Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:49, 19 November 2006

	India NA‑class
This page is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Hinduism NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism NA This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

• Archive 1

Miscellaneous

Please discuss these as I suggest it being added to the main article Talk:Indian_caste_system#Criticism_of_the_caste_system

How are foreigners (or Americans in particular) integrated into the caste system? Who are they allowed to marry (if that's even possible, without exiling the Indian from their parents)? And as an American, what is acceptable treatment of a lower or higher caste (if you even have one)? 216.212.102.185 00:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Both David Frawley and Stephen Knapp are Americans and were incorporated as Brahmins.Hkelkar 00:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Plus, here is an example of an South African National who converted to Hinduism and became a priest (also high caste) Hkelkar 00:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm confused, but, your examples are of people who converted to Hinduism. As long as you don't convert, is the caste not an issue for Americans? Are they allowed to associate with any caste? If Brahmin is the popular choice for Americans, according to the Misplaced Pages, Brahmin only make up 2-5% of the population, so it seems like it'd be a problem if you're in the wrong area. Please forgive my ignorance on the issue. Indians I come in contact with don't seem to want to elaborate on the caste system. Maybe there should be a section called "Foreigners and the Caste System". 216.212.102.185 15:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Somehow i feel as if the article is somehow trying to evade the ills of cast systems, presenting a slightly moderated view. Truth must be brought in open.

I find this page to be confusingly written. For instance, "in the case of Nepal all the ethnic group should fall in this categories but Muluki Ain has incorporated the entire ethnic group into Caste hierarchy. But in reality neither all foreigners nor non-Hindus were treated as untouchables." Who/what is Muluki Ain? What ethnic groups are being spoken of?

I think some of my comprehension problem regarding this article may be a case of an American reading Indian English, or someone used to short paragraphs facing long ones. But the referentiality should be solid at least for those who would want to flesh out their reading, and it's not. --Drew 13:00:42, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

I agree. I also found inconsistant information within the article. For example under "Twice Born" it says once born to a Jati you cannot change Jati. But later under "Jati" it says Jati can be changed.

--Primod 08:44:57, 2005-10-21 (UTC)

I would dispute this article's NPOV, as the section on untouchables completely avoids any mention of the suffering and poverty inflicted on members of the untouchable caste by the caste system. -PB

I would also second the motion as it completely sidelines the various reservations given by Indian government to the so called untouchables, and how this is widening the gap between the two groups, the reserved, and the non-reserved. While we are at it, we should also write what policies of VP Singh were, and why Rajiv self-immolated himself against caste system. Not to forget the posts which have been given to the socalled socially backward untouchables(President of India), and the number of states in which there is/was a Dalit CM. --Renegade division 15:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC).

India is large contry with more than a billion population. The word 'Caste' itself does not exist in any Indian languages. The word 'Jati' means the heritage to which you are born. It is like calling some one Italian American, Native American, British America, Indian American etc. The word 'Varna' indicates the predominent tempermant of a person. Verna 'Braman' indicates you inclined towards intellectual activities like teaching,research etc. Varna 'Kyatria' means you are more interested in politics and power etc. Varna 'Vysya' means you are more interested in trading and finanace etc. Varna 'Sudra' means you are interested in just working as passive guy in the society and leading simple life without much ambitions. According to Indian scriptures, when born every one is Sudra.

May be this 'Caste' word was engineered into the Indian system by colonizers to serve their interest.

Jati is equivalent to ethnicity or trade of persons family heritage. Varna is urge with in the person, what he want to be.

I am born to Kuruba Jati, my astrologer wrote my varna as Braman. There are many great intellectuals (Kalidasa,Kanakadasa) from kuruba community. The founder of great vijayanagara empire is from kuruba community.

As I was a kid no one told me that one Jati is higher than the other. May be people should not group any Jati into Varna groups. Generally marriages happen with is the same Jati, may be driven by skills needed in the household.

This is a very dificult subject. If not properly presented, it could miss lead the world, as already happening.TT 02:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you, I suppose that was what Lord Krishna meant by 'Janmat Varnah' in Geeta. Aupmanyav 11:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

NOTE: User:BhaiSaab vandalized this page. He has stalked articles I edited, and I believe has used POV to delete the whole section on Muslim Caste System (He is a Muslim). I will copyedit and keep section due to this bias.Bakaman%% 20:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I got here from the list on the "Fundy watch." You're welcome to write on the caste system, but do not insert copyrighted text. I have not used "POV" to do anything. BhaiSaab 20:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking out the whole section on the Muslim caste system is vandalism (no matter what mumbo-jumbo you talk about "copyright", ask Krsont to edit it then). People shouldn't associate caste solely with Hinduism, its purely a socio-economic phenomenon which is deep rooted in India but (happily) is slowly dying thanks to globalization, and reform from Hinduism (Bhakti, Sikhism, Buddhism, Arya Samaj).Bakaman%% 20:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

BhaiSaab, if you believe that parts of this section were copyvios, state what you think are copyvios and re-write them to avoid copyright violations. Pecher 21:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to rewrite the material. If others add something something about a "Muslim caste system" and it's not copyrighted, of course I won't delete it. The entire section is copied from , . BhaiSaab 21:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I checked the site, its not copied from there (perhaps a paragraph) but not the whole thing.Bakaman%% 21:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The remaining parts are copied from . BhaiSaab 21:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The parts should be rewritten. You should not have gone out and deleted all the material.--D-Boy 21:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyrighted material is to be deleted. See Misplaced Pages:Copyright. Feel free to rewrite the section. BhaiSaab 21:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

D-boy, BhaiSaab stated "D-boy doesn't like me" on my talk page, so he won't listen to reason. Blnguyen stated what I did was "just the addition of a section of text, which was sourced" .

Of course he won't rewrite it because its on the MUSLIM caste system. I'm not going to assume good faith when a person gets me blocked for their vandalism.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a bad idea to declare that you will assume bad faith. You have an RfC atm, and regardless of whether this is unfounded or not, it's bad for you to take a hostile mindset in response. Blnguyen | rant-line 04:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can prove that it wasn't copied from other websites, go ahead. BhaiSaab 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the the 3RR report, added my comments, and although it is quite complex, (took about 30m to analyse), I can tell you that the whole text of the section was a subset of the websites given. Some of the sentences of the website aren't used, and some are used with half the sentence cut off, but definitely, everything that was in the article, was in the other website. Yes, the material should be rewritten, but copyvios need to be removed, so it is the correct thing to remove the copyvio pending a rewrite, rather than keep the copyvio pending a rewrite. Regardless of who is willing or unwilling to do the rewrite, the copyvio should be removed in the meantime. And please stop carrying on saying the other party is engaging in vandalism when there is none, that is a form of personal attack. As for my comments to User:(aeropagitica) that there was no vandalism by Bakasuprman, this still holds, there wasn't vandalous material - there is no contradiction, as it was sourced, but it is also a copyvio.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Caste System among Indian Christians?

