest defenders of Pakistan, the most theologically committed voice is almost always the one not born in Pakistan. The diaspora keeps the faith as identity; the Pakistan-formed elite keeps the state. That asymmetry is instrumental. It tells you where belief has migrated, and which of our three meanings of Islam each camp is actually holding.

China conducts cold realist diplomacy and stays militantly atheist; Saudi Arabia conducts it and stays Muslim. Just about.

But look at the content of Pakistan’s realism, not merely its existence, and a state for which Islam was the terminal value would let creed shape its alliances.

Pakistan does the reverse.

In the year since the brief war with India, Islamabad has bound itself, at once and without visible discomfort, to atheist China, to Shia Iran across an old sectarian divide, to Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, and to a secular and nominally Christian Washington. It made its army chief a field marshal, secured a private White House lunch and the warmest American hearing in two decades, signed a mutual defence pact with Riyadh, deepened the all-weather tie with Beijing, and turned itself into the broker shuttling between Washington and Tehran. The creed of the partner is simply not an input to the calculation.

This is the point the diplomatic noise obscures. A devout society sits at the base; at the summit sits a class that will take any table and collect from each guest, indifferent to the religion of the man across it. Such indifference is ordinary in a secular state. In a state that names Islam as its reason for existing, it nothing less than extraordinary. The secularisation is invisible only because nobody troubled to change the language.

Set India beside it, and the asymmetry sharpens.

India bet on admission. The whole architecture of its recent foreign policy assumed it would be the lynchpin of a respectable Western order, the natural partner of the United States, the anchor of the Indo-Pacific. On precisely that axis it was challenged: tariffed at fifty per cent, called a dead economy, told it was interchangeable with Pakistan, made to watch its rival courted in the Oval Office. India did not collapse.

It adapted, with a trade agreement with the European Union, another with the United Kingdom, a wary thaw with China, and an eventual tariff truce with Washington. But the adaptation is the point. India fell back on strategic autonomy and a scramble of bilateral deals because the club it had courted declined to grant it tenure. Two states, two objective functions. Pakistan played for leverage and took leverage; India played for belonging and learned that belonging was not on offer.

Data is not Destiny

Which brings us to BB, and to the data. BB loves a number and quotes them tirelessly: GDP, fertility, the human development index, the metrics on which Pakistan plainly trails. Every one of those numbers is correct.

The error is not in the data but in the assumption beneath it, that prosperity is the thing the state is playing for. GDP matters. It does not. BB reads the masses and the macro-aggregates as the players; they are not.

The players are the Prussian elite, running a different game. The honest question is not whether Pakistan is poorer, which it is, but what it has been willing to trade prosperity for, and the answer, shown again this past year, is sovereignty and leverage, which Elitestanis will buy at almost any price.

Kashmir is Sui Generis

The same misreading feeds the Saffroniate’s favourite fantasy, that Balochistan or Afghanistan can be turned into Pakistan’s Kashmir, a running wound that bleeds the state. It will not happen, and the reason is structural. Insurgencies are not bought; they are lit. They begin with the sub-gentry and the disaffected elite, not with the poor as such.

Balochistan rages only where its own leaders sustain the infrastructure of resistance, and you cannot wire money to a grievance and expect a nation to rise. A broad-based nationalism appears only once an entire population has been activated to an ideology, the way sustained dispossession forged a mass Palestinian nationalism that now commands the sympathy of much of the world.

That threshold has not been crossed in Balochistan, and it will not be crossed from a spreadsheet in Delhi. Meanwhile Pakistan has persuaded Washington to brand the Baloch insurgency terrorist: the very lever the Saffroniate dreams of pulling is being pulled the other way. The Saffroniate is cloaked to it because it keeps fighting an imagined theocracy the Pakistani elite quietly stopped being.

What BP teaches us

We learned a version of all this from our own house. Brown Pundits ran a reader survey, and thirty people filled it in. The masses, here as everywhere, are silent. Even the sub-elite readership is mostly inert; the few who could mount a real counter-current, by starting a rival shop of their own, will not trouble to. Neglect Brown Pundits for years and it roars back regardless, because the quarrel between the Saffroniate and the Crescentiate is the most interesting argument in this corner of the internet, and it has nowhere else to go.

And in the comments, the discovery. Across all the Crescentiate energy, almost no one argues theology. No one is building the Caliphate. No one is much exercised about an Islamic state. Yet every one of them comes alive the instant Pakistan, the nation, is touched. That is not an Islamic attachment. It is a national one.

We are We

Sitting between the two camps, neutral by temperament, we see what each cannot see about itself. And the revealed preference of the Crescentiate, watched over years, is the sharpest evidence we have. On the whole they do not want a seat at the Western table; they are content to be the exotic token, the interesting outsider, and they reach for absurd lectures on the West’s misogyny and patriarchy partly to keep that distance.

The Saffroniate’s commenters want the opposite: the nod of recognition from respectable opinion. We are describing a commentariat, not a census. But the asymmetry on the page is consistent, and it rhymes with the statecraft. The Indian instinct is to be let in; the Pakistani instinct is to be left alone, intact and exotic. That single difference is why Indian commentary keeps reaching for the Western template, instrumentally and without quite saying why, while the Pakistani feels no such pull.

The Saffroniate is still arguing with yesterday’s Pakistan, the Islamic project the elite abandoned years ago, while today’s Pakistan, secular at the summit and Prussian to the bone, slips past unnoticed.

Jinnah, in the end, got the state he wanted. Nehru got an argument, and he is still having it with a Pakistan that no longer exists.

The Clip That Explained a Civilisation

A short video of an Iranian woman is circulating on X. In it, she says Islam is not Iran’s native religion and was imposed on Zoroastrian Persians through torture, massacre, rape, and enslavement. The clip is amplified by familiar accelerants, including Tommy Robinson, and is now being treated as a one-line explanation for a fourteen-century transformation.

Almost immediately, a counter-narrative appears. It insists there is “not a single piece of evidence” for forced conversion in Persia; that Islamisation was slow; and that many Persians, especially Sasanian elites, moved toward the new order for political, fiscal, and social reasons. A further layer is added: nostalgia for the Sasanians is misplaced because late Sasanian society was rigid, unequal, and harsh, and early Muslim rule improved conditions for ordinary people. These are two different claims. They are routinely fused. History does not require that fusion.

Conquest Is Not ConversionThe scholarly material being shared, often selectively, starts from a basic distinction: conquest and conversion are not the same thing.

In The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates, Hugh Kennedy warns against the slogan “Islam was spread by the sword” when it is used to imply mass, immediate conversion. He draws a line between rapid military success and the slower, uneven work of religious change, noting, without romance, that conquest created the political conditions in which Islam could spread “in the way it did.” That formulation rejects both extremes: instant forced conversion and conversion untouched by power.

Ira Lapidus, in A History of Islamic Societies, pushes the same distinction further. He notes how thin the explicit narrative evidence is when modern commentators speak as if we possess village-by-village conversion logs. He also documents early Muslim governance as pragmatic: not only tolerant at times, but actively reliant on non-Muslim administrators and institutions. Empires run on scribes, taxes, and local elites long before they run on ideology.

This complicates the viral claim. It also complicates its mirror image.

Persia Is Not Everywhere

A sentence from Bertold Spuler’s Iran in the Early Islamic Period is doing the heavy lifting: that almost all Persians became Muslim within a few centuries “without significant outside coercion.” It reads like a verdict. It is not one.

“Without significant outside coercion” is comparative language, not a denial of conquest, pressure, or episodic violence. Spuler’s claim is narrower: that the long-run Islamisation of Persia is not best explained by a model of continuous forced conversion at swordpoint. That matters because it directly challenges the trope of rape and terror as the default mechanism; without pretending power relations were irrelevant.

Spuler’s broader point is often omitted: Persia did not merely absorb Islam; it reshaped it, retained its language, and re-emerged culturally in New Persian. Islamisation here was neither annihilation nor simple submission.

The Sasanian Mirror

At this point, the argument usually turns moral.

Touraj Daryaee’s Sasanian Persia emphasise hierarchy, legal inequality, and elite dominance under the late Sasanian state. The implication is clear: modern romanticism forgets how narrow and coercive that order was for most people; Islam then appears less an alien imposition than a regime change that disrupted an entrenched aristocracy.

This argument has force, but it answers a different question. Demonstrating that the Sasanians were harsh does not demonstrate that conversion was free. A bad old regime alters incentives; it does not abolish coercion. Disliking an aristocracy does not prove persuasion; it reshuffles coalitions.

Tax, Land, and the Arithmetic of Empire

A more concrete line of argument comes from fiscal history, including passages circulated from Authority and Control in the Countryside. These describe lower tax rates in some contexts, land arrangements tied to development, and administrative inclusion as tools of early Muslim rule.

This shortens to: “ʿUmar returned the land to Persian farmers.” The texts themselves are more conditional. They describe land grants tied to obligations, investment incentives, and the creation of a loyal local elite. This is not charity; it is statecraft. The implication is precise and often missed: conversion may not have been demanded at swordpoint, but it unfolded within structured incentives that made alignment with the new order rational over time. “Voluntary” here does not mean ideologically neutral; it means choice under empire.

