steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (08/18/85)
*** "People oppose things because they are ignorant of them." Imam el-Ghazali 12th Century Islamic mystic I am happy to report that 100% of the mail I have recieved about my pleas for tolerance and understanding of Islam have supported this position. I suggested in one posting that it might be worthwhile to try to understand Islam before making statements about it. I pointed out that it is a well developed world religion, and that there are variety of practices and beliefs that all are Islamic. I pointed out that the Shiites and the Sunnites have had wars with each other, so one can not necessairly quote a Shiite like Khomeni to form opinions about the Sunnites. I pointed out that even within the Shiites, there must be considerable divirisity, because the Sufi's originated in Persia from the Shiite branch of Islam. It was whole heartedly adopted by the Sunnites too. My knowledge of the Sufi was kind of fuzzy, because in the books I have read on Islam, Persia, or India (where modern day Sufi's live), they have not been covered to throughly. Following my own advice, I have been reading about the Sufi. Sufi are Moslem mystics, and they have had an important influence on the social and moral fabric of Islam. The Sufi master I quote at the beginning of this article, Ghazali, was a Persian. In the 12th century the ideas introduced into the Arab world from the Greek civilization were challenging the Islamic world view. Ghazali's thinking allowed Islamic thought to prevail, and it part of the fundemental structure of modern day Islam. The Sufi are not heretics in any way. Their ideas are considered completely compatible with main stream Islam. Further, Sufi influence has extended into India and has had considerable influence on some modern day Hindu practices. I am stunned to the highest degree by the Sufi. Their beliefs are so compatible with contemporary thought that it is like a mystical revelation to just find out about their beliefs. It confronted me with assumptions that I did not even know I had, and showed me plainly that the world is far more rich than I will ever know. The quote at the beginning is by one of the most well-known and important Sufi. It shocked me, because it was exactly that assumption that got me started reading about Islam in the first place. I was concerned about how easy it was for me to form a negative impression of Islam, a religion practiced by 500,000,000 people, when the amount I really knew about it could fit in a thimble. Was I simply opposing Islam because I was ignorant about it? The Sufi have beliefs that are startling. "Over seven hundred years ago, Ibn el-Arabi stated that thinking man was forty thousand years old, . . ." The Way of the Sufi Idries Shah p. 23 Shah says that the Sufi believe in gradual evolution, and believe that human beings are also evolving. The Sufi "Way," is an evolutionary path, where people can evolve into higher beings. There are several poems that put people on an evolutionary path, from mineral to plant to animal to human to beyond. The Sufi attach considerable importance to conditioning and believe that we are conditioned into accepting opinions as fact. Whatever the true knowledge of a Sufi master is, it does not seem to be governed by conditioning as the rest of us are. Many of the Sufi masters say things that bear an uncanny resemblance to Lao Tzu, the great Taoist. If you can talk about it it is not the Way. Sufi masters teach by alegory, exercises, and demonstration. The Sufi are masters at identifying and creating "states." These mental states remind me of the work of William James or Neuro-Linguistic Programming. Hypnosis is a special "state." Much of the written Sufi wisdom is in the form of aphorisms, like much of Nietzche's writing, Ludwig Wittgenstein's writing, Zen koans, paraboles, and other familiar styles. I will type in several of these items, and I hope you will take the time to amaze yourself as you recall that rather than being unusual, these writings reflect some of the most fundemental principles of the social and moral fabric of much of the Islamic world. I hope that these few items by Sufi masters adds to the impression that one cannot judge Islam by the likes of Khomeni. ------ Now I am called the shepherd of the desert gazelles, Now a Christian monk, Now a Zoroastrian. The beloved is three, yet One; Just as the three are in reality one. Mohiudin ibn el-Arabi died in 13th century. [I believe that this poem makes a strong case for a pantheist viewpoint is some parts of Islam]. -------- Cross and Christian, end to end, I examined. He was not on the Cross. I went to the Hindu temple, to the ancient pagoda. In none of them was there any sign. To the uplands of Herat I went, and to Kandahar. I looked. He was not in the heights or the lowlands. Resolutely, I went to the summit of the [fabulous] mountians of Kaf. There was only the dwelling of the [legendary] Anqa bird. I went to Kaaba of Mecca. He was not there. I asked about him from Avicenna the philosopher. He was beyond the range of Avicenna ... I looked into my own heart. In that, his place, I saw him. He was in no other place. Jalaludin Rumi ibid. p 102 -------- One day a penurious old man went see Fazl-Rabbi to discuss some