As far as I know, such a thing does not exist. The information given at present in the article doesn't even belong there. Sure, there are Dalit converts. But that doesn't automatically imply that there is a caste system prevalent among the Christians. What exists today, are different denominations and not castes. Could somebody provide any references to substantiate the claim of a caste system among Christians in India?-- thunderboltz 15:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the definition of Caste. The article defines it as a rigid social order based on birthright, which Indian Christians do have. I believe citations have been provided in the article to that effect.Shiva's Trident 14:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such social stigma within Christians. What the Britanica says, is that pre-17th century, the Hindus used to view the Christians as middle caste people. That is a view of the Hindus, not Christians. As far as "a rigid social order based on birth" goes, Christians all over the world belong to one or the other denominations such as Catholic, Protestant, Pentecost, etc. But one sect does not view the other as superior or inferior, as is the case with Hindusim.-- thunderboltz 15:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

You are taking it out of context. Saivites do not think they are superior to Vaishnavites or Smartas or Shakti-ites. There is at least, caste discrimination among Christians, because only 2% of bishops are lower-caste. And many churches have separate doors for high caste and low caste Christians.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Caste is not a Hindu phenomenon, it is an Indian phenomenon. Therefore it should be wrtten as such. People of all religions have been sucked into the black hole of caste, those that exploited it (Missionairies, Muslims) seem to have been hiding something as the facts show. Heres one ref (I will try to find the root source later) , Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Major Caste Groups

The section looks higly dubious.Editors are inserting many castes into Ruling/Military section according to their POV.If you wish take this section out completely ; I don't see any logic regarding its existence and plz don't blame on 1891 census 'it clearly is not from there.Thanx. HW  09:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. It should be removed alltogether.nids(♂) 09:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the section as ppl failed to adress its importance. Ikon |no-blast 08:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Npov/Vandalism

I added the npov tag to the abuse section, it seems to have a npov issue to me if anyone feels diffrent discuss it here or just remove the tag.

Revert

Removing OR and Ambedkarite cruft.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism by IP.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sentence in intro

In addition, Muslims in South Asia have Caste Systems based on Fatwas and a social stratification unique to Muslims as a result of various Islamic laws on Hygiene.

I have removed this statement since it lacked citation and is rather dubious, with many mistakes. Are there many caste systems, or only one? Which Islamic laws on hygiene? Where else in the article does it mention fatwas? These concerns are why I removed this sentence from the article. Mar de Sin 04:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Islamic Fatwa used to stratify the Caste System is the Fatwa-i-Jahandari written by Ziauddin al-Barani (see the Muslim Caste System section in the article).The hygiene thing was added by BhaiSaab and probably a fib.Hkelkar 05:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OBC Figures

The statistics state that OBC's contribute 52% of present population. There is no evidence to confirm this. Section marked with disputed and citation needed. Someone please look into the matter. LostTemplar

Thanks for pointing it out. the 52% was quoted by the Mandal commission. The NSS debunks the figure as bogus and puts the figure at around 30%. Even that figure is regarded as exaggerated by partisan politics. I have made additions to that effect.Hkelkar 03:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The text under the section Modern status of the caste system under the heading Other Backward Classes (OBC's) seems to be biased towards the Mandal Commision report. I have edited this section to make it sound more neutral. Can someone please have a second look?

LostTemplar 18:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Caste among Muslims

All the sources for this seem to be partisan, and the section seems to overstress the importance of caste for Indian Muslims. The section's sources are not reputable enough, and the article glosses over the fact that caste is rejected by Islam. Mar de Sin 20:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Partisan? what rubbish!Many of the sources are written by MUSLIMS themselves.Plus, Smartic Hinduism also rejects Caste but no mention of that either. Looks like the ji(had)g is up.Hkelkar 21:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make up nonsense.All the sources are excellenet references available in library, are from reputable publishers and by scholars in teh field.If you try to promulgate more bias there will be consequences.Hkelkar 22:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when have I promulgated violence bias ? I'll look into more sources and then I'll decided if a POV tag is worth posting. Mar de Sin 22:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Violence??Maybe you should promulgate the art reading other people's posts.Go ahead and look into as many sources as you want.Remove MY sourced edits and I will do whatever I can to get you blocked for vandalism and extrelmely bad faith editing.Such an act is long pending I think.Hkelkar 22:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My careless mistake, sorry. Once again, you are assuming really bad faith on my part. I would never remove legitimate edits. Mar de Sin 22:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Your attitude does not reflect such a sentiment.Hkelkar 22:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I never intended my attitude to be anything less than patient and civil. I have never removed legitimate edits on any article unless it was unsourced and seemingly preposterous to me- and even if it is unsourced, I don't remove edits. Mar de Sin 22:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Woman raped on Train by Dalits

Link left in, but contextualized.

The above link was removed for being irrelevant and poorly sourced.

It was re-instated for being excellently sourced and highly relevant as an example of reverse-casteism.Hkelkar 12:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The re-instatement has been left in and contextualised to reflect media bias.

No media bias exists. Claim isn't sourced per WP:VerifiabilityHkelkar 00:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure the statement wan't made by a Hindu nationalist who believes the cast system must be preserved forever? Are dalits allowed to write in the Brahamini newspapers?--tequendamia 12:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

Hkelkar 12:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

An ignorant statement.Hindu Nationalists do not believe in the caste system at all. the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has publicly denounced the caste system. Want sources?Hkelkar 12:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the news. Why are 10.000 dalits converting in mass to Budhism and Christianity? Why are nationalist hinduist passing bills to ban conversion? Answer: to scape discrimination. --tequendamia 12:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

More ignorance.Dalits are converting because of incitenment by White Supremacist missionaries. Read about Casteism in the Indian Catholic Church. Plus, hindu nationalists repudiate all casteism:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507163/posts

You clearly have no concept of WP:NORHkelkar 12:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So you are using this page to post anti-christian activism and propaganda?--tequendamia 12:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You used it to post anti-Hindu activism and propaganda. I am not an anti-Christian. Merely posting the facts per wikipedia policy. This is your last warning against personal attacks:

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Misplaced Pages has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you.

