Prophet Mohammed’s Oversight

WHY STUDY ISLAM ?

I have always been fascinated by Islam. Not only because of the vast numbers of Muslim people who live in India, but also because of the faint antagonism about Muslim people in popular parlance.

“No, man. You cannot have a peaceful coexistence with Muslims.”

“They are different people. They are raised differently. They think differently.”

These words have always sounded very prejudiced to me. And hence, I have always been trying to disprove them, by reading more about Islam and about its culture. And in due time, my liking of Islam has only increased.

Like all great religions, Islam has been used for dual purposes.

The first one has been as a vehicle of education and enlightenment. At the time of advent of Islam, several tribal practices have become outdated and incompatible with civilization. Islam has been successful in eliminating them – especially idolatry and the often accompanying practices of sacrifices, bacchanalia and promiscuity. It has ushered in a new age of scientific temperment and humanism.

The second purpose has been as a way of supporting the government of people. Similar to Buddhism and Christianity, Islam has been used as a way of controlling the volatile masses and establishing a strong government.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

We need to have a good understanding of history to appreciate this in proper context. The age of the mighty kingdoms began around 500 BC (at about the same time throughout the world). Until then, the principal form of government has been through tribal loyalties. At some places – such as in the republics of North India, these gave rise to primitive democracies. At other places – such as in ancient Greece, these gave rise to tiny kingdoms. But by 500 BC, these were giving way for a more modern form of government – the mighty kingdoms. The new monarchies required a more organized and hierarchical ways of control. These hierarchies have been manifest in the forms such as the caste system in ancient India and slavery in ancient Rome.

However, the principles of human equality and freedom had to suffer because of these new hierarchies.

The great religions of the world, in effect, are an answer to this oppression. Jesus Christ has preached about the necessity of love and of human brotherhood. Gauthama Buddha has preached about the futility of sacrifices and of the intermediaries (priests) between men and God. Not surprisingly, the early followers of these religions were violently persecuted. But with the advent of time, the new religions have won the hearts of the people. In India, violence to animals and men was abhorred. And in Europe, slavery and bacchanalia have been eliminated.

But the great religions could not even out the social hierarchies. Economically, it had been unfavorable for an egalitarian system to flourish in those ages. But the religions were helpful in establishing a uniform system of living for the subjects. And the age of the monarchies has resumed, with the new religions serving as tools of eliminating cultural and tribal differences, and establishing a uniform system of living. The great emporer Ashoka of India has achieved this by popularizing Buddhism. This pioneering use of religion to eradicate social differences and unrest – will later be followed by the great emperors in China (Qin dynasty) and in Europe (successors of the Roman empire). Eventually, the new religions had to come to terms with the social inequalities that existed in the world. In Europe, Christianity has been subsumed by the functioning beliefs of the feudal state. In India, Buddhism was replaced by the modified Puranic religions (which drew from ancient Vedic practices, Upanishadic philosophy and the humanitarianism of Buddhism). These religions have been diverse and never uniform, which is the case now – thus not meriting the use of Hinduism as a word for signifying one single religion.

THE RISE OF ISLAM

When Mohammed was born around 600 AD, he had an enormous work spread in front of him. The Arab countries had been living in dark ages for several centuries till then. The Babylonian empire was prematurely destroyed (primarily because of its strategic location in the middle east) and the population fell into several shortsighted tribal kingdoms which engaged themselves with continuous warfare and barbaric customs. The rest of the world had already well advanced to the age of mighty kingdoms.

Prophet Mohammed had the dual duty of establishing a sovereign Arab state (with the characteristics of a mighty kingdom) along with the duty of building a great religion which spreads humanitarianism. And he achieved both of them with considerable grace.

Considering the fact that the great religions primarily arose to answer for the social inequalities in the mighty empires, this development of Islam seems counterintuitive. But in the hands of Mohammed, it achieved both the purposes. Islam in the later ages has been the source of a great and flourishing civilization – which made great contributions in medicine, philosophy, astronomy, mathematics and culture. In fact, this civilization has nourished the developments made by the ancient Greeks and the ancient Indians, when both the later civilizations were in a state of decay.

Islam also achieved its other purpose of establishing a strong Arab state. But as is the case with all the great empires, with time, this empire has also crumbled due to economical reasons. However, this marriage of religion and strong government (the nightmare of secularism) has continued throughout Islamic history, to this very day.

THE MAIN TENETS OF ISLAM

Now that I have presented the historical context for the advent of Islam, let me give you my critical overview of the religion.