Two Views, Cleanly Separated

One view holds that the viral claim is historically reckless. Conquest occurred, but mass forced conversion in Persia is not evidenced as the dominant mechanism. Islamisation took centuries, was uneven, and was mediated through elites, institutions, and incentives. The rape-and-massacre line functions less as history than as polemic, amplified today by diaspora identity politics and opportunistic Western actors.

The other view holds that the slow-conversion story is being used as a sanitiser. Conquest is violence even when bureaucratic. Legal hierarchy, fiscal pressure, and social stratification can coerce belief without leaving the kind of evidence modern audiences expect. From this angle, the speaker’s language may be exaggerated, but her intuition, that Islamisation occurred under asymmetric power, is not fantasy.

What the Sources Actually Allow

Read carefully, the scholarship supports a narrower conclusion than either camp prefers. Islam was not imposed in Persia through universal, continuous forced conversion. Nor did it spread in a vacuum where persuasion alone did the work. Military conquest created political dominance. Political dominance reshaped incentives. Over generations, those incentives altered religious affiliation.

Whenever a debate insists the story is “obvious,” it is usually collapsing centuries into a single scene, or erasing power altogether. That is where history stops and myth begins.

My friend is in Kashan, a city of gardens and scholars, and perhaps among the most traditional pockets of Iran.  She forgot her hijab back in her home city and now cannot step out of her hotel.  The irony is sharp: the veil that once signified spiritual privacy has become an enclosure of space.  Kashan’s cobbled lanes whisper poetry, but they also enforce silence.

Meanwhile, the liberal axis of Iran, Shiraz, Tehran, Gilan, Mazandaran, Semnan, walks the tightrope between revelation and rebellion.  The North dresses as Europe, the Centre prays as Qom.  Mahsa Amini’s martyrdom was Kurdish, and therefore doubly liminal: ethnically marginal, religiously symbolic (the Kurds are very secular as a rule of thumb; more Zoroastrian than the Persians).  Her death reopened a question the Qur’ān itself leaves open — what, after all, does ḥijāb mean?

1. The Qur’ānic Vocabulary of Modesty

Contrary to centuries of clerical condensation, the Qur’ān never commands a specific garment called “hijab” for ordinary women.

The term ḥijāb (حجاب) appears seven times; always meaning “barrier,” “curtain,” or “partition,” never a headscarf.

For instance:

“And when you ask [the Prophet’s wives] for something, ask them from behind a ḥijāb; that is purer for your hearts and theirs.”

— Surah al-Aḥzāb 33:53

Here, hijab refers to the physical screen separating the Prophet’s private quarters from visitors — a protocol of privacy in the Prophet’s house, not a general mandate.

When the Qur’ān addresses clothing and modesty, it uses different words:

• Khimār (خمار) — a cloth that covers the head or bosom

  “Tell the believing women to draw their khimār over their bosoms…”

  — Surah an-Nūr 24:31

  This verse focuses on concealing the chest, not mandating a head covering; it presupposes existing cultural attire and redirects its use toward modesty.

• Jilbāb (جلابيب) — an outer wrap or cloak

  “O Prophet, tell your wives, daughters, and the women of the believers to draw their jilbāb around themselves; that is better so that they may be recognized and not harassed.”

  — Surah al-Aḥzāb 33:59

  The context is protection from street harassment; a social precaution, not a metaphysical uniform. In every instance, modesty is relational, moral, situational; not textile.

2. From Verse to Veil

By the early Abbasid period, the ḥijāb evolved from a spatial divider (marking the Prophet’s household) into a status marker for elite women.  Byzantine, Persian, and Arab court cultures fused to produce the “seclusion aesthetic”; veils, curtains, courtyards.  What had been moral counsel became social choreography.

Centuries later, jurists re-codified these norms as fiqh, freezing fluid guidance into permanent injunctions.  Thus, by the time modernity arrived, colonialism, nationalism, and theocratic reform, the veil was already burdened with multiple pasts: Arab, Persian, Hellenic, clerical.

3. The Paradox of Modern Piety

Today, the hijab stands at an impossible intersection:

• For Muslim feminists, it can signify agency — I choose to define my boundaries.

• For state clerics, it is obligation — You must display obedience.

• For liberal societies, it oscillates between tolerance and unease — Is it freedom, or refusal of assimilation?

The result is a garment both sacred and politicized.  A symbol that must simultaneously express faith, resist Western voyeurism, and survive patriarchal enforcement. The Qur’ān, however, places the emphasis elsewhere:

“O children of Adam, We have sent down to you clothing to cover your nakedness and as adornment; but the clothing of piety — that is best.”

— Surah al-A‘rāf 7:26

Here lies the heart of revelation: piety as the true veil. Outer coverings are contingent; inner modesty is the essence.

4. Between Kashan and Cambridge

The question of hijab is not simply East versus West, faith versus freedom.  It is how intellectual rigor meets inherited form.

The niqab and hijab, like the habits of Catholic nuns or the Ghoonghat of Marwari women, presumably began as devotional practices; acts of humility before God.  Yet when repeated without reflection, they risk becoming cultural artefacts detached from their moral origin.

Standing in Cambridge, Massachusetts, debating rent control, oligarchy, and social justice, I often notice the same tension: the difference between principle and performance.  One woman wears hijab, another niqab; both perhaps seek dignity.  But when ritual outpaces reason, meaning falters. Bahá’u’lláh’s reminder returns: every word has intention. The word ḥijāb intended separation of sacred space from worldly intrusion; not gender apartheid.

5. The Future of Modesty

In a post-oligarchic world, one I still dream of, liberation will not mean the erasure of faith, but its deep reading.  The challenge for Islamic civilization is not to discard the veil, but to recover its first intention: moral consciousness, not enforced costume.

A woman stepping into Kashan without a scarf should not feel trapped; she should feel contextualized, a guest in a culture still learning to separate faith from fear.  Likewise, the West must learn that unveiling a woman by law is perhaps as coercive as veiling her by decree.

6. Qurratu’l-ʿAyn: The Woman Who Removed the Veil

No discussion of the veil’s meanings can end without Qurratu’l-ʿAyn, also known as Ṭáhirih — the 19th-century Persian Bábí poetess, scholar, and revolutionary who stood at the threshold between Islam and the new Bahá’í revelation.  In 1848, at the Conference of Badasht, she did the unthinkable: she unveiled herself before an assembly of men, declaring the dawn of a new spiritual age.

Those who witnessed it were stunned.  Some fled the gathering in horror, others wept; yet for her followers it was a moment of apocalypse in the truest sense; a revelation, an unveiling.  Ṭáhirih was not rejecting the Qur’ān; she was reading it forward; insisting that the ḥijāb of the age was now to be lifted, that the curtain between the seen and unseen, between woman and man, between scripture and interpretation, had been torn away by history itself.

Her act was theological, not theatrical.  She embodied Bahá’u’lláh’s insight that every word of the Qur’ān carries intention and that when intention matures, form must yield.  The unveiling was not a rebellion against Islam but the fulfillment of its inner symmetry: the shift from law to spirit, from partition to presence.

In Bahá’í memory, Ṭáhirih became a martyr of consciousness — strangled in Tehran in 1852, her final words recorded as:

“You can kill me as soon as you like, but you cannot stop the emancipation of women.”

Her life still radiates through Persian and global feminist thought; many later of the literati, from Allama Iqbal to Qurratulain Hyder, drew upon her courage.  Ṭáhirih stands as the curtain-breaker of her age: unveiling not just her face, but the intellect of the divine feminine long veiled by fear.

Conclusion

The Qur’an offers a theology of modesty, not a uniform code. The hijab began as a metaphor, a veil between the sacred and the profane, and only later descended into fabric.  Its resurrection lies not in cloth or compulsion, but in conscience.

“The clothing of piety — that is best.” (7:26)

Between Kashan’s walls and Cambridge Mass’s freedoms, that remains the hardest garment to wear.

Reading Kabir’s thoughtful post on the “soft Hindutva” bias at Brown Pundits, I found myself both agreeing with parts of his argument and diverging from its framing. My own journey with BP goes back to its inception. The blog was born in Twixmas December 2010; 10 days after I had met Dr. Lalchand, whose presence has profoundly shaped my civilizational views.

I say this not as a biographical aside but because BP, at its best, is where the personal and civilizational collide. We bring who we are; our marriages, our migrations, our contradictions, into this messy, brilliant conversation.

At the time, like many Pakistanis, I held a deep-seated assumption: that Hindus were fundamentally “other.” It wasn’t overt hatred; just a civilizational distance, internalized from birth. But Dr. V & Brown Pundits challenged that.

A Forum With Bias? Yes. But Which One?

The heart of BP is not neutrality; it’s the willingness to host contradiction. That is its genius, and it must be protected.