Hkelkar 12:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, read about Bama Faustina, a very brave Dalit Christian woman who has spoken out against Casteism in the Christian church in India.Hkelkar 12:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus, several Hindu nationalists like Uma Bharati are very low caste (OBC's). Do not conflate the Caste System with Hindutva. The two are completely unrelated.Hkelkar 12:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

DMK

My edit added the source back again. Any removal of the sourced fact is vandalism.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Exporting the caste system to the UK

This is what a British Member of Parliament has to say about the Indian Cast System in the UK:

I first became truly aware of the extent of caste discrimination in India, and of the resistance to it, when I attended the World

Social Forum in Mumbai in January 2004. I had been aware that there was such a system, and that it did affect many poor people, but the reality of it struck home in that experience.

There were several thousand Dalits at the World Social Forum protesting about the vicious effects of the caste system in India and other countries of South Asia. Hundreds of them marched, dancing and beating their drums, objecting to being regarded as the polluted outcastes of society. I then learnt more about the problem when I met a group of Dalit activists on a second visit to Mumbai in February 2006.

I was therefore horrified to realise that caste discrimination has actually been exported to the UK through the Indian Diaspora.

The same attitudes of superiority, pollution and separateness appear to be present in South Asian communities now settled in the UK. This is an issue the Government and all those concerned about good community relations must address. Any discrimination, of whatever kind, is unacceptable and must be both legislated against and challenged by all appropriate means.

Jeremy Corbyn MP, Source: No scape - Caste Discrimination in the UK

While this "Dalit Solidarity" source is quotable of course bear in mind that it is partisan so per WP:RS multiple sources are needed to qualify this situation.Hkelkar 15:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, let me modify. It is not qutable here as we are talking about Castes in India only. Please put it in the relevant article. Not here.15:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is on the caste system among Indians. If Indians in the UK have retained the caste system, that topic is appropriate to this article. — goethean ॐ 15:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What is "Indian"? not a race but a nationality.There is no such thing as an Indian race.South Asians in the UK are British citizens, not Indians,. Please put this on Hinduism in the United Kingdom not here.Hkelkar 15:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Indians are not an ethnic group. South Asians are an ethnic group. There are at least seven distinct races in South Asia.By your logic I can also put Castes in Pakistan and Bangladesh in the article. Please understand.Hkelkar 15:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Inextricability from Hinduism

When you try to make the distinction between South Asians and Indians you are admitting that wherever there is Hinduism there is caste system discrimination, in other words: it is inextricably linked. In those countries or regions where hinduism is practiced by the mayority, the caste system has even imposed on Muslims, Christians and others faiths. Countries where the cast discrimination system has been transfered to or exported are those where hindu immigration has been prominent, such as Belize, Guyana, Trinidad, United Kingdom, Fiji, Malaysia, Australia, Uganda, South Africa. Hinduism and the cast system is a Sub-Indian continent cultural export.--tequendamia 07:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hatemongering edit got blocked.Hkelkar 15:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Only for 24 hours though. He is not hate-mongering btw. He's may be POV-pushing or simply mistaken/uneducated about the subject. If he's mistaken, then please give cited evidence that the Indian caste system exists seperately from Hinduism. Note: this is not the same as giving evidence that modern Hindu scholars reject it, modern Catholics and Spaniards both reject the inquisition, but it still historically existed and was a Spanish Catholic event. If he's POV-pushing, please work on a neutral, cited form of the article that both of you can agree on.

Also, have you considered using the phrase "historically linked to Hinduism" rather than "inextricably linked to Hinduism"? --tjstrf 15:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah "historically linked" is ok by me.

Here are the issues with the POV pusher:

The Caste System is not unique to Hindus

Muslims also have it

There is a Caste system in Yemen

There are Castes in Latin America

This establishes that Caste!=Hindu

Also,Smarta Hindus never accepted Caste System

Certain sects of Hinduism reject Caste

Thus, Hindu!=Caste

So, logically, the "inextricable link is false"

Sources:

Yemen Caste System:http://www.yemenmirror.com/index.php?action=showDetails&id=136

and http://www.yementimes.com/99/iss01/l&d.htm

and http://www.yementimes.com/99/iss01/l&d.htm

The word CASTE is expressly used in refs above.

Latin America: http://www.zonalatina.com/Zldata55.htm

The word CASTE is expressly used in ref above.

Muslims have caste system based on the following sources:

Patrap C. Aggarwal Caste and Social Stratification Among Muslims in India

http://stateless.freehosting.net/Caste%20in%20Indian%20Muslim%20Society.htm

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_partition/410.html

The last ref is the most important where Ambedkar, a great scholar of the 20th century, explicitly states the following:

"Take the caste system. Islam speaks of brotherhood. Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste. Regarding slavery nothing needs to be said. It stands abolished now by law. But while it existed, much of its support was derived from Islam and Islamic countries. While the prescriptions by the Prophet regarding the just and humane treatment of slaves contained in the Koran are praiseworthy, there is nothing whatever in Islam that lends support to the abolition of this curse."

"But if slavery has gone, caste among Musalmans has remained"

"There can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim Society in India is afflicted by the same social evils as afflict the Hindu Society. Indeed, the Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more. That something more is the compulsory system of purdah for Muslim women."

"There is thus a stagnation not only in the social life but also in the political life of the Muslim community of India"

""The Musalman, remaining faithful to his religion, has not progressed; he has remained stationary in a world of swiftly moving modern forces. It is, indeed, one of the salient features of Islam that it immobilizes in their native barbarism, the races whom it enslaves. It is fixed in a crystallization, inert and impenetrable. It is unchangeable; and political, social or economic changes have no repercussion upon it"

Clearly, Ambedkar asserts that Muslim Caste System is based on religious decree. There is more if you wish to read this insightful book that is famous in India as one of Ambedkar's masterpeice works. Bear in mind that Ambedkar was a Buddhist, not Hindu and he absolutely loathed the Hindu Caste practices (see Ambedkar).

Hkelkar 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

* Clearly, from the above quotes Ambedkar concludes that "Islam speaks of brotherhood. Everybody infers that Islam must be free from slavery and caste" and that any such element of caste is not related to any religious decree.Wow, someone can write one thing and conclude just the oppositte.