matter or other. Because of weakness and nervousness, this ancient stuck the iron point of his walking-stick to wound Fazl-Rabbi's foot. Listening curteously to what the old man had to say, Fal-Rabbi said no word, although he went pale and then flushed, from the pain of the wound and the iron, for it stayed lodged in his foot. Then, when the other had finished his business, he took a paper from him and put his signature to it. When the old man had gone, delighted that he had been sucessful in his application, Fazl-Rabbi allowed himself to collapse. One of the attendent nobels said: "My lord, you sat there with blood pouring from your foot, with that old man in his dotage piercing it his iron-tipped staff, and you said nothing, nothing at all." Fazl-Rabbi answered: "I made no sign of pain because I feared that the old man's distress might cause him to witdraw in confusion, and that he might abandon his application for my help. Poor as he was, how could I add to his troubles in that manner?" Be a real man: learn nobility of that and action, like that of Fazl-Rabbi. Attar of Nishapur [died at the hands of the Mongol invaders, 13th century] ibid. 63 ---------- A raindrop, dripping from a cloud, Was ashamed when he saw the sea. "Who am I where there is a sea?" When it saw itself with the eye of humility, A shell nurtured it in its embrace. Saadi of Shiraz ibid. p. 83 ---------- Ordinary human love is capable of raising man to experience of real love. Hakim Jami (1414-1492) ibid. p. 95 ---------- Love becomes perfect only when it transcends itself-- Becoming One with its object; Producing Unity of Being. Hakim Jami (1414-1492) ibid. p. 95 --------- The jackel thinks that he has feasted well, when he has in fact only eaten the leavings of the lion. I transmit the science of producing "states". This, used alone, causes damage. He who uses it only will become famous, even powerful. He will lead men to worship "states," until they will be unable to return to the Sufi Path. Abdul-Qadir of Gilan ibid. p. 128 -------- -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382 (also: hplabs!hpda!hpdsqb!steiny)
murali@cvl.UUCP (Muralidhara Subbarao) (08/22/85)
> *** > > "People oppose things because they are ignorant of them." > > Imam el-Ghazali > 12th Century Islamic mystic > > I am happy to report that 100% of the mail I have recieved > about my pleas for tolerance and understanding of Islam have supported > this position. This may be true, but this is not the whole truth. So, let me try a modification to this quote. "People oppose some things because they are ignorant of them; people accept many things because, again, they are ignorant of them." For example many people oppose religions other than their own; and many people accept Islam { :-) }. What I mean to say is that ALL religions have their weak points and strong points. But some religions are, on the whole, obviously better than others and, from the present day world events, it appears that Islam is certainly not one of them. Comments? murali.
arig@cvl.UUCP (Ari Gross) (08/22/85)
> > *** > > > > "People oppose things because they are ignorant of them." > > > > Imam el-Ghazali > > 12th Century Islamic mystic > > > > I am happy to report that 100% of the mail I have recieved > > about my pleas for tolerance and understanding of Islam have supported > > this position. Why should anyone be tolerant of Islam ? How tolerant is ISLAM of others ? Non-believers cannot get tourist visas to visit countries like Saudia Arabia and Kuwait, Moslem fundamentalists have made car bombs in Beirut an everyday occurrence, Iran and Iraq have been busy diplaying their mutual admiration for each other (at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives), and Quadaffi has been very effective at 'eliminating the competition'. Kind of makes Yasser Arafat look like a nice guy (he only throws grenades at schoolchildren). If the world was ever taken over by Moslems there'd be a whole lot of tolerance to go around : let's see, we could choose whether we wanted to wear a red-braided or black-braided khaffiyeh.... 'Nuff said. Ari Gross arig@cvl.arpa
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (08/22/85)
I am damn sick and tired of all you Don Black clones making bigoted and prejudicial statements about Islam. I suggest that you crawl back into whatever godforsaken hole spawned your butt-headed ilk. I'll say it again: people like Ari Gross and the others who admit freely to being prejudiced against Islam are on the same level as an anti-Semite like Don Black. Not a smidgen better; perhaps worse because many of these people claim to be tolerant. All of these people may rest assured that I will not bother them again; they will receive no messages from me until they publically apologize for their asinine and bigoted remarks. I suggest the rest of the net.religion participants who are concerned about religious tolerance note the names of these bigots and do the same. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (08/24/85)