At the core, all the great religions of the west are equal. The principal message is that “God is One”. This is the most fundamental of all beliefs and they do not accomodate anything else in violation of this principle. This is in start contrast to the great religions of the east, which have been very liberal (or flippant). In India and China, religion has never been seen as a harsh code of conduct. The belief that “God is One” has been existent and acknowledged since Upanishadic times, but it has not been forced upon people. Instead, debate has been encouraged between all kinds of opinions. This trend can be observed, even to this day, in India and China.

Islam, however, is the most severe of all religions in enforcing this belief. Mohammed, at any cost, did not want the Arab lands to degenerate into backward tribal customs. His principal contributions are primarily to make the religion fool-proof to any kind of encroachment on this belief. Mohammed has observed that the Jewish religion and the Christian religion have been flippant in this aspect. And due to this fact, the great teachings of the ancient prophets have been diluted and modified to suit the purposes of the powerful.

Firstly, he has put down his messages carefully in written word, which is available today as the book of Quran. Secondly, he has outruled the possibility of anybody propagating alternate views – by proclaiming that he is the last of the prophets. Thirdly, he has taken pains to prevent any attempt at deifying himself or revering himself at the expense of the one God.

At first sight, these are ingenious ideas, and one cannot but congratulate Mohammed on everything that he has accomplished. But Mohammed has overlooked on a critical point, and this is the subject of this blog.

HOW RACISM WAS FORGOTTEN IN ISLAM

Mohammed forgot to decouple race from religion.

In fact, this is not so much of a mistake, because the issue of race has not been understood clearly during his times. But, during the current times, it is necessary to understand its implications and how this issue of race has been succeeding in corrupting the teachings of the pure religion that Mohammed has intended.

Let’s look at how the issue of race has corrupted one of his important teachings – that of not deifying himself at the expense of the one God. Mohammed has actually taken pains to see that nobody in Arabia draws a picture or makes a sculpture of himself. This is to warrant the possiblility of future generations from worshipping his images. But in spite of all his thinking, Mohammed could not preclude this possibility.

What happened was that Mohammed’s children and his successors – managed to stake claim to the mantle of chief religious head (not “prophet”, but functionally the same person) after himself. In fact, these claims have not surfaced until the death of Mohammed. But by the time they have surfaced, they were unpreventable and they were numerous. The history of Islam got bloodied in its very earliest chapters – with the claimants for the throne striking at each other and murdering the enemies. This continues to this day, with the major figureheads of Islam staking claim to a straight descent through Mohammed’s blood line.

Unfortunately, Muslims have failed to realize that this is in direct contradiction with Mohammed’s wishes – of not deifying himself. This is the same as not deifying his descendents or his tribe.

The dual purpose of Islam – to establish a sovereign empire along with a mighty religion, has also aided in fuelling racial hatred. The Muslims tended to look upon themselves as the chosen people and waged wars against other nations, all in the name of the religion.

In fact, Mohammed had also been a warrior, and he had been a sound politician. But his primary purpose was to keep the belief (of One God) alive, and he had dealt brutally with his opponents whenever he felt that this belief was at stake. He waged a war against the barbaric kings of Mecca and killed their soldiers when they threatened to trample upon his religion. Also, he had mercilessly killed the Jewish tribes of Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir, when he thought that they were a threat to the survival of Islam.

This will definitely mar the claims for Mohammed’s sainthood – as understood in Indian or European terms. But, before making this comment, we have to understand the dual purposes that Mohammed had to achieve.

But after Mohammed, with Islam no longer under threat, his successors have used his actions as an okay to mercilessly slaughter other civilizations. This has especially been true in India (with its outward appearance of polytheism and primitive customs) The Muslims (in fact, the Arab conquerors) thought they are doing a service to the nation by plundering, raping and murdering the existing ruling classes. It did not matter that ancient Indians have already been great monotheistic philosophers. In the name of religion, the Arabs have advanced their own racist interests. This is also true in the advance of Islam in the west. All the crusader wars that were fought with Christians over control of Jerusalem have been termed as Jihad.

To this day, the feeling of racial supremacy is well alive in Arab people. Saudi Arabia considers itself the guardian of the Muslim teachings. Why not Indonesia – with its majority of Muslim people ? No, because Saudi Arabia holds the shrines of Mecca and Madina. Because Saudi Arabian clerics can claim direct descendence from the Prophet himself !