• Factual error 2:Kelkar's comment "Bear in mind that Ambedkar was a Buddhist, not Hindu and he absolutely loathed the Hindu Caste practices" is not fully true.Ambedkar was born and brought up a lower caste Hindu.He adopted Buddhism later on in his life in 1956 fed up of the injustices of the Hindu Caste system.His comments "I was born a Hindu, but I’m determined not to die a Hindu. I’m going to figure out which of the religions offers me and my community the most dignity and humanity"
• Reason why some editors include Ambedkar's views on to defame Islam could be gauged from the following

The other aspect of Hinduization is whatever Ambedkar said about Islam to show the differences from Brahminism is construed to wrongly project Ambedkar as having anti-Islamic convictions. from a Lower Caste Dalit Publication Ambedkar.org

• The same Yoginder Sikand whose article an editor presents to show, - falsely believing the title of the book Fatawat i Jahandari - to be a religious edict - is the author of the piece below:

A: I consider this as the biggest blunder by Ambedkar. But in a sense he was forced into it. You see, I am convinced that Ambedkar was aware that the most effective means for Dalit liberation was through converting to Islam. In this he was following in the tradition of Mahatma Jyotiba Phule, who argued that by becoming Muslims, the Dalits could overcome the stigma of untouchability that the upper castes branded them with. In 1935, in a public address to his fellow Mahars, Ambedkar first spoke out on the need for the Dalits to renounce Hinduism and to convert to another religion. He said that the Dalits could choose from between Sikhism, Christianity or Islam, but added that Islam seemed to offer the Dalits the best deal. He commented on how Muslims are so closely united, and how the bond of Islamic brotherhood has no parallels in any other religious community or tradition. It is revealing to note that at this time he made no mention at all of Buddhism.

• Brittannica states that the caste in context of Islam is "any of the units of social stratification that developed among Muslims in India and Pakistan as a result of the proximity of Hindu culture".Nowhere it mentions any scriptural foundation of caste in Islam.

TerryJ-Ho 23:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

More sources for Muslim Caste System

Backward Muslims protest denial of burial

A.F Imam Ali, Changing Social Stratification in Rural Bangladesh (Muslim Author)

Frank S. Fanselow , The Disinvention of Caste Among Tamil Muslims

E.R. Leach , Aspects of Caste in South India, Ceylon and North-West Pakistan

Research Paper = Caste and Social Stratification among the Muslims by Imtiaz Ahmad (Muslim author) online

Hkelkar 16:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The caste system is supported by central Hindu philosophies. Even Britannica states that "The hierarchical social structure of the caste system is also important in Hinduism; it is supported by the principle of dharma." The caste system among Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs in India is of course due to the influence of the majority Hindu population. BhaiSaab 16:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong.That is ONE caste system among Muslims. Muslims have several caste systems, not just one

Thus, Caste system is NOT a cultural export out of India (at least not exclusively) as Yemen did not have any significant links with India historically or today. Same with the Latinos. Muslim Caste System is established by Islamic Fatwas NOT CONNECTED TO HINDUISM. Plus, there are also the Hindu castes among Muslims. Muslims have not one but SEVERAL caste systems. The Ashraf/Ajlaf/Arzal divide as created by Fatwa-i-Jahandari (Muslim holy text), the Hindu Caste Systems exported into Muslims AND the Quomiyat of Bengal and Swat, Pakistan (not India). See caste based incident of Mukhtaran Mai in Pakistan where Muslim woman of lower Quom got gang raped by Muslim men of higher Quom. Hkelkar 16:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Islam and Christianity quite clearly have more egalitarian ideals than that of Hinduism, regardless of the fatwa of one person or the practices of various Christians in India. I'll be developing this idea into the article, as it seems that the link between Hinduism and the caste system is being de-emphasized in this article, while any supposed links between the caste system and other religions are being reinforced. Again, I'm saying that the caste system among Hindus and Christians in the Indian subcontinent is an export of Hindu society, and I'll be making sourced statements in the article to that effect, because many sources state the same. BhaiSaab 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Muslim Caste System is established by Islamic Fatwas" I asked you on your talk page to provide evidence for this, and you did not. I would argue, based on the several sources that I have read, is that the fatwa reinforced an already existing social institution, rather than establish the institution itself. BhaiSaab 16:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been saying that for days and have found nothing reliable because there exists nothing reliable (except maybe al-Qaeda propaganda leaflets or handouts from SIMI etc.). My sources above clearly indicate that the Fatwa-i-Jahandari established and mandated the Ashraf/Ajlaf/Arzal Caste System (inclusing the translated Fatwa in the Political Thought book cited in the article) and all of your comments above are WP:NOR unless you can back them up! Cite your sources. They had better be as powerful and scholarly as mine and I WILL check each and every single one of them, believe me!Hkelkar 16:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus, read "Political thought in the Delhi Sultanate by Mohamed Habib". Clearly establishes Barani as the promulgator of the Castes thru the Fatwa.Hkelkar 16:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the same thing can be said abt Hinduism also. I mean, The Manusmtiri is just ONE smriti. That too a post Vedantic one. The Vedas and Upanishads are the only texts in Hinduism that are regarded as divine. Manusmriti is the work of man according to Hindu beliefs and is post-vedantic to boot, making it non-normative. Plus, Islam is egalitarian??Yeah, right! let's not talk about the Quran and how it says Jews are "apes and pigs" and the stuff they say about slaughtering infidels. Plus, look at Christianity and anti-Semitism. Egalitarian. Yeah, right! If that's egalitarian then I'm the ghost of Christman past! Let's not forget the Goa Inquisition,Spanish Inquisition, the genocide of the Aztecs, Christian church's complicity in the holocaust etc. etc.Hkelkar 16:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Cite your sources. They had better be as powerful and scholarly as mine and I WILL check each and every single one of them, believe me!" Boasting won't really get you anywhere. The statements will be sufficiently sourced. And when I say Islam and Christianity are egalitarian, I mean with respect to their own believers. BhaiSaab 16:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Tell that to Bama Faustina the Dalit Christian who writes that Christian priests discriminate against Dalits. Tell that to the Ku Klux Klan who used Christianity as a justification for lynching Black Christians. Tell that to the Christian Identity people too while you're at it.Hkelkar 16:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

These Christian groups are not at all representative of mainstream Christian thought; I'm sure you can agree with that. BhaiSaab 16:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure many Blacks from the Deep South would disagree rather strongly on this issue, as would many victims of Christian genocide in Zimbabwe.Besides, I can argue that extremist caste practices are only carried out by a bunch of backward Brahmin-Baniya bigots in some villages in rural India. Caste has all but disappeared in the urban and more advanced rural scene (except when it comes to votebank politics and other abstract modes). Basically caste system can;t work in a big community or city. How do you know what is the caste of the guy across the street if he is dressed neutrally and not in a caste-specific community? You'd have to know his family name, his family history, his genealogy etc.This is possible in smal communities where everybody knows everybody else, but not in a big city or an urban center of some sort. The only way is if they dress in a certain way that is characteristic of caste and that's increasingly rare in the urban and advanced rural areas as most people dress in Western/Indian syncrectic fashion.Hkelkar 16:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a relatively recent development in the long history of the caste system in Hindu society. Before the 20th century, the caste system was universally pervasive among Hindus, or at least almost there. BhaiSaab 16:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Any egalitarianism in Christianity is a relatively recent development in the long history of ethnic hatreds in Christian society. The entire protestant sect of Christianity ws founded by virulent antisemite Martin Luther who write that Jews are devils and had to be killed 'cause they are "usurous","corrupt","christ-killers". Pogroms against Jews were entirely commonplace all over Europe in the 19th century which is why tha Aaliyahs started and that's when you fine folks come in, of course. Plus, if this is your idea of egalitarianism then who needs it:

warning: anti-semitic statements quoted below, view at own risk:

“They try to kill the principle of religions with the same mentality that they betrayed Jesus Christ and the same way they tried to betray and kill the Prophet Mohammed.” — Syrian President Bashar Assad at May 5 welcoming ceremony for the Pope Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 6, 2001 “It is not a mistake that the Koran warns us of the hatred of the Jews and put them at the top of the list of the enemies of Islam. Today the Jews recruit the world against the Muslims and use all kinds of weapons. They are plundering the dearest place to the Muslims, after Mecca and Medina and threaten the place the Muslims have faced at first when they prayed and the third holiest city after Mecca and Medina. They want to erect their temple on that place....The Muslims are ready to sacrifice their lives and blood to protect the Islamic nature of Jerusalem and al-Aksa!”

— Sheikh Hian Al-Adrisi,

“The Jews are Jews, whether Labour or Likud, the Jews are Jews. They do not have any moderates or any advocates of peace. They are all liars. They are the ones who must be butchered and killed. As Allah the Almighty said: 'Fight them.' Allah will torture them by your hands and will humiliate them and will help you to overcome them, and will relieve the minds of the believers. ... Our people must unite in one trench, and receive armaments from the Palestinian leadership to confront the Jews. ... Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Whenever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them — and those who stand with them — they are all in one trench, against the Arabs and the Muslims — because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine. They created it in order that it be the outpost of their civilization — and the vanguard of their army, and to be the sword of the West and the Crusaders, hanging over the necks of the Muslim monotheists, the Muslims in this land. They wanted the Jews to be the spearhead for them...” — Dr Ahmad Abu-Halabia, a member of the "Fatwa Council" appointed by the Palestinian Authority.

This one's a doozy:

“Thanks to Hitler, blessed memory, who on behalf of the Palestinians, revenged in advance, against the most vile criminals on the face of the earth. Although we do have a complaint against him for his revenge on them was not enough.”

— Columnist Ahmad Ragab Al-Akhbar (Egypt), April 18, 2001

“All weapons must be aimed at the Jews, at the enemies of Allah...whom the Koran describes as monkeys and pigs, worshippers of the calf and idol worshippers. Allah shall make the Moslem rule over the Jew, we will blow them up in Hadera, we will blow them up in Tel Aviv and in Netanya in the righteousness of Allah against this rif-raff.....We will enter Jerusalem as conquerors, and Jaffa as conquerors, and Haifa as conquerors and Ashkelon as conquerors...we bless all those who educate their children to jihad and to Martyrdom, blessing be he who shot a bullet into the head of a Jew.”

— Sermon broadcast on Palestinian Authority television, August 3, 2001

This is just a small sampling of "egalitarianism" Hkelkar

Like I said before "when I say Islam and Christianity are egalitarian, I mean with respect to their own believers." Perhaps you missed that. BhaiSaab 17:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh? whatever happened to "Jews and Muslims are cousins from Abraham"? Out the window when it seems inconvenient?Hkelkar 17:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

When did I say that? You seem to be using straw-man arguments. The Jews under Muslims or the Jews under Christians is not analagous to the Hindu caste system. Islamic law classifies Muslims and Dhimmis; the Hindu caste system classifies Hindus against other Hindus, so your arguments are somewhat irrelevant. BhaiSaab 17:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You forgot about the Ashraf, the Ajlaf and the Arzal Untouchables (all Arabic words, not Sanskrit). You forgot about the al-Akhdham in Yemen. Do you want me to quote more lines from Ambedkar's book???Hkelkar 17:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You're missing my point. These castes are not orthodox in Islam - they are not whatsoever supported by Qur'an or Hadith. The same goes for Sikhism and Christianity, and their respective texts. The only reason any caste system exists among them is the influence of the Hindu majority in the Indian subcontinent. Considering the pervasiveness of the caste system in Hinduism, it is, or at least used to be, part of orthodox practice of the religion and is supported by the main religious texts of Hinduism. BhaiSaab 17:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And you are missing my point.Caste isn't orthodox to Hinduism either.They are not supported by any text written before Vedanta (and if you see any off-chance statements about the Kamboja in the M-bharata then they were added by some mischevious Brahmins later). I challenge the claim that Muslims in India casteify solely on the basis of Hindu influence and have provided sources that attest that the Ashraf/Ajlaf divide was sanctioned by the Indian Islamic Ulema.That may not be ultra-orthodox, but, considering the pervasiveness of Caste in Muslim society as reported by the great scholar Ambedkar and others, one posits that it is sufficiently normative in South Asian Muslims (who are the majority of Muslims).Hkelkar 17:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, you state that the fatwas sanctioned such practices. Are there any sources that indicate that the fatwas established the castes among Muslims? BhaiSaab 17:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the paper I cited above to the Mehta book on Ideology, Modernization & Politics p136-137. Barani clearly said that he ESTABLISHED Ashraf discrimination of Ajlafs.17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a quote. BhaiSaab 17:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What about all the Muslims who keep insisting that Jews and Muslims are "essentially the same" and "Arabs are Semites also"? If we accept that then Muslims are hating and killing their own people.Hkelkar 17:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk to them about this. BhaiSaab 17:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Likewise. You talk to the backward bigots of Ranvir Sena who hate Dalits and OBC's. I want nothing to do with such people, nor do many of my fellow Indian Nationals. I live have lived among millions of Hindus who want nothing to do with Casteism in their day-to-day lives and, as a fairly non-partisan non-Hindu, I can attest to their sincerety.Hkelkar 17:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know there were millions of Hindus at the University of Texas. BhaiSaab 17:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my grammatical mistake.I have corrected it.Hkelkar 17:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Brief quote from Mehta book (I will provide detailed quotes tomorrow when I have more time):

From the fatwa itself

Clearly, he is not decribing a system that was already in place but was, in fact, requesting the Sultan to enforce these rules and providing detailed reasoning for justifying the practice.Also, the book says that Barani used the Qu'ran to justify these assertions.Hkelkar 18:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Kelkar - Just to remind you again.Barrani is not a religious figure but a historian and political theorist - to the Turkish Sultanate rule in India.While there is no first hand account of what he wrote available on the Internet.You may well know the context in which he wrote - if you go through the brief description of some of his books.

