Scholarly writings on caste among Indian Muslims generally note the division that is often made between the so-called 'noble' castes or ashraf and those labeled as inferior, or razil, kamin or ajlaf. The ashraf-ajlaf division is not the invention of modern social scientists, for it is repeatedly mentioned in medieval works of ashraf scholars themselves. To these writers, Muslims of Arab, Central Asian, Iranian and Afghan extraction were superior in social status than local converts. This owed not just to racial differences, with local converts generally being dark-skinned and the ashraf lighter complexioned, but also to the fact that the ashraf belonged to the dominant political elites, while the bulk of the ajlaf remained associated with ancestral professions as artisans and peasants which were looked down upon as inferior and demeaning.
In order to provide suitable legitimacy to their claims of social superiority, medieval Indian ashraf scholars wrote numerous texts that sought to interpret the Qur'an to suit their purposes, thus effectively denying the Qur'an's message of radical social equality. Pre-Islamic Persian notions of the divine right of kings and the nobility, as opposed to the actual practice of the Prophet and the early Muslim community, seem to have exercised a powerful influence on these writers. A classical, oft-quoted example in this regard is provided by the Fatawa-i Jahandari, written by the fourteenth century Turkish scholar, Ziauddin Barani, a leading courtier of Muhammad bin Tughlaq, Sultan of Delhi. This text is the only known surviving Indo-Persian treatise exclusively devoted to political theory from the period of the Delhi Sultanate.
The Fatawa-i Jahandari shows Barani as a fervent champion of ashraf supremacy and as vehemently opposed to the ajlaf. In appealing to the Sultan to protect the ashraf and keep the ajlaf firmly under their control and submission he repeatedly refers to the Qur'an, from which he seeks to derive legitimacy from his arguments. His is not a rigorous scholarly approach to the Qur'an, however, for he conveniently misinterprets it to support the hegemonic claims of the ashraf, completely ignoring the Qur'an's insistence on social equality. In the process, he develops a doctrine and social vision for the ideal Muslim ruler, which, in their implications for what Barani calls the 'low-born', are hardly different in their severity than the classical Hindu law of caste as contained in the Manusmriti, the Brahminical law code. As Barani's translator, Mohammad Habib, writes, 'Barani's God, as is quite clear from his work, has two aspects-first, he is the tribal deity of the Musalmans; secondly, as between the Musalmans themselves, He is the tribal deity of well-born uslims'.[1] Barani was not a lone voice in his period, however, for he seems to echo a widely shared understanding of ashraf supremacy held by many of his ashraf contemporaries, including leading 'ulama and Sufis.
Despite Islams egalitarian tenets, units of social stratification, termed as "castes" by many, have developed among Muslims in some parts of South Asia.[4][5]
Sections of the ulema (scholars of Islamic jurisprudence) provide religious legitimacy to caste with the help of the concept of kafaa. A classical example of scholarly declaration of the Muslim caste system is the Fatawa-i Jahandari, written by the fourteenth century Turkish scholar, Ziauddin Barani, a member of the court of Muhammad bin Tughlaq, of the Tughlaq dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate. Barani was known for his intensely casteist views, and regarded the Ashraf Muslims as racially superior to the Ajlaf Muslims. He divided the Muslims into grades and sub-grades. In his scheme, all high positions and privileges were to be a monopoly of the high born Turks, not the Indian Muslims. Even in his interpretation of the Koranic verse "Indeed, the pious amongst you are most honored by Allah", he considered piety to be associated with noble birth.[8] Barrani was specific in his recommendation that the "sons of Mohamed" [i.e. Ashrafs] "be given a higher social status than the low-born [i.e. Ajlaf].[10]His most significant contribution in the fatwa was his analysis of the castes with respect to Islam.[11] His assertion was that castes would be mandated through state laws or "Zawabi" and would carry precedence over Sharia law whenever they were in conflict.[11] In the Fatwa-i-Jahandari (advice XXI), he wrote about the "qualities of the high-born" as being "virtuous" and the "low-born" being the "custodian of vices". Every act which is "contaminated with meanness and based on ignominity, comes elegantly [from the Ajlaf]".[12] Barani had a clear disdain for the Ajlaf and strongly recommended that they be denied education, lest they usurp the Ashraf masters. He sought appropriate religious sanction to that effect.[7] Barrani also developed an elaborate system of promotion and demotion of Imperial officers ("Wazirs") that was primarily on the basis of their caste.[13]
In addition to the Ashraf/Ajlaf divide, there is also the Arzal caste among Muslims, who were regarded by anti-Caste activists like Babasaheb Ambedkar as the equivalent of untouchables.[14][15] The term "Arzal" stands for "degraded" and the Arzal castes are further subdivided into Bhanar, Halalkhor, Hijra, Kasbi, Lalbegi, Maugta, Mehtar etc.[14][15] The Arzal group was recorded in the 1901 census in India and are also called Dalit Muslims %u201Cwith whom no other Muhammadan would associate, and who are forbidden to enter the mosque or to use the public burial ground%u201D.They are relegated to "menial" professions such as scavenging and carrying night soil.[16]
Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a decision that when a jew or christian was killed, his blood-money was half the blood-money of a free muslim.
Malik said, "What is done in our community, is that a muslim is not killed for a kafir unless the muslim kills him by deceit. Then he is killed for it."
Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Sulayman ibn Yasar said, "The blood-money of a magian is eight hundred dirhams."