Arabs in Sudan murder the African people in the name of a better culture (which is just a euphimism for better race). Al Qaeda wants to wage a terrorist war against the entire western civilization. The word used is Jihad. Even Palastenians call their battle with the zionist Israelis as Jihad. Somalis wage a war against Ethiopians in the same name. Kashmiri Muslims wage a war against the native Kashmiri pandits in the very same name. But the age of idelogy wars has long been past – currently people no longer kill you for what you believe in. Religion (Jihad) is just an excuse for fuelling the age-old racial hatred (which is still very much alive). Mohammed will be ashamed to see how this word is being abused.

Islam is no longer under threat. It is acknowledged as one of the mighty religions of the world and has a thriving following of several million people. Using a word like Jihad for a selfish battle with a racial agenda is a shame. And most often, the battle is with the very own supporters of the core belief of “One God”.

If only Mohammed had remembered to warn his people about the dangers of racism, Islam would be the religion that he intended it to be.

Caste, religion and the issue of race

Much has been written about the caste-system in India. Still I want to share some of my ideas regarding this very sensitive topic.

According to the perspective of history that I believe in, it has its origins in the influx of the Aryan race into the subcontinent. Clearly alternative perspectives of history exist, but I would not want to go into them. Ancient texts of that period (such as the Rg Veda) mention about four types of people – Arya (pastoral conquerors) , Dasyu (brown skinned city dwellers) , Nishada (black skinned forest dwellers) and Kirata (the yellow skinned hill dwellers) These tribes initially lived in seperate village states, but inevitably they had to mix with each other. This brought in the fears of damage to racial purity. So a system of broad guidelines and rules has been developed to prevent inter-racial marriage. Inter-racial marriages (known as Varna Sankara) were frowned upon and the offspring resulting from such a marriage were treated with disdain. The prominent political system of that time was the oligarchical republic (called Gana Rajya) which allowed for democratic representation of the members of the tribe.Members of other tribes, if they lived in the Gana Rajya, enjoyed negligible powers and mostly worked as servants. These Gana Rajyas flourished in the entire Indo Gangetic plain.

But soon, economical changes necessitated a more powerful form of organization. This gave birth to the kingdoms. The republics were not as successful in the accumulation of capital as were the monarchies. A necessary change for the kingdoms is a more intense stratification of the societal structure. Broadly four levels of hierarchy were established – Brahmanas (priests and scholars) Kshatriyas (soldiers and commanders) Vysyas (merchants) and Shudras (skilled and unskilled labour) These were called the four Varnas (Varna, in sanskrit, stands for color. This idea was probably borrowed from the earlier ideas of racial purity. Further, it is plausible that the dominant varnas of Brahmanas and Kshatriyas were mostly from Aryan racial heritage.)

The interesting thing to note is that the occupations of these four varnas became heriditary. This was probably a direct consequence of the fact that inter-varna marriages were avoided. However, it is not uncommon in other cultures that skilled occupations usually become heriditary. (Even in the modern age, it is quite common for a musician’s son to be a musician) The unusual thing with these Varnas was that they did not inter-marry with each other.

Soon as the empires began to grow, it became difficult to accommodate new people into the 4 varnas and several sub-sects needed to be introduced. When foreign lands got merged into the empire, the Varna status was assigned to people based on their social status. At this point, a very curious thing has happened. Inter-marriages between the sub-sects of a Varna were also ruled out. These sub-sects proliferated into thousands; each one of them maintaining separate identity and preventing inter-marriage. The sanskrit word for these sub-sects is Jaathi (which is derived from the root word Ja – which means birth) The english equivalent is the word caste. But I would like to use the word race instead. Because, the Jaathi system was more of a method of preservation of racial purity than that of social exploitation. The later was just a consequence of the former. When the word caste is used, it is associated with a hierarchy of social occupations and the consequent exploitation of some people. This is why I would like to avoid this word and instead use the word race, which brings the attention back to the root problem.

In this blog, whenever I use the word race, I do not refer to the usual classification into Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid races. Instead, by the word race, I am referring to a small genetic pool which is closely guarded through prevention of inter-marriage. I may choose to use the word breed, but that will be too animal-like.

(Interestingly, when a new student enters an engineering college in India, the first question that he would be asked is “What is your breed ?” which refers to what his caste is. Yes, this ridiculous situation still prevails , but not in reputed colleges such as the IITs etc)

Now, I would like to make a very bold statement. It is this issue of race (as referring to Jaathi) that is behind most kinds of sectarian violence that we observe today. It is not religion, it is not caste and it is not language. These are all minor frivolities on the surface. Underneath, at the root, the problem manifests itself in the form of race and the fear of damage to racial purity. This concept of damage to racial purity does not make any sense considering the digital format of encoding for genetic information. This is what I was refuting in my earlier post when I said that race cannot survive in digital format.