Search on the US Congress library on keyword - Jahandari it will give you these -

Kauṭalya’s Arthaśāstra, a treatise on ancient Indian statecraft and social theory, and Z̤iyāʾ al-Dīn Baranī’s Fatawa-i-Jahandari, a treatise on political theory of the early medieval period.

The political theory of the Delhi sultanate (including a translation of Ziauddin Barani’s Fatawa-i Jahandari, circa, 1358-9 A.D.), by Mohammad Habib and Afsar Umar Salim Khan.

I hope you understand the difference between Politics and religious doctrine.The above quotes sound much more like Lord Macaulay's policies on educating English to Indians to develop Babu like class.Baba Ambedkar or Barrani may have any views on religion, however,their points of views can not make them a part of the religious dogma.If I were you,I would have rather detailed the benefits of the caste system to India's society and the reasons why it has sustained for over so long rather than attempting to impose its origins to other religions where they don't belong.TerryJ-Ho 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not what I am doing at all.I am attempting to undo the attempts made by racist users to conflate the caste system with any religion by citing it as a social system with it's justifications coming both from Manusmriti (provided by the Sungas and the Brahmins) AND Quran (provided by Barrani and the Mullahs of the Indian Ulema). There is not one but SEVERAL caste systems operating in India. The Varnas for Hindus, the Ashraf/Ajlaf zaati and the Qomiyat for Muslims, and the carbon copy of the Varnas for Christians.Hkelkar 08:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You may take any view as you like but note that unlike the trend these days to qualify it as a monolithic religion the major part of scholars in Hinduism don't recognise it as such.As such even though you may like to disown Manusmriti for its views on Caste.Most scholars recognise it as a part of Hinduism and you can still find some scholars if you study the Oxford Hindu Studies Centre's site who tell you of the benefits this system provides in terms of social cohesion.If you had the opportunity on what EB has written on Muslim castes - you will note that they begin by saying that the prevalance of castes in Muslims in India is due to the effects of the continuance of Hindu practices rather than a justification in Quran and Sunnah and that it is not as severe as Hinduism.

Not according to Ambedkar, who asserts:

Muslim Society is even more full of social evils than Hindu Society is

in his book here. Read it.Hkelkar 10:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar, you're making your own inferences about these quotes. No where are the ramifications of this fatwa mentioned, so how do you know it established the Muslim castes? BhaiSaab 20:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The inferences come from the books and papers, not from me.Plus, the fact that Barani does NOT describe the castes in the past tense but the future tense shows that it was HE who wanted them enforced and GOT them enforced based on religious sanction.

Besides, where is YOUR scholarly attribute to teqy's unsourced claims of it being intrinsic to Hinduism anyway (particularly since I have cited caste systems that have nothing to do with Hinduism, such as those in Latin America and Yemen)?Hkelkar 08:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Plus, the fact that Barani does NOT describe the castes in the past tense but the future tense shows" - looks like your own inference.Ain't TerryJ-Ho

Nope, it is the inference of the fine people who wrote texts on English grammar.Hkelkar 10:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is quite clear that you're making your own inference here on the origins of castes in Muslim society in India. I'll provide my references once the article is unlocked. BhaiSaab 11:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as there si a dispute the article will not be unlocked.Plz provide the refs here.Hkelkar 11:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right about that. Here's my first reference:

"Islamic caste - any of the units of social stratification that developed among Muslims in India and Pakistan as a result of the proximity of Hindu culture. Most of the South Asian Muslims were recruited from the Hindu population; despite the egalitarian tenets of Islam, the Muslim converts persisted in their Hindu social habits. Hindus, in turn, accommodated the Muslim ruling class by giving it a status of its own." "Islamic caste." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 18 Oct. 2006 http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9042918

BhaiSaab 12:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's one kind of caste. I'm talking about the other kinds that they don't mention like the Ashraf/Ajlaf divide.Plus, note that Britannica says "Islamic" Caste, not "Muslim" caste, so they ARE connected to Islam.Hkelkar 12:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction to above. Britannica does mention Ashraf/Ajlaf divide.Let me red it in detail and I will get back to you.Hkelkar 12:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay.Per precedent on similar arguments in Muhammad bin Qasim, I ask what the sources of Brittanica are in correlating the Ashraf/Ajlaf divide with Hinduism. As far as I can see, they only theorize that Muslims "adapted" the Hindu Caste system. Bear in mind that the article contains several logical contradictions, such as:

If that is the case, why did the Ashrafs (ethnically Arabs) persist the caste system? They were never Hindus. There was nothing for them to adapt from. They never converted. This establishes that Britannica's claims are theoretical. They can, of course, be cited. However, the other view that it was built off of the Fatwa-i-Jahandari, must also be cited per the works of Mohamed Habib, Mehta and Sikand which I can source.Hkelkar 12:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think of the Britannica quote, I think you would agree that it is quite explicit in stating that the Muslim caste system in India has Hindu origins. The quotes you provided above were not explicit, and you had to make an inference from them. If the works of Mohamed Habib, Mehta and Sikand are as explicit in saying that the caste system is a result of the fatwa, I would ask you to please provide the quotes. BhaiSaab 12:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's another source:

"One of these was the place given to caste, with converts clinging to some memory of their former status in a hierarchical society, while what may be called Muslim castes developed as Indian Muslims classified themselves as Sayyid, Shaikh, Mughal, or Pathan. This structure was never very rigid; as Bernier commented, anyone who put on a white turban called himself a Mughal. An old saying makes the same point: "Last year I was a Julaha (weaver); this year a Shaikh; and next year if the harvest be good, I shall be a Sayyid." And in the mosque the Islamic ideals of brotherhood and equality remained triumphant." Muslim Civilization in India S. M. Ikram, New York: Columbia University Press, 1964 BhaiSaab 12:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That establishes that there is mobility in the Muslim Caste System. There is mobility in the Hindu Caste system per the sourced text regarding the Noniyas , the Nairs etc. in the article. Bear in mind that the above mobility was ONLY withing Sayyid, Shaikh, Pathan etc. all Ashrafs. There was no mobility from Arzal to Ashraf. Cite me a source for that. Bear in mind that the Chauhan Rajputs are Dwijams, whereas the untouchables were Adwijams. The Noniya went from Adwijam to Dwijam. Is there any precedent for this among Muslims? Also, the quote on which the assertions wer based could easily be figurative & not literal.

