And, actually, I don’t have a superiority complex even though I’m Arab by blood. In fact, it’s not uncommon for people to get anti-semitic with me, because I look Jewish. Which is why (one of the reasons) I dislike anti-semites.

disgusting comment, if a God creates a whole community that is inherently evil like this guy is saying, then that God has not created Rahmah in this world.

Moreover, people who can conveniently claim such things definitely have a superiority complex. And what group of Muslims have a cultural superiorty complex today? Thats right, you got it.

I asked you to return your comments by e-mail, but you didn’t- which I don’t mind (but could you do it in future)? Jazak Allahu Khayr.

No. If you want to email your comments to me you can do so at yursil at g mail.com. If you wish to post on a blog, you will receive comments back on my blog.

That’s the level of objectivity we should expect from fanatics like yourself.

I also see those espousing your beliefs as the fanatics, specifically a wahabi ones. With all your talk for ‘Kuffar’ and ‘kufr’ etc, you really don’t subject their consensus reality (and history) to criticism at all. You subject the Muslim understanding of the history of Muslims to Western ‘standards’ and find it faulting, so you buy into all the jealous and racist travelogues of visitors in Muslim lands. This is far more likely due to ignorance of Muslim histories and the convenience that their discreditation gives your ideological position. What is funny is that those same Western standards of ‘authenticity’ which you use for other purposes consistently have considered Hadith to be largely discredited. Then we enter into a pick and choose aspect of accepting a paradigm, which leaves us with really no paradigm at all except our own ego.

Under Ottoman rule, some Muslims took the graves of non-Muslim saints that they had worshipped at before Islam, and committed enormities there which you can imagine.

Proof?

Under Mughal rule, Muslims were influenced by Hinduism to a disgusting degree. There was talk of castes, monasticism and monism, all of which Islam is free of.

Proof? As I mention, there was no doubt that there was a revival to orthodoxy which the scholars of Islam were able to execute, those scholars were very much part of the South Asian Islamic tradition we are talking about.

You’ll find your silly claims about an idealised ‘culture’ shot down in two seconds.

I’ve travelled quite a bit, alhamdulillah.

Whenever people want to criticize Islam, people are quick to say ‘that is not Islam’. When people want to criticize an Islamic tradition or culture, we find it difficult to say that “is not our tradition or culture”. In those days, Islam defined the people and the people lived Islam in a reality. If people were occasionally found to be wanting, the saints and scholars of the time addressed the issues. Hence we have greats like Imam Ahmad Sirhindi (R). The tradition and culture which supported him was the real tradition and culture of South Asia Muslims.

I don’t believe there is an idealized culture, but rather, there is a culture, language, scholastic and saintly tradition being lost. This was the tradition which grounded Muslims within Islam in the first place.

I’m not at all maligning anyone in Borneo, except for those who do what I described.

“there is good and bad everywhere”- is one of the points I’m trying to make. Thanks for stating it clearly.

Oh, and for the record, I never praised the lazy and affluent section of society that did produce great works of art. The scholars were not artists who composed music, made pottery or painted miniatures. But I guess it depends on one’s definition of ‘Art’,

Travel in the Muslim world today- or, even better, ask a Muslim who has. You’ll find your silly claims about an idealised ‘culture’ shot down in two seconds.
How about a muslim who is living there right now? I do not idealize the people I live amongst – there is good and bad everywhere – but I would sooner do that than condemn them unilaterally as you appear to do. Assume the best not the worst of your brothers in Islam.

the ‘Islam’ of the illiterate peasant, not the Islam of the scholarly community
…
what you really intend is ‘High Culture’, which many traditionals value unneccessarily. What incredible snobbery. Most Muslims never had a part in this culture. High Art is very elitist.
Wait, so first you condemn the poor and uneducated, then you condemn the rich and well-heeled? It is the same educated class you started off praising that produced much of the high art of the muslim world. I’m starting to think that the acceptable upper and lower limits of religion in your view start at the soles of your feet and terminate at the top of your head.