Kabir’s critique isn’t without merit. BP has long been skeptical of PakNationalism, a term coined and critiqued by Omar. That skepticism often bleeds into a preference for India’s civilizational continuity; even when it comes wrapped in saffron. But is that “soft Hindutva”? Or just what happens when a mostly Indian diaspora grows tired of liberal self-flagellation, yet remains far from the RSS?

We must be honest: all forums have a bias. BP’s is not Hindutva; soft or hard. Its bias is civilizational engagement, often from the Hindu side, because Hinduism is undergoing the most intense process of public introspection in South Asia today. That doesn’t make the forum exclusionary. It just means the emotional energy of the moment is Hindu.

As someone born Pakistani, this hasn’t always been easy to witness. I, too, was raised to see Hindus as alien. But Dr. V & BP helped me unlearn that. It forced me to hear Hindus speak for themselves; not as flat caricatures from Pakistani textbooks, but in flawed, fervent, polyphonic voices. That transformation matters.

Muslims, Merchants, and Modernity

Muslim societies across the Ummah often reproduce a mullah–merchant axis; ordinary bazaaris who are devout, disciplined, and wary of pluralism. This has less to do with theology than with social structure. Even Muslim liberals, those who’ve left the fold intellectually, often retain a deep emotional orthodoxy. They want the dignity of Islam without the obligations. That’s their right. But it also makes reform elusive.

This is why discussions with Muslim intellectuals on BP sometimes stall. There is a core, a resolve, a refusal to bend, even in secular critique. Islam’s strength is also its challenge: its clarity. Hinduism, by contrast, is maddeningly vague but that vagueness allows for evolution. It allows for critique from Ambedkarites, feminists, even atheists. And it survives.

This isn’t a moral hierarchy but it is a cultural asymmetry. One that defines much of public discourse today.

A Prayer Room in a Mall

A few days ago, I needed to say my long obligatory prayer and found myself in a mall. The prayer room was entirely Islamic in orientation. As a Bahá’í, whose obligatory prayer shares Islamic roots but is meant to be done in solitude, I felt alienated. In the end, I found the Christian meditation room, empty, quiet, and prayed there.

I don’t say this as an attack. But it illustrates something deeper. The Islamic world often has a powerful, immovable core. But cores can calcify. Without reform or flexibility, they struggle to respond to social complexity.

Liberating Hinduism to become like Islam

I remember reading a striking line once: that secularism in India was not about restraining Hinduism, but about liberating it from the Indian state. When the courts intervened in Sabarimala, or when temple boards were pressured to democratize, it wasn’t to marginalize the religion; it was to hold it accountable to the values it professed. That’s a far cry from how the Indian state treats its minorities, often with exaggerated deference. There’s a paradox there worth acknowledging.

This nuance is often missing when people critique “Hindu rage.” Yes, there is a rising assertiveness, sometimes aggressive and poorly articulated. But we must ask: what is the emotional wound behind the anger? What is the history being remembered, or misremembered?

What strikes me most, especially among Muslim intellectuals, is the tendency to distance themselves from the faith while still speaking on its behalf. There’s a kind of cultural half-step: not quite inside, not quite outside. But Islam, unlike Hinduism, is not nebulous. It’s a faith built on clarity; of law, of creed, of practice. And that clarity often hardens into rigidity. It becomes difficult to integrate with a pluralistic society when the core feels non-negotiable.

Akhand Bharat: Triggering, Yes. But Why

Kabir is right: maps of “Akhand Bharat” can be deeply offensive to some (would Pakistanis really be offended to be included in a map of the Persianate world?). But let us separate political intent from civilizational nostalgia. When Zionists say “Eretz Yisrael,” it doesn’t mean they’re marching on Jordan. When Chinese textbooks depict all of Asia as tributaries, it doesn’t mean they’re invading Mongolia. Civilizations remember expansively. That’s what they do.

Does “Akhand Bharat” imply irredentism? Not necessarily. But it reflects a longing for coherence in a region shattered by Partition; an event that scarred both India and Pakistan. For Pakistanis, Partition was foundational. For Indians, it was a trauma. These are not symmetrical truths but they are coexisting ones. BP must hold space for both.

The Future of This Forum

Kabir wants more Pakistanis on BP. So do I. He wants voices from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, the Indian Left. So do I. But that expansion must come without constraining the organic Hindu self-expression that drives much of the current commentary. Kabir’s call for more Pakistani and left voices is valid. But that pluralism must add, not amputate, the Hindu core.

We don’t need quotas or silos. What we need is plural presence. If BP becomes a Hindutva or Islamist or secularist safe space, then so be it.

This forum is not perfect. But it is rare. And in a region still grieving its partitions; cultural, political, and spiritual, that rarity is its power. Let it widen, not fracture.

But I don’t think that’s where we are. What we are is a messy, multilingual, cross-border, intermarried, occasionally inappropriate, always intense, half-diasporic, half-continental civilizational salon. There is no other forum like this.

Let’s not neuter it in the name of neutrality.

Let it be what it already is; a place where someone like me, a half-Persian, half-Pakistani Bahá’í who just did a Shiv puja during Shravan, can say all this without apology.

Jewish Muslim Relations – Shared Rituals – Prayer

 “Prayer is God’s backstage pass into a personal audience with Him”.    Tony Evans

 Judaism and Islam has a complex relationship over the centuries. On the one hand, there is mutual acceptance of basic tenet of monotheism and soundness of divinely inspired ethical standards to guide a believer’s life by both religions. On the other hand, Judaism’s critique of Islam as not an authentic divine message and Islam’s assertion that original message of Judaism was authentic but was later distorted or corrupted by the Rabbis therefore it is superseded by Islam. 

Prayer is a vehicle for glorification of divine, corporal, and spiritual purification, discipline and a source for strength and patience. Every religion has some form of prayer that involves symbolic cleansing of the body, supplication to divine and a formal set of body movements. Both Judaism and Islam emphasize the importance of prayer as a means of worship and spiritual connection.

 There are many similarities as well as differences in Jewish and Muslim prayer rituals. However, compared to other religions, Judaism and Islam have remarkable similar prayer rituals. Religions evolve over time where local customs and sociological change influence religious practices. The sources used to explain rituals consist of revealed text and its explanation by sages and oral traditions.  Jews consider the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) and Muslims the Quran as revelation from God. Both books were later preserved in written form and canonized.  Jews also consider oral traditions of the Talmud passed over several generations and later preserved in written form also legally binding. Similar exercise was done by Muslims to preserve the vast corpus of traditions attributed to the Prophet Muhamad (PBUH) in the form of Hadith (sayings or actions of prophet). Later, difference of opinion among Rabbis and imams gave rise to various denominations of Judaism and Islam.

 In the temple period, the main form of Jewish prayer was sacrifice at the temple.  After the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, ritual prayer substituted for sacrifice. In early stages of the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH), there is general agreement among commentators that prophet performed some form of prayer regularly. 

 Both scriptures have commandments for prayers. There are several verses in the Tanakh and the Quran about prayers using different terms including worship, prayer, supplication, praising God and service to God.  The Hebrew Bible examples are in Exodus 23:25, “You shall serve your God who will bless your bread and your water”, Exodus 20:8, “Always remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy through prayer and benediction” and Genesis 32:4, “He therefore made a threefold preparation: prayer to the Almighty, appeasement, and battle”.

 There are over sixty verses in the Quran commanding adherence to prayers.  (Quran 2:153, 7:170, 8:3, 20:14, 22:25, 22:41, 24:56,  27:3, 30:31, 31:4, 33:33 35:18). There are repeated instructions in the Quran about ‘establishment’ of prayer and there is consensus among commentators that it means congregational prayer and some examples include “who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and donate from what We have provided for them” (Baqara 2:3), “establish prayer, pay alms-tax, and bow down with those who bow down” (Baqara 2:43),  “establish prayer, and pay alms-tax”. (Baqara 2:110) and “establish prayer and be mindful of Him” (Ana’am 6:72).   

 The essence of prayer is the intention of getting closer to divine grace and asking for forgiveness of sins.  Scriptures and commentaries stress the essence of prayer. In Isaiah 1:15, “and when you lift up your hands, I will turn My eyes away from you; Though you pray at length, I will not listen. Your hands are stained with crime”. Great biblical commentator Moses Maimonides considers intention as necessary pre-requisite of prayer,  “any prayer that is not [recited] with proper intention is not prayer”.  (Mishneh Torah, Prayer and the Priestly Blessing 4:15).  The Quran gives a comprehensive definition of righteousness that is not limited to ritual prayer by stating that “righteousness is not in turning your faces towards the east or the west. Rather, the righteous are those who believe in Allah, the Last Day, the angels, the Books, and the prophets; who give charity out of their cherished wealth to relatives, orphans, the poor, ˹needy˺ travelers, beggars, and for freeing captives; who establish prayer, pay alms-tax, and keep the pledges they make; and who are patient in times of suffering, adversity, and in ˹the heat of˺ battle”. (Baqara 2:177)

  Religious rituals evolve over time and numbers, timing and specific gestures in prayer can vary even in the same religion due to different interpretations. The Tanakh and the Quran do not give exact details about the timing or the method of prayers. Rabbis and imams deduced it from verses scattered in the revealed text and oral traditions compiled later.