However, I will not object to mentioning BOTH perspectives if you can source unequivocally.Hkelkar 12:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It also suggests the same thing as the Britannica article with "with converts clinging to some memory of their former status in a hierarchical society." I cannot yet find a source that states that the Muslim castes are a result of the fatwa.BhaiSaab 13:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, note Ambedkar's criticism of the euphemism "brotherhood". Plus, no doubt that you are aware of the massive Sunni-Shia conflicts that have erupted all over the Muslim world so the concept of "Islamic Brotherhood" is clearly as theoretical as the Hindu "Brahman".Hkelkar 12:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sectarian strife is not analagous to a caste system. You're the first person I've heard to suggest that. BhaiSaab 13:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. the first person to suggest that was Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf in a PTV interview.Hkelkar 15:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's yet another quote by the way:

"The Muslim caste system is a result of Hindu influence; the Indian Muslims have acquired the system, …, from the Hindus through constant and continuous culture contact; the system of caste groupings itself resulted in the concept of social distance between the two communities, the Hindus and the Muslims." Muslim Caste in Uttar Pradesh (A Study of Culture Contact), Ghaus Ansari, Lucknow, 1960, Page 66 BhaiSaab 13:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, which caste system? I said Muslims have several caste systems, some derived from Hinduism, others justified from Qu'ranic scripture by al-Barani.Hkelkar 15:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

See here he is talking about UP. UP has the Allahabadi Muslims, that's vintage Jajmin/Kamin territory. Muslims in Gujarat, Maharashtra (the Boras and so on) and other places practice Ashraf/Ajlaf/Arzal only. Muslims in swat & Bengal practice Qomiyat and so on.Hkelkar 15:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

All of the Muslim castes in the Indian subcontinent are a result of Hindu influence. There is no qualification in this source or any other source. BhaiSaab 15:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong! The Fatwa-i-Jahandari and the Ashraf/Ajlaf divide has nothing to do with Hindus at all.Hkelkar 16:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And that IS backed up by the Mehta books/papers and the Sikand research, as well as the Habib book.Hkelkar 16:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources? Quotes? BhaiSaab 16:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

from the Habib book:

Hkelkar 16:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And yet nothing here states his fatwa established the system. Where does it say something to the effect of "the ramifications of this fatwa were that such and such castes were established"? A fatwa is an opinion - where in the history of Islam have you had the opinion of one scholar have such a deep and lasting effect? Nowhere. This quote simply details his opinion. BhaiSaab 16:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the quote again. It clearly establishes that Barani SOUGH support of the sustem through religious sanction. Also read the Sikand paper where he says so repeatedly (the ref is in the article). Furthermore, I can say the same thing about Hinduism as well. The Manusmriti is one smriti. One of thousands. The Manusmriti is just one set of opinions supposedly by one mythical figure (Manu, a king, not a God). The normative texts make no canonical mention of Caste at all.Where in the history of Islam history have I seen the opinion of one scholar have such a deep and lasting effect? Mohamed, that's where.Hkelkar 17:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad(pbuh) is an obvious exception to the rule, considering that he is the last prophet of Islam. In essence you're saying that this fatwa by a scholar I've never heard of has had the same power as him. "Barani SOUGH support" So what if he sought support? The only evidence this quote provides is that a Muslim in the past has supported the use of the caste system. "Establishing" is a big stretch of this evidence. BhaiSaab 17:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You just inserted the Sikand source to back up your assertation that fatwas established some sort of caste system; in fact, the Sikand source contradicts this:

"Following from this, the existence of caste-like features among non-Hindu, including Muslim, communities in India is thus generally seen as a result of the cultural influence on these communities of their Hindu neighbours or of Hinduism itself. This claim is based on the untenable assumption of a once pure, radically egalitarian Muslim community in India later coming under the baneful impact of Hinduism.

However, as several studies on caste among the Indian Muslims have shown, while the influence of Hindu social mores on the Muslims might partially explain the continued salience of caste among them it does not fully explain how the Muslims of the region came to be stratified on the basis of caste in the first place. It also ignores the role of sections of the 'ulama, scholars of Islamic jurisprudence, in providing religious legitimacy to caste with the help of the concept of kafa'a."

At most, you can say that the fatwa provided legitimacy for the caste system - not that it established it. BhaiSaab 17:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have qualified both perspectives. The one by Sikand et al that state that Muslim Caste System is not as bad as Hindu Caste System, and the one by Ambedkar that asserts the exact opposite, that social evil of caste in Muslims is worse than that of Hindus. there are multiple opinions on this matter and both have been cited for WP:NPOV.Hkelkar 17:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

btw edit-warring will get us both in trouble so please stop and get arbitration.Hkelkar 17:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

He is the only person to say that Muslim castes are worse than Hindu castes. I'll dispute this later. BhaiSaab 17:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh whoopee! Let me call over some Ambedkarite wikipedians and see what they have to say about your "disputes" :).Hkelkar 18:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

He better should consult about the persona and following of Barrani and his treatise Fatawa i Jahandari which meant Temporal Judgements and not Guidelines for segragation of Muslims into castes

EB writes of his work Fatawa i Jahandari as under

"he expounded a religious philosophy of history that viewed the events in the lives of great men as manifestations of divine providence. TerryJ-Ho 17:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Same argument can be given for Manusmriti. It expounded a religious philosophy of history that viewed the events as manifestations of providence. What's your point?Hkelkar 18:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

How do you support what you have written?

Proof of Importance of Manu Smriti on Encyclopedia Brittanica on Hindu religion:

The Manusmriti is more authoritative in Hinduism than some random fatwa in Islam. BhaiSaab 18:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Most Hindus haven't even heard of Manusmriti. As you said, Sources? Quotes? Remember the distinction between Hindus and Brahmins. The latter is the subset of the former, but that's it.Hkelkar 18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm Muslim and I heard of Manusmriti before I heard of this ridiculous fatwa. BhaiSaab 18:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well naturally, since it is the obvious canard that can be used to justify attacking Hindus.Hkelkar 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Template:Agf1

I have known Manu and Manusmriti when I was in standard sixth and some of the Hindu serials and Indian TV coverage on Hinduism certainly tell about them: - Now, Kelkar since you disagree on the context.What do you say about this text from one of the Hindutva sites - it boasts that:

Hindus claim themselves Caste is a Hindu institution-

What about this Hindu site boasting that: "Manu Smriti, the oldest law book in the world...."