I asked you to return your comments by e-mail, but you didn’t- which I don’t mind (but could you do it in future)? Jazak Allahu Khayr.

“It’s funny how Wahabi’s trust Gellner more than Muslims to tell them more about their culture and religion. Omar has a particularly good knack for this.”

This point is ridiculous. Since when did accepting the existence of an empirically observable phenomenon amount to “trusting the kuffar more than Muslims”? I guess next you will tell us that the Sun orbits the Earth, and that only evil, lying kuffar preach heliocentricism (after all, didn’t the Mughal Empire avoid importing that belief?). That’s the level of objectivity we should expect from fanatics like yourself.

Islam does integrate when it comes to indigenous cultures. However, as I have said, and you refuse to realise, in every culture Islam arives in, it usually fails to displace completely some aspects of Jahiliyya, including in its original form (didn’t the Prophet- sal Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam- say that certain aspects of the Jahiliyya will remain with his ummah?).

“the usual takfiri attitude of Wahabi’s towards most of the past 1400 years of Muslims.”

Not sure about you, but I certainly do make takfir of any person who continues to invoke some pagan ‘Ocean Goddess’ along with Allah. And I’d be worried about you if you didn’t do the same.

I only specify South Asia, as that is what your article discusses. I have no problem with South Asians- some of my best friends are from over there.

“It boils down to the same central issues that Wahabi’s have lost out on…traditional Tassawuf.”

Yes, as historians and other than them have mentioned, ‘sufism’ is at the vanguard of cultural integration, which means, it is often corrupted by external traditions. I’m sure I don’t even need to mention some of the crazy (and influential) turuq that even you would deem non-Muslim.

“A statement without real basis, what was the prejudice, ignorance, bigortry and superstition of the saints and scholars I have mentioned earlier in this series?”

You are painting (or perhaps I should say, ‘inventing’) ‘tradition’ in one of its better aspects. Historians are rightfully suspicious about anybody who invokes ‘tradition’, just as they are sceptical of the ‘historical’ basis of nationalism. Travel in the Muslim world today- or, even better, ask a Muslim who has. You’ll find your silly claims about an idealised ‘culture’ shot down in two seconds. People go out into the ummah, expecting to find reasonable people like themselves. That is, they expect to find only reasonal, rational people. Often, they find this ‘culture’ you talk of. It’s often barbaric, superstitious and full of non-Islamic notions. It’s a culture which denies women their right to a dowry. It’s another, in which ‘caste’ is of prime importance. It’s tribalism, ‘asabiyya. I know of brothers who went to KSA, expecting to find it all purity and light- but it wasn’t. Racism is very prevalent, to a sickening degree. Blacks are openly called ‘slaves’, for no more than the colour of their skin.

Do you approve of all that? I’m sure you don’t. But painting a ‘culture’ in the way that you did i.e. as utterly deviod of all taint, is disingenuous to say the least. The saints and scholars that you talk of, are a small facet of ‘tradition’ and ‘culture’. In fact, often we find in South Asian ‘culture’ artistic ‘documents’ of immense contempt for religious scholars and the clerical order as a whole. I remember reading of a poem, reasonably well-circulated at the time, and remember thinking- alHamdulillah the account presented in the poem is fictional. But fiction can tell us important things about its authors, and their milieu. According to this story, some mufti spends an entire night of debauchery with wine and a ‘young boy’- we can only assume that it’s the same ‘young boys’ praised in the peotry of al-Andalus. That’s what really ticks me off about ‘traditional Muslims’ and al-Andalus- they (Sh Hamza especially) depict it as some kind of ideal Islamic society. They neglect the artistic celebrations of homosexuality and the immorality of court life. I won’t speak of the Muslims there generally, but there is a wisdom behind the end of Islam there; it was a place of debauchery, where Jihad was abandoned and wealth was squandered.