> [Tim Maroney] > I am damn sick and tired of all you Don Black clones making bigoted and > prejudicial statements about Islam. I suggest that you crawl back into > whatever godforsaken hole spawned your butt-headed ilk. > I'll say it again: people like Ari Gross and the others who admit freely to > being prejudiced against Islam are on the same level as an anti-Semite like > Don Black. Not a smidgen better; perhaps worse because many of these people > claim to be tolerant. ---------------- I did not see Ari Gross's posting, so I do not know if he was attacking the beliefs and practices of Islam, or rather Islamic or nominally Islamic people. There is a crucial difference. If the former, it is at worst religious bigotry. This is very bad, but very different from the racism of Don Black, who condemns people for their ancestry. One can legitimately criticize religions or other belief systems. Criticizing someone for their ancestry is something else again. Of course, if Ari Gross or anyone else made bigoted and prejudicial statements about Arabs, Iranians, Turks, etc., then I agree with Tim. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (08/25/85)
> > *** > > For example many people oppose religions other than their own; > and many people accept Islam { :-) }. > > What I mean to say is that ALL religions have their weak points > and strong points. But some religions are, on the whole, > obviously better than others and, from the present day world events, > it appears that Islam is certainly not one of them. > Comments? > murali. Well, maybe. Either Islam or Christianity are particularily violent religions. I hope you read my posting about St. Cyril chopping Hypatia up in Alexandria. The Jewish people in the Old Testiment seemed to enjoy having at the Caanites and others. They certainly were not pacifists. It is kind of strange. It is a fact of religion in general? or is it the monotheistic religions that are particularily violent? Notice that the Hindu "religion" in India is polytheistic and they do not have any problem accepting other religions. There are 500 million Muslims in the world. Many of them are peaceful. I most certainly agree that it would be as foolish to judge Islam by its most enlightened members as it is to judge it by its least. In fact, it is foolish to judge it at all. How could it be better or worse? What can that mean? Does it mean I like one way of doing things better than another? Hey, I was born here in California, I like the way we do things here. But that strikes me as a different issue than whether it is a useful idea to advocate wiping Islam off the face of the Earth and other such final solutions to the "Islamic Problem." The thing people seem to be missing, is that even if Islam is the most evil vile religion that ever existed or ever will exist, what are you going to do about it? Kill everyone that practices Islam? Convert them to Christianity? Hey, they won the Crusades last time. The same thing can be looked at in more than one way. Islam has been interpreted many ways. Instead of looking the religion in general, a fruitless venture, the situtuation in the Middle-East is also caused by the particular economic and social factors that cause people to interpret Islam in one particular way. Living religions must constantly be reintrepreted so that they may apply to contemporary life. This weeks Time had an article about Iran that said a couple of things along this line. They say that the oil richs of Iran allows them to stay out of touch with the rest of the world, but the recent busts of people shipping arms to Iran showed that they were not above using the devil American bombs. They said that in general the middle class listen to American music, and eat American food. Their theocracy cannot survive for too long in the modern world. Remember, the Shah was not goody two shoes either. Part of the reason that the Iranians are so pissed off an the United State and so willing to adopt a fanatical brand of Islam. Tens of thousands of people died in the Shah's torture chambers. The Shah was widely precieved as being a puppet of the U.S. (and he probably was). In short, saying that "Islam is worse than most religions" or even blaming Islam for the behavior of some of its adherents obscures the situation. The following from "World Challange" by Jean-Jaques Servan-Schreiber is an alternate explaination: No one has experienced greater humiliation at the hands of the West than have the Arabs. One Iraqui technocrat in charge of foreign investments in the Ministry of Petroleum at Baghdad expresses it this way: "The political dimension of oil--existent for a long time, but only recently in the fore-- is closely bound up with the history of colonialism. On account of oil, the OPEC countries, and especially the Arab world, have seen and experienced innumerable occupations, wars, instances of blackmail and theft. Foreign rulers exploited us over a long period, dictated our fate to teir advantage, sold our oil resources at giveaway prices to themselves, and destroyed or neglected our oil fields. The competition for Arab oil , and the securing of the oil routes are still the basic causes of 'cold' and 'hot' wars between the superpowers. That is why the nationalization of oil, as carried out in Iraq in 1972, has been the objective of all liberation movements in OPEC countries." Not only did Westerners pump the oil--the lifeblood--of the Arabs at will but they did it at a price that is hard to believe. In 1900, the price of oil was $1.20 per barrel. Thirty years later, after the Wall