 In the Tanakh in Daniel 6:11 three prayers are mentioned, “when Daniel learned that it had been put in writing, he went to his house, in whose upper chamber he had windows made facing Jerusalem, and three times a day he knelt down, prayed, and made confession to his God, as he had always done”. Three prayers are also mentioned in Psalm 55:18  “evening, morning, and noon, I complain and moan, and He hears my voice”. However, in I Chronicles 23: 30, only two prayers are mentioned, “and to be present every morning to praise and extol the Lord, and at evening too” while in Psalm 119-164 seven prayers are mentioned, “I praise You seven times each day for Your just rules” and in Psalm 119-62, a midnight prayer is also mentioned, “I arise at midnight to praise You for Your just rules”.

In Judaism, there are three daily prayers in morning (shacharit), afternoon (mincha) and evening (ma’ariv). On Sabbath and holy days, a fourth prayer mussaf (addition) is performed and on Yom Kippur there are five prayers when a fifth prayer nei’la (closing) is performed.  Muslims pray five times a day as per the tradition of the prophet in the morning (fajr), afternoon (zuhr), late afternoon (asr), evening (maghreb) and at night (isha). Shia pray three times a day by combining afternoon and late afternoon and evening and night prayers. In Sunni Hadith traditions, this combination of prayers is also mentioned although it is not in general practice. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 10, Number 518 & 537. Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Number 1515-1516)

 Different verses of the Quran mention different timings of prayer. In Ghafir 40:55, there is mention of two prayers “seek forgiveness for your shortcomings. And glorify the praises of your Lord morning and evening” and in Qaf 50:39 also two “and glorify the praises of your Lord before sunrise and before sunset. Two prayers are mentioned in Isra 17:78-79   “observe the prayer from the decline of the sun until the darkness of the night and the dawn prayer, for certainly the dawn prayer is witnessed ˹by angels˺”. In Hu’ud 11:114, three prayers are mentioned, “establish prayer at both ends of the day and in the early part of the night^”  while in Rum 30:17-18, four prayers are mentioned “so glorify Allah in the evening and in the morning – all praise is for Him in the heavens and the earth – as well as in the afternoon, and at noon”. In Taha 20:130 six prayers are mentioned “and glorify the praises of your Lord before sunrise and before sunset and glorify Him in the hours of the night and at both ends of the day, so that you may be pleased ˹with the reward˺. And rise at ˹the last˺ part of the night, offering additional prayers, so your Lord may raise you to a station of praise”. The Quran was revealed over twenty-four years and this discrepancy suggests the evolutionary nature of the prayer ritual that transformed from recommended to mandatory. 

 Obligatory prayers in Islam are linked with the tradition of a miraculous journey. The night journey of Prophet (PBUH) from Mecca to Jerusalem is called isra’a (night journey) and then to heavens to meet the divine is called me’eraj (ascension). In the Quran, the two events are described separately. In Isra 17:1 “Glory be to the One Who took His servant ˹Muhammad˺ by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque and in Najam 53-7-18, “while on the highest point above the horizon, then he approached ˹the Prophet˺, coming so close, that he was only two arms-lengths away or even less”.

 According to Hadith literature, compulsory five daily prayers were mandated during this night journey. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 345. Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 328 & 329). According to this narration, initially fifty daily prayers were ordered but on insistence of Moses, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) made several trips to the divine to finally bring down the numbers to five. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 227. Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 321).

 Every prayer ritual is usually preceded by cleansing of the body and Judaism and Islam are no exception. In the Tanakh, Exodus 30:19  “and let Aaron and his sons wash their hands and feet [in water drawn] from it.” This was the practice of priests in the temple and currently only washing of hands is performed. In the Quran in Maida 5:6, a detailed explanation of cleansing before the prayer is provided, “O believers! when you rise for prayer, wash your faces and your hands up to the elbows, wipe your heads, and wash your feet to the ankles”.

 In every religion, the prayer ritual includes facing a specific direction or deity for concentration.  In Aramaic, the word qabel (facing) and Arabic word qibla (prayer direction) is used for the same purpose. In Judaism since the temple period, Jews face Jerusalem during the prayer.  Several verses of the Tanakh and words of sages in the Talmud are clear in this regard. In I Kings 8:35 “they pray toward this place” and in 8:44 “they pray to GOD in the direction of the city that You have chosen, and of the House that I have built to Your name” and II Chronicles 6:34  “they pray to You in the direction of the city which You have chosen and the House which I have built to Your name”. Maimonides explains that “All, however, turned during prayer to the Sanctuary, in whichever direction that might be. This was the uniform practice from the times of Moses to those of Ezra”. (Mishneh Torah in Prayer and Priestly Blessing 1:3).

In early period of almost ten years of prophethood and for about sixteen months after daily prayers became obligatory, Muslims used to face towards Jerusalem before the order came to face a new qiblah (direction of prayer) towards the Ka’aba in Mecca. (Sahih Muslim. Book 4, Chapter 46, Numbers 1071-1075). At that time, there was no sanctuary in Jerusalem but only ruins of the second temple built by Solomon. The Quran does not specifically mention Jerusalem, but in Isra 17-1, the Quran is very specific about the sanctity of the temple and use the same word of mosque for Ka’aba and the site of the temple stating that  “Glory be to the One Who took His servant ˹Muhammad˺ by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque whose surroundings We have blessed, so that We may show him some of Our signs”. All Muslim commentators identify earlier qibla as the site of Solomon temple in Jerusalem that is still called ‘qibla-e-awwal’ (first direction of prayer). In 636, when caliph Umar bin Khattab visited Jerusalem, he ordered building a mosque at the far end of the ruins of the temple. Umayyad caliph Abdul Malik bin Marwan built a sanctuary over the ruins of the temple in 691 AD called qub’bat al sakhra (Dome of the Rock).

 In the Quran in Baqara 2:142-150 several verses deal with change of direction of prayer that suggest that Jews may have criticized Muslims for changing of their prayer direction from Jerusalem to Mecca and change was on the wish of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Interestingly, Quran concludes the discussion by alluding to the higher purpose of prayer than mere facing a particular direction by stating that “Even if you were to bring every proof to the People of the Book, they would not accept your direction ˹of prayer˺, nor would you accept theirs; nor would any of them accept the direction ˹of prayer˺ of another”. (Baqara 2:145) and “everyone turns to their own direction ˹of prayer˺. So, compete with one another in doing good”. (Baqara 2:148)

 In the Tanakh, different verses allude to body movements during prayer including raising hands, prostration and touching face to the ground.  In Numbers 10:35   “When the Ark was about to set forward, the cloud rolled over it, until Moses raised his hands in prayer”, in Deuteronomy 9:18, “I prostrated myself in prayer before the Eternal the same amount of time as before, forty days and forty nights” and in Numbers 16:22, “They fell upon their faces in prayer and said: O Almighty, You who have the power to discern the thoughts of all mortals”. Some rituals were observed only by priests in the temple and now prostration is not practiced in Jewish prayer. The rituals of Muslim prayers are described in detail in books of Hadith (Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Numbers 345-470. Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Numbers 735-1092).

 Practical problems necessitate modification of the ritual and in both Judaism and Islam, prayer is shortened if facing a danger.  In Mishna Berakhot 4:4, “Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who cannot recite a complete prayer because he is walking in a place of danger, recites a brief prayer”  and in the Quran Baqara 2:101, “when you travel through the land, it is permissible for you to shorten the prayer, especially if you fear an attack by the disbelievers”.

 Syriac term for prayer is selota that is used in Jewish liturgy and probably brought to Arabia by Syriac Christians that gave rise to Arabic term for prayer salat.  Unity of God is the central pillar of faith in both religions. In Judaism the prayer is preceded by profession of faith in divine unity, the Shema Israel. The liturgical core of Muslim prayer is the verses of first chapter fatiha (opening) that is recited in every prayer. In rabbinical writings, the opening prologue before the main text is called petihah. Both prayers use supplications and praises to God.  Alhamdu li’lillah in Arabic and barukh attah means praise to the God, rabb ul alamin in Arabic and melekh ha’olam in Hebrew means king of the universe and mercy and compassion of God is Rahman and Rahim in Arabic and rachamim in Hebrew. On completion of prayer the closing act is similar in Judaism and Islam. In the Talmud “when one recites: Peace, he first bows to the right and then to the left, (Yoma 53b). Muslim prayer ends by saying peace and blessing by turning face to the right and then left. Judaism and Islam encourage congregational prayers to foster solidarity and weekly special congregational prayer on Friday by Muslims and on Saturday by Jews is equated with special blessings.

 Both Judaism and Islam emphasize the importance of prayer as a means of worship, connection with the Divine, and spiritual growth. These prayers play central roles in the daily lives of adherents, serving as reminders of their faith and commitments. Prayers serve many purposes and are subject to individual interpretation and experience. Some may view prayer as a direct channel for divine intervention, while others see it as a means of self-reflection and empowerment. For many believers, prayer serves as a means of establishing and nurturing a direct connection with the divine. Prayer can offer solace and comfort during times of distress, grief, or uncertainty and communal prayer fosters a sense of identity and unity that strengthens social bonds.  