“The usual Wahabi outlook and a perfect example of why your version of Islam is culture, language, and art eradicating.”

Right, so apparently by criticising “castes, monasticism and monism” I am some kind of cultural iconoclast. Well, boo-hoo. You can keep ‘culture’, and whatever filth it contains. Go hug the Masnavi. Go save some dumb Ottoman miniature before wahhabism consumes it in its pure, purging fires. “Culture”, “Language”, “Art”; what you really intend is ‘High Culture’, which many traditionals value unneccessarily. What incredible snobbery. Most Muslims never had a part in this culture. High Art is very elitist.

We notice that our Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) went to great lengths to eradicate shirk, and the means leading to it. Even when the nascent ummah was being throttled out of existence- when it could not yet take up arms in what was an existential struggle, we find accounts of the Prophet (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) destroying idols. Faith cannot exist where Taghut does also.

I will add; ‘culture’ is something that exists. There is a good side to it. But, there is also a terrible, shirk-ridden part of it. Islam came to affirm whatever good was in a society, and even reinforce it. But it also came to displace, to destroy and to purge. Muhammad (sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam) did not suffer the existence of idols. And neither should we.

Allah make us disbelievers in at-Taghut.

Interestingly, anthropologists like Gellner posit that, when Islam arrives in an area, it accomodates itself in a tradition without fully managing to displace pre-Islamic (quite often, anti-Islamic) customs. It’s all about synthesis.

It’s funny how Wahabi’s trust Gellner more than Muslims to tell them more about their culture and religion. Omar has a particularly good knack for this.

Islam of course manages to work and integrate existing cultures, in fact, Islam in itself is a purifying force. Just as it purified the Arabs of the Jahiliyya, it purified other lands. The idea that somehow the people of South Asia were less able to apply Islam is simply conjecture and representative of the usual takfiri attitude of Wahabi’s towards most of the past 1400 years of Muslims. It boils down to the same central issues that Wahabi’s have lost out on: Madhabi fiqh and traditional Tassawuf which is incorporated by it.

You, brother, make the mistake of romanticising South Asian culture, nine-tenths of which is prejudice, ignorance, bigotry and superstition.

A statement without real basis, what was the prejudice, ignorance, bigortry and superstition of the saints and scholars I have mentioned earlier in this series?

Under Mughal rule, Muslims were influenced by Hinduism to a disgusting degree. There was talk of castes, monasticism and monism, all of which Islam is free of.

The usual Wahabi outlook and a perfect example of why your version of Islam is culture, language, and art eradicating.

Only with the decline of centralised Muslim rule do we see the resurgence of non-Arabic languages, such as Persian. It is not ironic that such a resurgence was the harbinger of stagnation, decline and ruin for the Muslims.

In what way was ‘centralized rule’ free from stagnation, decline and ruin? In terms of progress in the science and of arts, there was no greater period than after the ‘centralized’ Arab rulers encountered other totally non-Arab cultures.

I say: whatever wahhabism rids the world of, in terms of these cultures, alHamdulillah. Whatever good was in these practices was easily eclipsed by their evil- shirk.

Thanks for illustrating the point about wahabism perfectly.

Yes, it’s your friendly wahhabi hothead, fresh from MR’s blog!

Interestingly, anthropologists like Gellner posit that, when Islam arrives in an area, it accomodates itself in a tradition without fully managing to displace pre-Islamic (quite often, anti-Islamic) customs. It’s all about synthesis.

Often, you’ll find that these customs can even constitute kufr. Very often, kufr and Islam cross-fertilise to produce beliefs that aren’t wholly within the scope of either tradition. You, brother, make the mistake of romanticising South Asian culture, nine-tenths of which is prejudice, ignorance, bigotry and superstition. Under Ottoman rule, some Muslims took the graves of non-Muslim saints that they had worshipped at before Islam, and committed enormities there which you can imagine. Under Mughal rule, Muslims were influenced by Hinduism to a disgusting degree. There was talk of castes, monasticism and monism, all of which Islam is free of.