Street crash and the Great Depression, the price was down to $1.19. After Pearl Harbor and America's entry into World War II, the price of a barrel fell to $1.14. Following the Allied victory, the creation of the Bretton Woods international monetary system, the launching of the Marshall Plan and the founding of the United Nations, the price was back to $1.20. In the 1950s, during the Cold War, the price edged up to $1.70 per barrel. In 1960, at the birth of OPEC, it was $1.80. Nothing illustraates better the total domination of the powerful oil companies and the Western governments that backed them up with arms than the history of oil prices. In the late nineteenth century, the companies discovered oil and took control of it. In exchange for unlimited profits, they exploited the oil for the prodigious economic devleopment of the West. For fifty years, from 1920 to 1970, the West based its factories, transportation systems, cities, universities, laboratories--its industrial civilization and growth--*on cheap oil*. And the companies did this without considering the possiblity of increasing payments to the producing countries. No man represented the arrogance of the West more than Monroe Rathbone, chairman of Exxon (then Esso), when in August 1960, sitting in his air-conditioned boardromm overlooking Rockefeller Center, he actually decided to *cut* the posted price of oil in the Middle East. For the oil-producing countries this decision had grave consequences, for the royalities paid on the posted price of oil were the *only* revenue they had for their national budgets and for their imports. Without any consultation of the governments involved and citing general overproduction and massive sales of Russian oil in the world, Exxon flatly announced an immediate reduction of ten cents a barrel on the price it would pay. In a few days the other companies, British Petroleum, Shell, Mobil, all fell in line. From that day on, there was no turning back. The Western oil companies had indicated their contempt for the Arabs and the other oil producers, their indifference to the people for whom the oil was the only source of life. A few men had the foresight to predict the result. An American, Howard Page, the Exxon expert on the Middle East questions at the time, told his fellow board members, "If we do that all hell will break loose. You can't imagine the scope and duration of the consequences." An Englishman, Harold Snow, a mathematician for British Petroleum, wept openly in front of his colleugues. World Challange pps. 17-19 So, from another point of view, our intolerance and lack of respect for the Arab world is just as much a problem as the other way around. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382 (also: hplabs!hpda!hpdsqb!steiny)
josh@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (J Storrs Hall) (08/27/85)
In article <501@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >...All of these people may rest assured that I will not bother them again; >they will receive no messages from me until they publically apologize for >their asinine and bigoted remarks. >Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking Personally, I'm not prejudiced against anybody, nor do I make asinine remarks as a matter of course. However, I'm willing to take up bigotry, however distasteful it might be to me personally, if it will help shut Tim Maroney up. It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. --JoSH
murali@cvl.UUCP (Muralidhara Subbarao) (08/29/85)
> > > *** > > > > For example many people oppose religions other than their own; > > and many people accept Islam { :-) }. > > > > What I mean to say is that ALL religions have their weak points > > and strong points. But some religions are, on the whole, > > obviously better than others and, from the present day world events, > > it appears that Islam is certainly not one of them. > > Comments? > > murali. > ************************************************* > > Don Steiny writes: > > There are 500 million Muslims in the world. Many of them > are peaceful. I most certainly agree that it would be as foolish > to judge Islam by its most enlightened members as it is to > judge it by its least. In fact, it is foolish to judge it at > all. How could it be better or worse? What can that mean? > Does it mean I like one way of doing things better than > another? You could judge a religion in relation to certain principles which is generally accepted as good. For example consider the principle: "Men and Women should both have (more or less) equal status in society in terms of social status, educational, economic and political rights." In relation to this particular respect, Islam, or at least the way it is practised in the Arab world, is the worst of all the religions I know of. Similarly one could cite several other principles with respect to which Islam is not good. > > > The thing people seem to be missing, is that even if > Islam is the most evil vile religion that ever existed or ever > will exist, what are you going to do about it? Kill everyone > that practices Islam? Convert them to Christianity? > Hey, they won the Crusades last time. > I certainly do not want to proselytize any one. I only wish they come to believe in humanism more than their religion. Murali.