 “Prayer is an act of love; words are not needed”.   Saint Teresa of Avila

Notes:

 Abdelwahab Meddeb and Benjamin Stora (Editors). A History of Jewish-Muslim Relations – From the Origins to the Present Day (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013)

• Reuven Firestone.  Rituals: Similarities, Influences, and Processes of Differentiation in Abdelwahab Meddeb and Benjamin Stora (Editors). A History of Jewish-Muslim Relations – From the Origins to the Present Day (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), p 701-711)
• Mohamed Hawary.  Prayer in Judaism and Islam in Abdelwahab Meddeb and Benjamin Stora (Editors). A History of Jewish-Muslim Relations – From the Origins to the Present Day (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), p. 713-719)

• Sefaria.  This is the most comprehensive site of Jewish texts. Translations used in this article are from this site.

https://www.sefaria.org/texts

• The Noble Quran.  An easy-to-use site with Arabic text and English translation. Translations used in this article are from this site.

https://quran.com/en

• Sahih Bukhari in Hadith Collection. A user-friendly site about books of Hadith.  Translations used in this article are from this site.

https://hadithcollection.com/sahihbukhari

• Sahih Muslim in Hadith Collection. A user-friendly site about books of Hadith.  Translations used in this article are from this site.

https://hadithcollection.com/sahihmuslim

 Hamid Hussain

coeusconsultant@optonline.net

20 April 2024

Jewish – Muslim Relations – Pilgrimage

 From time immemorial, humans all over the world have designated rocks, rivers, trees, and mountains as sacred. Pilgrimage sites and rites are shaped by stories and legends passed down through generations. People embark on journey to a sacred place or shrine for fulfillment of their religious beliefs. It holds profound meaning for the believer as well as solidification of the communal identity. 

 Hebrew bible recommends pilgrimage to the temple (Beit Ha Mikdash) in Jerusalem.  Exodus 23:14 specifies that “three times you are to hold pilgrimage for me, every year” and in Deuteronomy 16:13, “ the pilgrimage festival of Sukkot, you are to observe for yourself, for seven days”. The major pilgrimage to the temple on Sukkot festival, was called Ḥag ha-Asif (Festival of Gathering). 

 In Judaism, pilgrimage revolved around three major festivals known as the Sheloshet Haregalim (three pilgrimage festivals): Pesach (Passover), Shavuot (Feast of Weeks), and Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles). Passover commemorates the exodus from Egypt and the Israelites’ journey to freedom. Shavuot celebrates the giving of the Torah to Moses at Mount Sinai and Sukkot involves building temporary shelters (sukkahs) to remember the Israelites journey through the desert after the exodus. These festivals originally required Jews to make a pilgrimage to the temple in Jerusalem called re’iyah (appearance) and offer sacrifices called Qorban in Hebrew. After the destruction of the temple and dispersion of Jews, pilgrimage was discontinued and replaced with religious observances. During sukkot, members of the congregation join a procession that circles the inside of the sanctuary of the synagogue called hak’kafah (circling). 

 The shrine of Ka’aba in Mecca is linked with early Islamic traditions and prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) family was the custodian of the shrine in pre-Islamic era.  In the first few years of Islam, Muslims prayed towards the ruins of destroyed Jewish temple in Jerusalem, but Ka’aba’s place was affirmed in daily Muslim life when direction of prayer was changed from Jerusalem to Ka’aba.

 The Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca called Hajj is one of the main pillar of Islam and every able-bodied person is mandated to perform Hajj on specific days once in lifetime if he or she can afford. The minor pilgrimage called umra’h can be performed any time of the year. In Quran verses about pilgrimage include al Hajj 22:27 & 29, “call ˹all˺ people to the pilgrimage” and “circle the ancient house” and in al Baqarah 2:196,  “complete the pilgrimage (Hajj) and minor pilgrimage (umra’h) for Allah”.

 The Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca consists of wearing simple two pieces of white cloth (ihram), the sevenfold circumambulation of the Ka’ba (tawaf),  running between the hills of Safa and Marwa (sa’i), going to the plains of Mount Arafat, spending a night on the plains of Muzdalifa, staying in a tent in Mina, symbolic stoning of the devil, sacrificing an animal and celebrating the three- day festival Eid ul Adha. 

 In pre-Islamic Arabia, Mecca was one of the center of pagan pilgrimage and sacrifice rites.  The Ḥajj rituals performed by Muslims outside of Mecca, in Arafat, Muzdalifah and Mina with animal sacrifice are like ‘ritualized hunt-like competitions reported to have been a part the pre-Islamic pilgrimage gathering at the Dhū al-Majāz fair’. Tribal competitions, ritualized hunts, and the sacrifice of animals at mountaintop were part of this festival.

 Islam continued the tradition but linked it with monotheism by incorporating ancient prophets, especially Ibrahim. Several verses of the Quran link Ibrahim with the shrine of Ka’aba.  In Quran al Baqarah 2:127, “Abraham raised the foundation of the House with Ishmael” and in Quran al Hajj 22:26-27, “we assigned to Abraham the site of the House, ˹saying,˺ “do not associate anything with Me ˹in worship˺ and purify My House for those who circle ˹the Ka’aba” and “call ˹all˺ people to the pilgrimage”.

 In addition to main pilgrimages, Jews and Muslims visit shrines of prophets, sages, and holy men to get some form of divine blessing. Puritans of both religions do not approve of such visits and view it as encroachment on strict monotheism so stressed in Judaism and Islam. It is hard even for monotheism to completely eradicate these venerations where saints replace the pagan deities. In some areas, both communities claim exclusive rights to the venerated shrine resulting in violent conflict. In Hebron, the burial place of the patriarch of both religions Ibrahim is one such place. Muslims call it sanctuary of Ibrahim (al haram al Ibrahimi) and Jews call it cave of the patriarchs (me’arat Ha’machpelah) and space is divided into a mosque and a synagogue.

 Jewish and Muslim pilgrimages are like traditions in other religions including pagan traditions. Prophets common among both religions are the link with some similarities in rituals although pilgrimage traditions and rituals diverged as each religion had a different historical trajectory.

 Notes:

 Pamela Berger.  Jewish-Muslim Veneration at Pilgrimage Places in the Holy Land. Religion and the Arts 15 (2011), 1-60.

 https://www.themathesontrust.org/papers/judaism/Berger-Jewish-Muslim_Veneration.pdf

 Peter Webb.  The Hajj before Muhammad:  Journeys to Mecca in Muslim Narratives of Pre-Islamic History

 https://www.academia.edu/7027500/The_Hajj_before_Muhammad

 Peter Webb. The History and Significance of the Meccan Hajj – from Pre-Islam to the Rise of the Abbasids

 https://www.academia.edu/109034309/The_History_and_Significance_of_the_Meccan_Hajj_from_Pre_Islam_to_the_Rise_of_the_Abbasids

 Rabbi Allan Maller. Can the Hajj spirit bring Jews and Muslims Closer together.  June 27, 2022

 https://www.eurasiareview.com/27062022-can-the-hajj-spirit-bring-jews-and-muslims-closer-together-oped/#google_vignette

 The Noble Quran.  An easy-to-use site with Arabic text and English translation. Translations used in this article are from this site.

https://quran.com/en

 Hamid Hussain

coeusconsultant@optonline.net

21 June 2024

This is part of a series of my work on Jewish-Muslim relations encompassing a wide canvas of similarities in scripture, rituals, Arabic & Hebrew language, mysticism, literature, coexistence in historical context and conflict in recent times. It has been a fascinating journey tracing the sibling rivalry of Isac and Ishmael.

Hamid

Jewish Muslim Relations – Sacred Texts – The Torah and the Quran

“Lighthouses don’t go running all over an island looking for boats to save; they just stand there shining.”

                                               Anne Lamott

The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) and the Quran are two sacred texts considered revelation from God by Judaism and Islam respectively.  Both sacred texts are considered foundational stones of faith.  Tanakh is acronym for Torah (five books of Moses called Khumash in Hebrew), Navi’im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings). The Torah is called sefer (book) and the Quran um al kitab (mother of books).  Both texts share several commonalities in terms of themes, narratives, and ethical teachings and are at the same time quite different.  One can pick any side depending on what one is trying to convey.  In the inter-faith interactions, participants stress commonalities sometimes exaggerating the similarities or trying to find common ground where none exists. On the other hand, polemics with aim of denouncing the other side can give a long list of differences between two texts.

Tanakh is written Torah and considered by Jews revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai.  It forms the basis of Halacha (Jewish law). Quran is believed by Muslims to be revealed to Muhammad (PBUH) and forms the basis of Sharia (Islamic law). Common ethical values are not limited to monotheistic religions, but they are universal values. Every faith and even atheists hold compassion, justice and caring for parents, neighbors and poor as desirable traits and there is no surprise that these values are found in the Torah and the Quran.