Now if we consider Jaathi, this is not unique to the Indian sub-continent. This issue is present throughout the world. This is present in South Africa in the form of the aparthied. This is present in the USA in the form of white supremacy (okay, not everywhere, but in some places). This is present in Sudan in the form of strife between the Arabs and the sub-saharan Blacks. This is present in Rwanda between the Hutus and the Tutsis. This is present in the middle east between the Israelis and the Palastenians. This is what is present when the Islamic nations complain about the domineering nature of the West.

An interesting note to mention here is the strategy of Pakistan in trying to move away from its shared history and heritage with India. The idea of religion does not hold enough water to justify a complete separation. So, pakistan is trying to discover more links in the ancient past with the Persian Archaenemid dynasty and downplay the influence of the Gana rajyas of the Indo Gangetic plain. It is a strategy of differentiation of the racial gene pool. Please refer to the wikipedia article. Incidentally, it is again the issue of Jaathi which prompted the separation of Bangladesh from the erstwhile Pakistan – both the countries share the same religion.

Modern religions such as Islam and Christianity proclaim the equality of all men. But the practitioners of these religions in India adopt equally strong, if not stricter measures, in guarding the gene pool. Advertisements in the matrimonial sections of the newspapers report that a Christian/Muslim from a particular sub-sect seeks a bride from the very same sub-sect. The accusation against Hinduism that it is the lone supporter of a barbaric caste system is clearly misdirected.

Racial arrogance is a trait typically associated with Nazis and the like. But this is practiced everywhere – in the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia, in the Marwaris of Rajasthan, in the Thakurs of Uttar Pradesh, in the Brahmins everywhere, and in the myriad castes of South and North India – any sect which becomes economically rich automatically becomes seclusive and tries guarding its gene pool. When they speak of superior culture, what they actually mean is superior genetics. Can anything be dumber ??

But this is what guides the entire political system of India. People elect representatives based not on their political agendas, but on how close their gene pools are related. (that is, whether the person is from the same caste/ city/ religion or not) I can think of nothing to redeem this situation except wholesome literacy and education. But with a country as big and diverse as India, there are always bound to be racial insecurities. Still I hope for that day when democracy in India becomes truly functional.

What’s right with China ? What’s wrong with India ?

Everybody acknowledges now that China is a future superpower. The Chinese economy is doing extremely well. But that is not the whole story.

China is conducting world-class research (especially so in Computer Graphics, which I follow). Chinese companies are opening offices worldwide and becoming truly global. And ofcourse, it is consistently winning a large share of medals in the Olympics. Finally, chinese pop-culture is earning revenue throughout the world. For example, the movie – “Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon” was a sensational hit by international box office standards.
India falls way behind in comparison. The development that is happening in India is very lop-sided, and hyped beyond reality. Further there are several areas where India has not made its mark yet. The research that is getting conducted in Indian universities is still sub-standard. And India would probably have the least ratio of olympic medal-winners per population size, in the entire world.
There is a critical difference in the psyche of both the countries here. And I think it is high time we noticed this and studied it with due importance.

China has a uniform race and language (excepting the minority regions of Xinjiang and Tibet). Secondly, this culture and language stands distinctly different from that of the west.

In contrast, India offers an enormous variety in language, culture and racial background. Further, it is extremely related to the culture of the western civilization. (Indo-Aryan languages are related to European languages, revealing a common past and a shared ancestry.)
In the current era of the dominance of Western/European civilization, this invariably brings in a marked difference in the psychology of Indians and Chinese.

When a Chinese person looks at an American (for example) he thinks that he is different from what he himself is.

Where as, when an Indian person looks at an American, he thinks the American is a better version of what he himself is.

The attitude of the Indians steps from the unquestioned dogma of the inferiority of Creole races (discussed and criticised in my previous post). This is evident in so many aspects of Indian life – starting from the alleged beauty of fairer skin. More about these in my later posts. But for illustration, let me give an example.

A Chinese woman thinks she looks different from a European woman. An Indian woman thinks she looks inferior to a European woman, and she feels insecure.

The Chinese people know that they stand different from the western civilization and identify that they both are competitors.

The Indian people think that they are inferior to the western civilization and would like to work as sub-ordinates.