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/31/85)
> > > > *** > > > > > > For example many people oppose religions other than their own; > > > and many people accept Islam { :-) }. > > > > > > What I mean to say is that ALL religions have their weak points > > > and strong points. But some religions are, on the whole, > > > obviously better than others and, from the present day world events, > > > it appears that Islam is certainly not one of them. > > > Comments? > > > murali. > > > ************************************************* > > > > Don Steiny writes: > > > > There are 500 million Muslims in the world. Many of them > > are peaceful. I most certainly agree that it would be as foolish > > to judge Islam by its most enlightened members as it is to > > judge it by its least. In fact, it is foolish to judge it at > > all. How could it be better or worse? What can that mean? > > Does it mean I like one way of doing things better than > > another? > > You could judge a religion in relation to certain principles > which is generally accepted as good. For example consider > the principle: > > "Men and Women should both have (more or less) equal status > in society in terms of social status, educational, > economic and political rights." > > In relation to this particular respect, Islam, or at least > the way it is practised in the Arab world, is > the worst of all the religions I know of. > Murali. I think that the society influences religion in larger extend than vice versa. I agree that the current state of affairs in islamic countries is not very nice. On the other hand I think that those nation undergo a stage of rampant nationalism, quite characteristic for Europe 70 to 40 years ago. Americans never faced the problem of a nation forced to define itself in an unfriendly enviroment. A natural tendency is find why "we are different and better than others". In Europe nationalism had much broader scope than merely fascism. It was popular to view everything through the prism of "national interest". The supresion of minorities was rampant. Currently Arabs, Iranians etc. feel economically and culturally dominated by the West. Thus they turn to Islam as the source of their uniqueness. To see that turning to the backward religious tendencies is not unique to Muslim, let us note two groups which also defend their way of life and uniqueness in the same way. I have in mind mixture of religious fundamentalism and nationalism in USA and Israel. In both countries those groups form minorities, but the tendency provably exists. In all those cases we deal with "stage of siege" mentality. The atractive permissive culture of jeans, coke, pop music and hedonism (I like personally all those things but coke) is perceived as an engulfing threat. I hope that in 10-20 years Islamic nations will be genuinely more assertive, so they will not need to resort to fundamentalism to feel secure about they identities. In the meantime, one can point that there are secular tendencies among muslim. One can point Syria and Egipt as secular regimes (although, at times, very nationalistic). During my student years, I happen to have a nationalistic Syrian and fundamentalist Egiptian among my roommates, myself being a Jew. Fundamentalists were not easier to talk with than born-again Christians. But the other guy was different. One could not make him to like Israel or not to believe in imperialist machinations in the American system (like orchestrated propaganda in mass media), but there was appreciation for modernization and democracy. As a conclusion, snearing at Islam as an "ugliest religion" is highly counterproductive. It can merely increase the siege mentality of Muslim. It is much better to seek for universal values in all religions. Like Christianity, Islam can be interpreted in an open- -minded way and in a narrow-minded one. Examples: there are quotes from Koran with high regard towards woman; adultery is a heavy crime, but the required proof is impossible: to find a couple in the act and find out that they cannot be separated by a thread (a propos, fornication and adultery remains a crime in places like Florida and Illinois). The various treatment of minorities may be supported by various quotes. Polygamy is increasingly regarded as shamul feudal backwardness. My prediction is that most of the Muslim will undergo transition through fundamentalism and more modern nationalism to values more associated with current western culture. Remember that those values were not so dominating in many Europian or Latine American nations until recently. If somebody is 80 years less advanced than you, it does not mean that its culture is inherently inferior. Piotr Berman
steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (09/09/85)
> > > You could judge a religion in relation to certain principles > which is generally accepted as good. For example consider > the principle: > > "Men and Women should both have (more or less) equal status > in society in terms of social status, educational, > economic and political rights." > Generally accepted as good? I certainly think it is preferable, but who am I? I was raised in the US and my background it humanism born of Christian morality. Natrually I am going to be influenced by my background. However, I do not have a monopoly on "good." Islamic people can feel that they are doing the "right" thing and being "good" people even if I do not agree. I have not observed any principles "which are generally accepted as good." What about the Ik in Uganda, do they accept it as good? What about the Muslims? -- scc!steiny Don Steiny @ Don Steiny Software 109 Torrey Pine Terrace Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 (408) 425-0382 (also: hplabs!hpda!hpdsqb!steiny)
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (09/12/85)
> > > > What I mean to say is that ALL religions have their weak points > > > > and strong points. But some religions are, on the whole, > > > > obviously better than others and, from the present day world events, > > > > it appears that Islam is certainly not one of them. > > > > Comments? > > > > murali. > > > > > ************************************************* > > > > > > Don Steiny writes: > > > > > > There are 500 million Muslims in the world. Many of them > > > are peaceful. I most certainly agree that it would be as foolish > > > to judge Islam by its most enlightened members as it is to > > > judge it by its least. In looking at the whole picture concerning Islam, we should look at its cultural contributions in India. Under the patronage of the Mughals in India, music was patronized, and much of North Indian music as we know it today developed during this period. Many of the greatest 20th century musicians, very spiritual and peaceful people without fanaticism or terrorism of any sort, are Muslims. These include Ali Akbar Khan, who directs a college in California, and the Dagar brothers. The younger of the older generation of Dagar brothers heads an ashram devoted to dhrupad singing, which is a beautiful and exacting old style of rendering the ragas. For many years the Moslem musicians lived in harmony with the Hindu musicians; often they sang texts which are quite clearly Hindu, and Hindu musicians often sing taranas, a genre of songs which is of Persian origin. I can't think of Islam without remembering this tradition. With regard to Hindu and Muslim musicians today, I have heard that some of the Hindus have been snobbish towards the Muslim musicians, and I hope that this is not true.