Islam confirmed the validity of previous revelation of Torah and message of Israelite prophets. However, it took the position that the message of previous prophets was forgotten or misunderstood, and sacred text was corrupted. Islam claimed to be an improvement of previous message and new message of Quran superseded it.

Judaism had a complex relationship with their Ishmaelite cousins but believed that only the Torah was the revealed text and rejected any further prophetic traditions. However, it accepted salvation of righteous non-Jews under the umbrella of Noahide Covenant (God’s covenant with children of Noah of salvation if they observe seven laws).

After the destruction of second temple in 70 AD, Jews never held political sovereignty and were scattered all over the world. On the other hand, after its emergence in seventh century in Arabian Peninsula, Islam spread all over the globe giving birth to several empires spanning over several centuries.  Jews were better tolerated in Muslim societies compared to Christendom. Common origins of both monotheistic faiths helped Jews to survive in Muslim lands albeit as second-class citizens. A minority must tread carefully as a single misstep can make the difference between acceptance to annihilation. Jewish scholars used Islamic texts claiming special status to ensure protection. Their condition depended on the personality of the ruler who could justify protection or persecution by selectively using the sacred text.

he Torah was canonized three centuries before the advent of Islam therefore there is nothing in it about the future religion.  It has story of Ishmael and his complex relationship with his brother Isaac that some biblical commentators extrapolate to Arabs and Muslims as they are the progeny of Ishmael. Some are depicted as enemies of Israelites and called Hagarites clearly referring to children of Hagar (Hajirah in Arabic). On the other hand, God confirms his blessing of Ishmael “As for Ishmael, I have heeded you. I hereby bless him. I will make him fertile and exceedingly numerous. He shall be the father of twelve chieftains, and I will make of him a great nation” (Genesis 17:20-21).

In the early stages of Islam, relations with Jews evolved from close cooperation and alliance to outright hostility and expulsion of Jewish tribes from Arabian heartland. The Quran comments about Judaism as well as the Torah. The most extensive reference is in the fifth chapter (sura) al Maida and as this chapter is one of the last chapters revealed therefore one can assume that this is the final verdict about Jews.  This chapter is a mixture of some very harsh comments but also avoids general condemnation of Jews and explains area of cooperation.

The Quran draws the line between Muslims and the people of the book cautioning against alliance with them by stating that “O believers! Take neither Jews nor Christians as guardians—they are guardians of each other” (al Maida 5:51) and “O believers! Do not seek the guardianship of those given the Scripture before” (al Maida 5:57). It then separates Jews and Christians in their attitude towards Muslims stating that “you will surely find the most bitter towards the believers to be the Jews and polytheists and the most gracious to be those who call themselves Christian. That is because there are priests and monks among them and because they are not arrogant” (al Maida 5:82). The harshest condemnation is reserved for those Jews who desecrated Sabbath (Jewish day of rest) “you are already aware of those of you who broke the Sabbath. We said to them, “be disgraced apes” (al Baqarah 2:65).

At theological level, the Quran recognizes the Torah as revelation from God stating that “indeed, We revealed the Torah, containing guidance and light, by which the prophets, who submitted themselves to Allah, made judgments for Jews. So too did the rabbis and scholars judge according to Allah’s Book, with which they were entrusted and of which they were made keepers. So do not fear the people; fear Me! Nor trade my revelations for a fleeting gain. And those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are ˹truly˺ the disbelievers” (al Maida 5:44). The Quran also recognizes God’s covenant with Jews in verses “Allah made a covenant with the Children of Israel” (al Maida 5:12) and “remember Allah’s favors upon you when He raised prophets from among you, made you sovereign, and gave you what He had never given anyone in the world” (al Maida 5:20).

The Quran confirms the salvation of Jews by stating that “indeed, the believers, Jews, Sabians and Christians—whoever ˹truly˺ believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, there will be no fear for them, nor will they grieve” (al Maida 5:69). The Quran recommends returning to the original message “O People of the Book! You have nothing to stand on unless you observe the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord” (al Maida 5:68).

The Quran confirms the authenticity of the message of the Torah and condemnation of some among Jews is due to their conduct. The Quran separates the wrongdoers from true believers among Jews in the verse “the disbelievers among the Children of Israel were condemned in the revelations of David and Jesus, son of Mary. That was for their disobedience and violations” (al Maida 5:78). Quran qualifies condemnation of Jews to only those who rebelled and in the same sentence directed Muhammad (PBUH) to pardon them stating that “but for breaking their covenant We condemned them and hardened their hearts. They distorted the words of the Scripture and neglected a portion of what they had been commanded to uphold. You ˹O Prophet˺ will always find deceit on their part, except for a few. But pardon them and bear with them”. (al Maida 5:13).  In the same chapter another verse states that “some among them are upright, yet many do nothing but evil” while at the same time emphasizing that if they follow God’s commandments, they will again get God’s favor stating that “had they observed the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to them from their Lord, they would have been overwhelmed with provisions from above and below” (al Maida 5:66). Rabbinic traditions also blame the destruction of first and second temples and persecution of Jews due to non-adherence to God’s commandments. Muslim commentators give the same reason that Allah punishes Muslims as they have forgotten the message.

At social level the Quran allows the most intimate relationship of marriage with Jewish women (al Maida 5:5). This fact alone turns upside down the whole argument about general condemnation of Jews. If a group is considered so hostile, then how can you give a Jewish woman the most important task of bearing and raising your children.

One of the most fundamental similarities between the Torah and the Quran is strict emphasis on monotheism emphasizing the oneness and supremacy of God, known as Yahweh in Torah and Allah in the Quran. This shared monotheistic belief forms the cornerstone of both Judaism and Islam, underscoring the unity and transcendence of the divine. Torah’s verse “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4) and Quranic verses “Say, He is Allah, [who is] One. Allah, the sustainer. He has never had offspring, nor was He born. And there is none comparable to Him.” (al Ikhlas 112:1-4) conveys the same message.

The Torah and the Quran contain accounts of various prophets who are revered as messengers of God. Figures such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jospeh, Moses, and David are prominently featured in both texts, albeit with some variations in narrative details. These prophets are depicted as conveying divine message and guiding towards righteousness, justice, and obedience to God’s commandments. Abraham is considered patriarch by both faiths. The prophetic tradition serves as a link between Judaism and Islam, emphasizing the continuity of divine revelation throughout history. The accounts of creation of universe and man, Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark, and the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt are examples of narratives that are present in both texts, albeit with variations in details and interpretations.

Both texts emphasize ethical teachings and moral principles including compassion, justice, honesty, and charity as integral aspects of righteous living. They condemn practices such as oppression, injustice, and exploitation, urging believers to uphold ethical standards in their personal conduct and societal interactions. The emphasis on ethical conduct underscores the shared moral values inherent in Judaism and Islam, fostering a sense of accountability and responsibility towards fellow human beings.

The Torah commands “You have been told, O mortal, what is good. And what God requires of you? Only to do justice and to love goodness and to walk modestly with your God” (Micah 6:8). Quranic verses “indeed, Allah commands you to return trusts to their rightful owners; and when you judge between people, judge with fairness” (al Nisa 4:58) echoes the same words. The Torah’s verse “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great but judge your neighbor fairly” (Leviticus 19:15) and The Quran uses the same language “O believers! Stand firm for justice as witnesses for Allah even if it is against yourselves, your parents, or close relatives. Be they rich or poor, Allah is best to ensure their interests. So do not let your desires cause you to deviate from justice. If you distort the testimony or refuse to give it, then know that Allah is certainly all aware of what you do” (al Nisa 4:135).

Charity and helping the poor is stressed in Torah “he who is generous to the poor makes a loan to the LORD; He will repay him his due” (Proverbs 19:17). Quran uses the same language “indeed, those men and women who give in charity and lend to Allah a good loan will have it multiplied for them, and they will have an honorable reward” (al Hadid 57:18).

The Torah and the Quran share numerous similarities in terms of monotheistic belief, prophetic traditions, and ethical teachings. However, there are differences in details, theological interpretations, and cultural contexts. The commonalities underscore the interconnectedness of Judaism and Islam as Abrahamic faiths rooted in shared spiritual heritage. On the other hand, differences suggest that two faiths emphasize separateness and uniqueness of the message. Focus on similarities can foster greater understanding, dialogue, and mutual respect, contributing to interfaith harmony and cooperation in an increasingly diverse and violent world.

True wisdom comes from reading the sacred texts with a spiritual awareness that leads to inner peace that must come first before attempting to bring peace to the world around us. In the absence of it, sacred text is simply a collection of stories of the forefathers. It is about religion and not about the divine and only owner’s manual of a religious tradition. This distinction is not just academic but has real life consequences. When people cling to the sacred text in the absence of divine grace then they feel perfectly comfortable killing others over some stones and bricks that they believe where their ancestors worshiped. If this is not idol worship, then we must find a new definition for the gravest sin condemned in the Torah and the Quran. On the other hand, when divine grace elevates the soul above the text then man jumps into the river or a raging fire risking his own life to save the life of a totally stranger that he never met before regardless of his race, color, or religion.