Nowhere else is this contrast as vividly captured as it is in Singapore (where the population consists of Chinese, Malay and Indians) The Chinese people own most of the commercial complexes in the city. The Indians work in clerical positions for the western multi national corporations.

It is only when Indians realize that they stand different from the west (even though they are a mixed race) that they would understand the sense of competition and face up to the challenge of China. In order to do this, it would not help to rouse any pan-Indian nationalist identity because no such identity (Hindutva, Gandhian etc..) exists. We should accept the fact that the culture in India is rich and extremely diverse. But it is possible to face up to this global competition when we accept the fact that each individual is different from everybody else. This awareness and strong individuality will help India in performing well on global scene.

Can race survive in a digital format ?

One of the important discoveries in biology, indeed one of the important discoveries in the entire history of science, is that the characteristics of parents are inherited by their children and that this information is encoded chemically in the embryo, and stored in a digital format.

Gregor Mendel, a christian monk, conducted some of the first experiments to study heridity in a scientific setting. He observed that some characteristics of individuals are dominant where as some are recessive. For example, in chick-peas, the tallness of the plant is dominant where as the shortness is recessive. That is, if a tall plant is crossed with a short plant, all the resultant children will be tall. Mendel did not have the means to study how exactly this information gets passed between the generations, but he invented a word “gene” to symbolize this idea. Thus, both the genes for tallness and shortness would be present in the hybrid offspring, even though the offspring appears tall due to the dominant action of tallness. Mendel was phenomenally clever in concluding so, because this is indeed right.

Genes are digital. The information does not get mixed up, like in an analog fashion.

Later in the next century, Watson and Crick discovered the means through which this information (genes) is transmitted. DNA contains a chain of four nucleotides whose ordering determines the structure of the gene. Thus, the information is encoded digitally through a language of 4 letters.

This is a fundamental principle of biology. But this is so counter-intuitive that it is often overlooked. Consider one of the most influential elements of race – the color of one’s skin. For the sake of an example, imagine that a fair skinned person and a dark skinned person sire a child together. We know that the child can take on the color of either of its parents, or can take on a wheatish complexion in the middleground. This happens because there does not exist one single gene to determine the color of the pigments of one’s skin. This color is the effect of several genes – both dominant and recessive ones amongst them. But the important thing is this – all these genes are preserved in tact when the information is transmitted (apart from the rare effects of mutation when it happens).

This principle of digital transmission of genes is important because it does not rule out the possibility that some individuals in the future generations would resemble their original ancestors in totality – that is being completely fair skinned or completely dark skinned. This happens because the genes that were responsible for the skin color of both the ancestors were preserved in the offspring – both of them, irrespective of which color the child took on.

Surprisingly, this basic principle is ignored when people talk about races. When people talk about creole races (due to the mixing up of two different races – usually black and white) they tend to say that these people have a wheatish complexion. This is true, but only on the average. It is not like mixing water and milk (a very popular metaphor, but very wrong)

This line of argument when extended into racism, says that the creole races, being hybrids, are only half-pure or half-good. This argument is highly demeaning to the creole population, but always overlooked. The truth is that the rich genetic diversity from all the ancestors is very much perfectly preserved in the offsprings. Each person is distinct from others and has a genetic individuality of his own.

The idea of race itself loses meaning now ! It cannot survive when the information is digital.

This is why I have said that India, the melting pot of all races, stands today as the antithesis of even the idea of race, not just racism.

The Antithesis of Race

It is one of the most misunderstood concepts of human culture. And it is at the root of an enormous list of problems that plague humanity.

I am talking about race. And I am not talking about just Nazis.

In many cases, we tend to overlook race and rest the blame on superficial elements such as religion, caste, regionalism, language etc.

Karl Marx has once suggested that economic relations are the basis for understanding any society, and that other elements are just superficial. I, however, think that race should be studied in isolation and that this will be equally important in understanding the ills of the society.

When I wanted to write about this, I have realized I have so much to write and so many examples to  illustrate, that it merits more than a single post on my blog. So I have decided to use my wordpress account to pen down these thoughts.

I will talk about several misconceptions amongst people which have their origin in the concept of race. Specifically, I will talk about them in the context of India. This is because, India has been an experiment on the idea of race, and its entire history is replete with incidants of racism and their consequences. Ultimately, India (and its people) stand today as the antithesis of race.

Please put down your comments. I hope to see other points of view and improve my understanding through this dialogue.

Thanks for dropping by !

- Kiran