Folk Islam, a very interesting term, is basically a description of the Islam of the periphery of the ummah. It is the ‘Islam’ of the illiterate peasant, not the Islam of the scholarly community, which includes indigenous mythology and whatever other heresies. In Borneo, some ‘Muslims’ recently celebrated a festival of an ‘Ocean Goddess’. Some Muslims celebrate Nawruz, the festival of the Magians. Grave-worship is common. Amulets and talismans, are common. Some wear the ‘hand of Fatima’ for protection, others wear turquoise to avert the evil eye. All of which flies in the face of the Shari’ah, and can even remove one from the fold of Islam.

Only with the decline of centralised Muslim rule do we see the resurgence of non-Arabic languages, such as Persian. It is not ironic that such a resurgence was the harbinger of stagnation, decline and ruin for the Muslims.

I say: whatever wahhabism rids the world of, in terms of these cultures, alHamdulillah. Whatever good was in these practices was easily eclipsed by their evil- shirk.

If you want to respond, please contact me via e-mail (above).

Omar

Thank you for your link to the Malay resource!

I believe I first started hearing folk Islam from Bilaal Philips, the Salafi preacher. I don’t mind whatever labels they decide to use, as you indicated, Islam was always made up of ‘folks’! Folks carried Islam to us and scholars and saints were all folks as well.

If this is folk Islam, then what is their Islam? The idea that they are a following a ‘textually’ accurate Islam has already been debunked, since in the post-Salafi era we have seen that what differences exist simply boil down to a matter of interpretation at a fundamental level regarding specific hadith on innovation, specific narrators and chains, and specific post-Salaf scholars.

walaikumassalam Gumnaam bhai,

Your points are spot on accurate. I also find the fact the outside of Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad, there is a lack of Western traditional scholarship who are frankly even interested in non-Arabic contributions to Islam. Indeed, from my perspective, the ‘torch’ of spiritual enlightenment was given to those communities from the Arabs fairly early on. The Naksibendi-Hakkani silsila/chain of saints spans all these regions and represents (for me) the real aspect of spiritual authority and contribution passing between communities and peoples.

For eaxmple, the Prophet’s simple diet and his izar and turban etc, are followed more in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan rather than Saudia. The hideous red -checked Najdi handkerchief did not exist in the Prophet’s time.

Our arab islamists, and also today’s popular “Traditional scholars” –barring Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad–also are quite ignorant about the mountains of Islamic literature that exist in Persian. Persian speaking Turkish dynasties dominated the Muslim world since Tughril Beg in 1000 AD. Over time the wealth of Islamic literature came to be at least equal to that in Arabic, and in Sufism, far exceeds that literature in Arabic. Kashful Mahjub was the beginning, which opened a floodgate. Indeed, no better book on sufism exists in any language.

If we consider Sufi poetry, than there is no comparison. Sanai, Rumi, Sa’di, Jami, Hafiz, Bedil, Nizami, Khusro… Persian contains a treasury of Islamic literature.

The Sufis encouraged the vernacular languages as well as the local arts and crafts wherever they settled, and often composed the greatest poetry in their adopted languages. They truly Islamized the local cultures.

Surely, what better Tafsir is there than all this dazzling diversity of Islamic folk cultures, of the famous verse,

“If all the seas were ink,
and all the trees pens,
The Praise of thy Lord
would not be finished.” ?

The view that non-Arabs had no real reason for choosing Islam other than “that is what the ruler did” shows a lack of awareness of the established sainthood and scholarship of these regions (see: Part 4). This is so true too, and since that awful article was targeted to Malays, let me just link to a fantastic resource on the legacy of sainthood and scholarship in the Malay Archipelago, Bahrus Shofa (In Malay language).