“Only God can put scripture inside. But reading sacred text can put it on your heart, and then when your heart breaks, the holy words will fall inside.”

                                                                                              Anne Lamott

Notes:

• Abdelwahab Meddeb and Benjamin Stora (Editors). A History of Jewish-Muslim Relations – From the Origins to the Present Day (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013)
• Michael E. Pregill. The Hebrew Bible and the Quran: The Problem of the Jewish ‘Influence’ on Islam.  Religion Compass. Volume 1; Issue: 06, November 2007
• Sefaria.  This is the most comprehensive site of Jewish texts. Translations used in this article are from this site.

https://www.sefaria.org/texts

• he Noble Quran.  An easy to use site with Arabic text and English translation. Translations used in this article are from this site.

https://quran.com/en

Hamid Hussain

coeusconsultant@optonline.net

20 March 2024

Centuries ago, the Mughal Prince, Dara Shikoh wrote a treatise on the similarities of Hinduism and Islam – Majma-ul-Bahrain or The Confluence of Two Seas. Wading through the songs of sages born on holy riverbanks, Dara discovered striking similarities in Vedic verses with his beloved Sufi stanzas. Dara attempted to bridge Indian and Arab minds to not only bring material peace to communities in strife but also achieve inner peace by uncovering a quintessential spiritual unity.

Dara’s quest would be cut short by his fanatic brother, Aurangzeb, who would usurp the throne and execute Dara for apostasy. A reign of religious terror followed as Aurangzeb’s extremism left permanent scars on the subcontinent until the sparks of saffron would strike back as the upstart Marathas upended the Mughals into obscurity.

Yet, this is just a part of a much more ancient interaction. Before Islam galloped across the world, Arabs were aware of the subcontinent, al-Hind, and an interesting set of interactions played out. There is no grand trend or narrative here, but I want to tell you the story of an Arabia before and after Islam and how it spoke to an India that was eternally Hindu.

Past Lives

The samsara-like cycle of hadar (settled life) and badw (nomadic life) captures the essence of Arabia. From the deserts came raiders and traders into the sparsely settled lands of the Arabian peninsula. Initially, these settled folk would look upon these Bedouins as vagabonds of the dunes who dealt only in death and dirhams. However, the scorned of the scorched lands would ultimately find the greatest victory in the end as the hadar would bow down to the badw and their Lord.

The first mention of Arabs comes in 853 BCE from the Assyrian King Shalmaneser III as he declares victory over a Levantine coalition aided by the “Aribi.” If we round up a bit, this places the birth of Islam at about the halfway point of Arab history showing us how much perspective we miss in the mainstream discourse where Arabia equals Islam. Approximately 1400 years of Arab history were devoid of its iconic brand while the other 1400 were defined by it.

But who were these early Arabs? And what connections did they have with India? The connections are sparse, I’ll admit, but let’s connect a few dots between these 2 great civilizations as our tale travels forward.

Now while our Assyrian king denoted a group of people as “Arabs,” does that necessarily mean they were one people or even had a single identity consciousness? Probably not. Assyrians and South Arabians (The Sabaeans and Himyari from modern-day Yemen) point to these “Arabs” as synonymous with the desert-faring Bedouins mentioned earlier. Eventually, these Arabs would eventually record instances of the Ajam or non-Arabs (frequently when referring to Persians), and the perception of an outgroup would be matched by the realization of an ingroup – the Arabs. Nonetheless, the people of the Arabian peninsula would soon trade words and coins with those across the great blue horizon of the east.

Artha

While the Republic of India has vilified wealth creation and business for most of its tenure, ancient India had a special relationship with artha, meaning a goal or sense of purpose but more colloquially – wealth.

From the natural Himalayan border came sages to impart spirituality to the subcontinent, but from the seas came strangers bearing commerce and material opportunity. Arab and Indian nautical and commercial ambitions merged as the Indian Ocean trade began its first flows. Fascinatingly, a number of Arabic words – dūnīj (small boat), barja (group of ships), hūrī (small boat), balanj (cabin), nākhūdha (captain) are believed to have an Indian etymology. The ocean that kept them apart would eventually bring them together.

Early links between Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Indian civilizations would be the precursor to the new trade flourishing at the shores of Arabia. The Greek cataloguer, Megasthenes, remarks on the similarity of irrigation systems between India and Egypt. Barley at Mohenjo Daro along the Indus river was found to be the same species as that cultivated near the Nile. Tamil Sangam literature from the tip of the Indian subcontinent places an Indian trade base at Alexandria, while the Nabataean (now Syrian) city of Palmyra hosted a center of Indian trade as well. Artha brought the land of Āryavarta closer to the Assyrians, Akkadians, Alexandrians, and eventually the Arabs.

While, we have evidence of Indian seals and pottery found in Bahrain, dating to the erstwhile Dilmun civilization, it may be across the width of Arabia where we find some of the more tangent links in the rocky realm of the Sabaeans. The Sabaeans looked down on their savage desert dwelling neighbors initially. They were a hadar people who used their extra settled time to focus on engineering and commerce. They resided in a “southern fertile crescent” as mountainous terrain and fortuitous rivers allowed this hadar living. But while the Sabaeans didn’t speak Arabic, their legends would spread north across Arabia, similar to how the Bhakti and Vedantic philosophies cultivated by southern Tamil Indians would transform the subcontinent. The Sabaeans supreme god al-Rahman would be an alternate name for the Lord of Mecca centuries later. They are said to have built a legendary dam, the Great Dam of Mar’ib, whose eventual collapse is said to have sent the children of South Arabia scattered across the wildernesses north. This exodus forms an origin story for many Arabs. The biblical Queen of Sheba is also said to have resided in southern Arabia as she would be a small footnote in the story of Islam that would be formed later on, yet an integral uniting piece of the Abrahamic tradition that the Quran claims to finally seal.

So technically it is here we see again that India would first interface with the Arabs through their intermediaries or their ancestors, depending on one’s narrative. South Arabia formed a gateway to India via the sea.

An Ocean of Churn

One of the creation stories of Hinduism involves the churning of the cosmic ocean by the gods and demons alike. Out of this great churning came many treasures but eventually a poison, halāhala, was released near the end. Lord Shiva, the god of destruction would consume this poison that threatened to destroy the cosmos if left unimpeded. All good things eventually yield malaise.

The great Indian Ocean that brought riches between Arabia and India would eventually harken conflict.

Now, I am an unapologetic critic of the Islamic invasions of India. I have no qualms pointing out the loss of life, destruction of temples, and persecution of native traditions that characterized a large section of Islamic India. But I don’t want to define this Indo-Arab relationship by that. Muhammed bin Qasim, the first Islamic Arab invader of India would only form a small foothold in Sindh as Indians found a rare moment of unity when the Rajput confederacies put an end to the greatest Arab raid in history. As the caliphate collapsed soon after, commerce thrived between India and Arabia as well as something even more profound – ideas.

Arabian Islam’s spread in India is the most obvious idea exchange here, but what did India give to Arabia? Science and even a tinge of spirituality.

It was during the Abbasid era that the Caliph al-Ma’mun would send his emissaries to gather knowledge from the frontiers of the empire. Newly conquered Sindh functioned as a conduit to the ideas of India as advancements in math, astronomy, medicine, and other sciences would form the foundations of a large chunk of the Islamic Golden Age as well as transmission to the West. Brahmagupta’s Brahmasiddhānta would form the bedrock of much of this knowledge as it directly led to the acquisition of the Indian numeral system that became the native language of mathematics, science, and applied technology across the world. Baghdad would soon host a retinue of scholars trained in both Arabic and Sanskrit to translate Indian works.

This cannot be understated. Without Brahmagupta’s Brahmasiddhānta and Khandakhādyaka as well as works from Aryabhatta (astronomy), Sushruta (medicine), Charak (medicine), and others, the Islamic Golden Age may have never happened. The mathematical base created by ancient Indian scientists would become the native language of science itself. Indian numerals and their mathematical derivations would be used by Arab and Persian scholars to assemble new modes of thinking and recover old discoveries from Greeks and Persians as this wonderful hisāb al-hindi (Arab term for Indian numerals) would create a new eloquence and efficiency to express other cultures’ scientific methods.

These numerals would also be great for counting the newly reinvigorated commerce that took place on the currents of the Indian Ocean. Tombstones carved in the modern-day Gujarat region of India would bear motifs from Hindu and Jain temples but would arrive at the burial sites adorned with the iconic Arabic script that was spreading like wildfire, ironically across the waves of an ocean. Trade flourished and Arab blood would become an insignia of status across the Islamic world including amongst Muslims in India. Hindu and Muslim, Indian and Arab alike would take advantage of the trade routes riding the monsoon winds with expeditions from Mombasa to Malacca, from Malabar to Malaysia, from Basra to Bharuch, and many other alliterative outposts. Artha became a seafaring pursuit.

But artha was never the ultimate destination of Indian philosophy. The horizon and home of India’s spirituality were found at the feet of the Gurus, the granters of moksha – liberation.