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (09/19/85)
None of the monotheistic religions are sexually egalitarian. Judaism incorporates many discriminatory commandments and temple practices. Christianity also incorporates discriminatory temple practices and has historically been very sexist. I don't see Moslems as being qualitatively different from Jews or Christians in this respect. This goes for every criticism of Islam I have heard put forth; it always comes down to seeing the mote in your neighbor's eye while ignoring the plank in yours. Can anyone put forth a criticism of Islam which cannot be paralleled in Judaism or Christianity? I doubt it very much, but am willing to entertain (public) suggestions. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
seshadri@t12tst.UUCP (Raghavan Seshadri) (09/29/85)
> From: linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) > Date: 12 Sep 85 03:42:24 GMT > > > > > > What I mean to say is that ALL religions have their weak points > > > > > and strong points. But some religions are, on the whole, > > > > > obviously better than others and, from the present day world events, > > > > > it appears that Islam is certainly not one of them. > > > > > Comments? > In looking at the whole picture concerning Islam, we should look at > its cultural contributions in India. Under the patronage of the > Mughals in India, music was patronized, and much of North Indian . . etc In the long horrifying record of Muslim devastation of northern India,the fostering of Indo-Persian music stands as the sole exception,a testimony to the catholic,civilized mindset of the emperor Akbar rather than Islam. (It is not without significance that all his life he carried on a feud with orthodox Muslim clergy,found Islamic theology un satisfying and tried to cultivate a new religion which would be a synthesis of the best (as he saw it) of Islamic,Hindu,Zoroastrian and Christian doctrines.Otherwise Indian history after the first half of the 12th century saw wholesale destruction of thousands of beautiful temples,monuments,monasteries, universities, massacre of the indigenous peoples,forcible conversions, etc..The diary of Allah-uddin Khilji reads " The district of Mathura alone had more than 1000 temples made of marble of different hues ,of a grandeur that is difficult to describe,so awe-inspiring that I spent days marvelling at them.....Of course I destroyed them all" !The grand tradition of Hindu temple building survived in an attenuated form in southern India out of reach of the invaders.The myriad legends sung in the martial songs of Rajasthan speak of the gotterdammerung ,the defilation,the loss of honor the peculiarly intolerant nature of the new alien marauders which sought to destroy every thing that they held sublime.They were not content to loot the gold and diamonds,they believed themselves as qualifying for Heaven by destroying and setting on fire all symbols of the native faith..a notion totally incomprehensible to the Indians (and I hope,to all of us).The destruction of the splendid Buddhist monasteries in Gandhara (modern Afghani- -stan) and all the books on philosophy,astronomy,geology,medicine,art as well as the stupendous carvings on the mountain sides will forever be lamented by everyone who understands the rudiments of culture.After destroying the monastic communities of central India,Bengal and the Shaivites of Kashmir, desecrating Hindu holy pilgrimage centres of Benares,Brindavan ,Ayodhya and others too numerous to mention,the Muslim rulers and the army vigorously involved themselves in conversions by force.Only the primitive means of trans- -portation and logistics prevented their total domination and wholesale destruction of all vestiges of the Hindu faith.It took 4 more centuries for a Hindu rebel to pose a credible challenge to this monstrous force. I can hardly summarise the entire story of post Muslim Indian history here.I hope I have written enough to buttress the comments of the original writer . If you want more details,lets use mail. the monastic communities -- Raghu Seshadri