Malik said, "This is what is done in our community."
Malik said, "The blood-monies of the jew, christian, and magian in their injuries, is according to the injury of the muslims in their blood-moneys. The head wound is a twentieth of his full blood-money. The wound that opens the head is a third of his blood-money. The belly-wound is a third of his blood-money. All their injuries are according to this calculation."
Blood money is money paid as a fine to the next of kin of somebody who was killed intentionally.
In Islamic terms, Qisas can in some cases result in blood money being payed out to the family of victims. The amount varies from country to country and from case to case. In Saudi Arabia, the amount of blood money for the killing of a muslim woman is half that for killing a muslim man. The blood money for killing non-muslims is lower than both.
Wall Street Published the Blood Money Amounts for Saudi Arabia.
100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man .
50,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim woman .
50,000 riyals if the victim is a Christian 25,000 riyals if the victim is a Christian woman .
6,666 riyals if the victim is a Hindu man
3,333 riyals if the victim is a Hindu woman.
THIS SHOWS THE LEGAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NON-MUSLIMS IN ISLAMS HOLY LAND SAUDI ARABIA.
Hindus: We accept that some of the practices in our religions texts could be wrong. We don't practice those and we oppose those who do. We believe in progressive religion, and it should be a way of our lives. We respect other religions and believe "sarva dharma sambhava"- ie all religions can coexist peacefully and "vasudevaa kutumbkam" i.e the world is one family.
Muslims: There is no other truth than the Koran. Dont ever question anything in the Koran as it comes straight from the god.
There is no other religion other than Islam. We believe in universal brotherhood and there will be everlasting peace only when there is only Islam.
Indians: Indians have traditionally been very argumentative. They have questioned old established rules and traditions. Society has thus evolved overtime, questioning established norms and setting new more relevant rules and policies. Indians always evolve, think new, think fresh, argue, question, reject stagnation, accept change. Be an Indian. Whether Hindu or Muslim does not matter.
RE:The Difference lies here
by Syed Quadri on Mar 28, 2007 09:01 AM Permalink
Islam means submit to the GOD the creator of Mankind and the Universe. And I believe all the religion propagates the same and the peace would be in submitting to your God the creator of Mankind and the Universe.
Since Muhammad PBUH is the last Messenger sent by God to earth and Quran the latest revelation comparing to Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism.
A verse in Quran related to Abraham PBUH about throwing him in Fire and God's Miracle protected Abraham from fire is also available in Puranas, Bible and Tur (the books of Jesus and Moses).
Puranas also says do no worship Material Gods for material benefits. Do the Brahmins tell the same?
Though the older and newer religions have differences but the ultimate propagation is same. Submit to your God and that is Islam a common religion of all. Except some additional practices which Quran the book of creator of Mankind and Universe prohibits practices of involving deities and other objects with God.
But the good thing in India is people do not bother about other religions and freely practice whatever they like. Though it is idol worship, nudity, human sacrifices, Jogins (women bond in temples), sati, child marriages at the age of 3,4,5,6 and dowry. Nothing is stoppable, though there is law to protect individual rights and abolish old customs; people are free to follow whatever they choose is right.
I would like to remind all muslims (forced converts) here that we believe in the divinity in each and every being on earth, which reflects in our worship of images, which you idiots call idolatry and what not. You muslims will never realize that god resides in hearts of all living beings. You guys say god (your so called false allah) is formless, then why has he made you in this human form? where has he gone after making you....is he enjoying formless mashukas in jannat?
RE:worship of images
by Syed Quadri on Mar 28, 2007 09:45 AM Permalink
What is Islam?
Islam means Submit to God, the creator of Mankind and the universe. God created Adam from soil and God is still creating us in the wombs of our Mothers.
Who said God is formless. God says I made man like thyself. God is running this whole Universe and taking account of each man and woman on the earth. The sun, moon and stars and the affairs of the world are all in the Control of God.
Some men are idiots they leave God aside and start worship all the materials they think of divine except God.
Amit, why dont you read and follow Puranas? Puranas says, do not worship material for material benefit.
It is interesting discussion on Aurangzeb, I would like to suggest to read Vishmbar Nath Pandey book on Aurangzeb to all the participnets to know more about Aurangzeb.The great Moghal Emperor who gave such a long boundry of our country India unfortunatily we caould not keep it and divided the integral India in afghanistan pakistan, bengladesh and Burma.Aurangzeb never forced for conversion and even if he did so we the Muslim do not shame for the same and thankful to him to showing the path of Islam.Aurangzeb had ordered to destroy kashi mandir because of some reason but who has destroyed Babri Masjid and who is responsible for Gujrat geonocide.Is it allowed in a civilised society in 21st century
RE:Aurangzeb the great Moghal
by wada pav on Mar 27, 2007 10:21 PM Permalink
Aurangzeb did not give us the great boundary of afghanistan, pakistan etc. we already had it from our ancestors. it was muslims like mohammad ghazni and mohammad ghori who broke these provinces away from present day india.
Chandragupta Maurya's empire in 2300 BC was much more bigger than aurangzebs empire.
RE:Aurangzeb the great Moghal
by Rationalist on Mar 28, 2007 06:19 PM Permalink
Its only muslims who are responsible for Post Godrah. They are themselves to blame for the initiation.Not to forget even Hindus were also victims of which for mistake of muslims.
You are cribbing about just one Babri masjid. What about thousands of temples destroyed by your rulers. Stop acting victims.