Ana al-Haqq

India was known as a land of wisdom and philosophy to the Arabs. So much so, that one man, Hussain ibn Mansur al-Hallaj, would follow the footprints of conquest and beyond to the banks of the sacred rivers of al-Hind. At the turn of the 10th century, al-Hallaj would travel across India drawing parallels between the Sufi mystics who gave refuge to him before and these Hindu renunciants who he now found refuge in. He came back profoundly changed, exclaiming “Āna al-Haqq!” – “I am the truth!” Perhaps an ode to the Upanishadic verse spoken thousands of years prior, Aham Brahmāsmi, taken as recognizing the divinity of God (Brahman) within oneself – “I am Brahman.” Of course, an entire dissertation could be written on the mahāvākya or great saying of the Upanishads that would become the object of reverence for Dara Shikoh years later.

Al-Hallaj would return home and transgress the house rules with his Hindu ways. He advocated a “personal” Hajj where he circumambulated an object and fed 30 orphans as a substitution for the Meccan Hajj. His mannerisms and mentality couldn’t be tolerated much longer as he would soon be imprisoned by the local rulers. In jail, Al-Hallaj’s spirituality reached the fringes of myth. The legends of the yogis beyond the Indus were born again in this jail as Al-Hallaj was reported to have demonstrated strange powers such as spreading his body to cover every inch of the jail cell, producing dirham coins at will from his sleeves, and creating perfume-like scents with a dash of his hand. The mesmerism and mantras would eventually result in his execution in 922 CE, but his legend of subversion and rebellion controversially lived on in Arab minds.

Arabs would view many of the practices or rituals of Hinduism with disdain, but they generally had a high appraisal of the overarching philosophy. The Mughal Prince Dara Shikoh would meld Arab and Indian thought (of course with Persian intermediaries) with his magnum opus in Majma-ul-Bahrain. He theorized that the flow of knowledge in the Upanishads secretly fed the spiritual oasis of Islam in Arabia. Hinting to the Kitab al-Maknun or “hidden book” in the Quran, Dara believed that he had finally found the elusive tome in the Upanishads. This spirit of forging connections, commonalities, and curiosity that crosses borders and boundaries is lost on many today, but Dara embodied this spirit as attempted to meet the Arab and Indian mind to discover the ultimate truth – moksha.

Much of this piece derives from the fantastic paper “Early Arab Contact With South Asia” and Tim Mackintosh-Smith’s masterpiece – Arabs: A 3000-Year History of Peoples, Tribes, and Empires.

Reposted from The Emissary. Follow me on Twitter!

Some quick observations:

– There are those who lambast the critics of this ad. Many of the critics are low-IQ vulgarians. So the criticism is not without foundation. But, most of the responses dodge the gendered nature of the objection. The fact is that in Islam it is understood that Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women. It is also tolerated for Christians and Jews to retain their religion after marriage. The children are considered Muslim. This practice in a patriarchal society was seen as a boon to the Islamic nation.

The advertisement plays into this Islamic trope. The converse of this is that most interpretations of sharia ban the marriage of Muslim women to non-Muslim men. Again, the rationale for this is straightforward: the children inherit the religion of the father, and therefore the children are lost to Islam. If the supporters of the beauty of the advertisement of interfaith marriage believe in this custom, then they should support more speech. In particular, they should support an advertisement where a Hindu man marries a Muslim woman in a Hindu ceremony to show that there is nothing wrong with this act so long as the people consent freely.

But, this sort of advertisement might incite Muslims, because the community may not tolerate a contravention of their social norms. Here, the low-IQ vulgarians do have a point, don’t they? India’s “secularists” tolerate a level of regression and backwardness in Islamic social mores that they wouldn’t tolerate from Hindus. Some of this is the heckler’s veto, but some of this is the bigotry of low expectations.

– The other half of this are the delusions and paranoia of India’s Hindu majority and in particular Hindu nationalists. The idea that Muslim men are “sensual” and irresistible to Hindu women strikes most as bizarre and strange. But, it is a fact that Muslims and Islam do view themselves in an expansive light. I have listened to Muslims talk about the day when all Hindus, Christians, and Buddhists will no longer be, and everyone will be Muslim. But, many Hindus have internalized Muslim self-image and norms. The assumption and expectation is that any marriage between a Hindu and a Muslim will produce new Muslims. Why not new Hindus?

When Islam was the religion of the hegemonic people of the subcontinent obviously many Hindus became Muslims. The marriage of Mughals to Hindu Rajput women produced new Muslim rulers. To protect their identity Hindus seem to have undergone an involution.* This is not shocking, Jews underwent a similar process under Christianity and later Islam. An illustration of this involution is the story of Mastani and Krishna Rao, later Shamsher Bahadur. As most readers know Mastani was the daughter of a Hindu maharajah and a Persian Muslim concubine. She identified as a Hindu, like her father. But her son was raised a Muslim. Here is what Wikipedia says:

Shamsher Bahadur was the son of Maratha Peshwa Bajirao I and his second wife Mastani, whose mother was a Persian Muslim. Bajirao wanted Shamsher Bahadur to be accepted as a Hindu Brahmin, but because of his mother’s Muslim heritage, the priests refused to conduct the Hindu upanayana ceremony for him.

Bajirao I had his son raised a Muslim because he could not be raised a Hindu Brahmin, and to this day there are descendants of Shamsher Bahadur who identify as proud descendants of the Peshwa and Muslim. There is likely some level of politics in the behavior of the Brahmins, but they illustrate a general trend where Hindus views on pollution were so strong that they excluded potential members of the community, to the gain of other groups.

These high barriers to entry make sense in a defensive crouch, which native Indian religious traditions, which we now call Hindu, were after 1200 A.D. But they do not make sense in a nation where nearly 80% of the people identify as Hindu. Even low-IQ vulgarians aside, the “Hindu mind” is haunted by Islam. Rather than being proactive, Hindus are often reactive, whether it is to Islam, or to the West.

A true civilization has a positive expansive vision. It is time that Hindus stop being defensive, and articulate a vision of the good life beyond one that aims to preserve a fading past when there is a future that they could grasp.

Native Indian religious tradition survived centuries of Islamic domination, and then British colonialism. But that is over. It is now time to live, and define existence on one’s own terms.

* Hinduism before Islam was not involuted. Not only was it dynamic and assimilative in South Asia (e.g., the conversion of Sakas), but much of Southeast Asia was touched by Indian migration and Hindu religious forms.

But I’ll make a comment here. I am of the school that thinks facts matter a lot. Many of you trade in standard Hindu nationalist tropes and generalities about Islam. As someone who told Shadi Hamid on our interview, I am not a big personal fan of Islam, I don’t really mind people fearing Islam. I have personal experience of the religion after all.

But, facts matter. And a lot of the “facts” that get bandied about here are false.  I won’t tolerate that. There are two general categories I will point to:

1. First, people take traditional Muslim historiography at face value. You shouldn’t. This is like taking Christians at face value when they talk about the Four Gospels are pure positive history, when they were finally compiled and redacted decades later. Whether Muhammad exists is an empirical question in the same way that whether Jesus exists is an empirical question. As it happens, I’m modestly confident both figures existed in some form but were quite different from what Christians and Muslims depict them as (I do suspect that Josephus was a later interpolation).

The broader issue here is that Muslims on the whole have not gone through the modernist transition in regards to a critical-rationalist take on their religion. In Christianity, traditionalist-fundamentalists exist, but they have to take dialogue with modernists as a given. They exist in large part as reactions to modernism. This is not the case with Islam. Muslims accept that non-Muslims reject their religion, but within Islam, there is not a strong rationalist engagement with their texts that applies the sort of criticism than the Germans pioneered within Protestantism in the 19th century. That means they present a “unified face” about their early history which too many non-Muslims take for granted. Islam with all of its constitutive elements is not truly recognizable to us until about 850 A.D.*

2. Because this is a blog with a South Asian focus a lot of Hindu nationalist tropes and facts get presented at face value. I don’t really mind them as mythologies that give people succor or create their identity, but a lot of them have as much factual basis as a pagan Mecca: not much.

Most of the Hindu nationalist commenters do reflect a reality of “lived experience.” As someone who grew up around South Asian Muslims, I can admit they have total contempt on the whole (there are exceptions) for Hindus and their “bizarre” beliefs. But, as someone who is personally anti-Islam and literally tolerant of diverse views, many people from Hindu backgrounds of all ideologies have told me what they really think of Muslims, and the contempt is returned.

My issue is always when people turn their personal experiences into deep historical insights. Do not do that if you don’t enjoy me jumping down your throat, because if I’m not busy, I will do so.

More broadly, lots of Indian readers would benefit from reading more history. Especially non-Indian history. A broad cross-cultural perspective is essential, so do more!

For the curious here are a few books:

– China: A New History
– History of Rome
– A History of the Byzantine State and Society
– A History of the Arab Peoples: Updated Edition

* The Shia-Sunni split starts to become discernible in a way we’d recognize, Hadith culture is already on track to marginalize the “philosophers” and Hellenists, and the ulema centered around madrassas spread from the east to the west.