Who cares what some radical Hindutva nutters think anyway?Hkelkar 19:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Hindu serials"? They get those in the Waziristan caves?Hkelkar 19:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Misplaced Pages.TerryJ-Ho

• Template:Civil1TerryJ-Ho

See WP:RS for the illegitimacy of the quotes of yours.Hkelkar 19:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Is this also WP:RS TerryJ-Ho

Still haven't been able to refute my arguments logically. You have only established that Caste is important in Hindu society. I also have refs that show the same in Muslim society and some Muslim Castes sanctioned by religion.Hkelkar 20:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry,Kelkar.Your logics are illogical.Everything you said above has been proved wrong.Even then you persist.Secondly, you are trying to underrate the presence and importance of caste in Hinduism by claiming that another religion sanctions caste..This is highly ununderstandable and contrary to any debate.You may try to discuss your issues with an admin perhaps and explore your position.I conclude by what National Geographic says of caste in Hinduism -

• To be born a Hindu in India is to enter the caste system, one of the world's longest surviving forms of social stratification. Embedded in Indian culture for the past 1,500 years, the caste system follows a basic precept: All men are created unequal. The ranks in Hindu society come from a legend in which the main groupings, or varnas, emerge from a primordial being. From the mouth come the Brahmans—the priests and teachers. From the arms come the Kshatriyas—the rulers and soldiers. From the thighs come the Vaisyas—merchants and traders. From the feet come the Sudras—laborers. Each varna in turn contains hundreds of hereditary castes and subcastes with their own pecking orders.

A fifth group describes the people who are achuta, or untouchable. The primordial being does not claim them. Untouchables are outcasts—people considered too impure, too polluted, to rank as worthy beings. Prejudice defines their lives, particularly in the rural areas, where nearly three-quarters of India's people live. Untouchables are shunned, insulted, banned from temples and higher caste homes, made to eat and drink from separate utensils in public places, and, in extreme but not uncommon cases, are raped, burned, lynched, and gunned down. TerryJ-Ho 20:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I will quote Ambedkar:

There can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim Society in India is afflicted by the same social evils as afflict the Hindu Society. Indeed, the Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more. That something more is the compulsory system of purdah for Muslim women.

The existence of these evils among the Muslims is distressing enough. But far more distressing is the fact that there is no organized movement of social reform among the Musalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their eradication. The Hindus have their social evils. But there is this relieving feature about them—namely, that some of them are conscious of their existence, and a few of them are actively agitating for their removal. The Muslims, on the other hand, do not realize that they are evils, and consequently do not agitate for their removal. Indeed, they oppose any change in their existing practices.

From the Sikand Paper:

Following from this, the existence of caste-like features among non-Hindu, including Muslim, communities in India is thus generally seen as a result of the cultural influence on these communities of their Hindu neighbours or of Hinduism itself. This claim is based on the untenable assumption of a once pure, radically egalitarian Muslim community in India later coming under the baneful impact of Hinduism. However, as several studies on caste among the Indian Muslims have shown, while the influence of Hindu social mores on the Muslims might partially explain the continued salience of caste among them it does not fully explain how the Muslims of the region came to be stratified on the basis of caste in the first place. It also ignores the role of sections of the 'ulama, scholars of Islamic jurisprudence, in providing religious legitimacy to caste with the help of the concept of kafa'a.Hkelkar 20:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• caste-like features or Castes themselves? Perhaps here lies the difference for you to think Kelkar TerryJ-Ho 20:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Read the whole article. nd the Ambedkar book and let the mediators judge for themselves.Hkelkar 21:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

* Thanks,Most mediators do that without the need to guide them.Ambedkar's views are his own opinion as an Indian who saw the partition of India based on communal politics in 1940's.In the current national political scene of India most Dalit,Ambedkarite parties including the Bahujan Samaj Party support cohesion with Muslims rather than upper caste HindusTerryJ-Ho 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Which is precisely why his works are the most reliable of all in this case. lol!Hkelkar 22:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, we will surely see TerryJ-Ho

  Hkelkarseems to be right about Ambedkar.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

  Hkelkar by the way, Purdah has nothing to do with caste, it should belong in Women In India or something.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, right.It's just that the purdah thing completed the para so I included it. I do not wish to bring up purdah here.Just Caste.Hkelkar 04:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary defintions of Caste

* All dictionaries define Caste as a Hindu Religious precept

• (cambridge):a system of dividing Hindu society into classes, or any of these classes:

• (free dictionary} Any of the hereditary, endogamous social classes or subclasses of traditional Hindu society, stratified according to Hindu ritual purity, especially the Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya, and Sudra castes.

• MSN Encarta:noun

Definition: 1. Hindu social class: one of the four main hereditary classes into which Hindu society is divided, dictating the social position and status of people according to their professions. Though discrimination based on caste has been illegal since 1947, it still occurs in some areas. 2. Hindu class system: the Hindu system of organizing society into hereditary classes

• American Heritage Dictionary:

1. Any of the hereditary, endogamous social classes or subclasses of traditional Hindu society, stratified according to Hindu ritual purity, especially the Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya, and Sudra castes.

• Oxford Dictionary

caste noun 1 each of the hereditary classes of Hindu society, distinguished by relative degrees of ritual purity or pollution and of social status. 2 any exclusive social class. ORIGIN Spanish and Portuguese casta ‘lineage, breed’, from Latin castus ‘chaste’.

Dictionaries are often revised and get outdated quickly. They are not a fully reliable source. Research Papers and scholarly works are far more reliable. See discussion above.Hkelkar 21:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is nothing on WP policies that suggests what Hkelkar says above .Falls under WP:NORTerryJ-Ho
• Unbelievable, even papers get revised.So what?You have to accept what is present and acceptable to all TerryJ-Ho

Let the mediators decide.Hkelkar 22:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they will TerryJ-Ho

I will not claim to be an expert on the Indian caste system, but I would like to ask TerryJ-Ho – How does this fails under WP:NOR. You are free to confirm from the sources. The defination is available over the internet. I have posted a message on some other editors' talk pages. They will be here to mediate soon. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement "They are not a fully reliable source. Research Papers and scholarly works are far more reliable." is not backed by WP and seems to be an outcome of Kelkars own perception rather than WP: Reliable Sources TerryJ-Ho 15:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• I would rather call this article Hindu caste system rather than Indian caste system - regardless of the antipathy shown by some of the editors from this faith it is a reality that this is a uniquely Hindu concept as E Brittanica says.Traces of caste in other Indian communities exist but not due to their religions but due to the effect of Hindu culture on them.Many editors on this talk page and in the article have tried to focus on caste in other religions rather than Hinduism wherever they have intervened it is to remove its links to Hinduism TerryJ-Ho 15:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Again, the dictionary supports and proves the inextricability of the caste system of discrimination from Hinduism. Reason this for which I agree with TerryJ-Ho the name of the article should be Hindu caste system.--tequendamia 20:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

PS:I can compromise and accept a title like Hindian caste system--tequendamia 20:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes bigotry and hatemongering loves company.My scholarly sources disagree with this thesis and I will not settle for anything other than non-partisan mediation.Hkelkar 21:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Only users sympathizing with anti-Hindu garbage support this kind of rabid nonsense. It was to the Hindu caste system by User:Yeditor but was reverted because a page move wouldn't be encyclopedic. Otherwise Muslim caste (which is actually quite independent of the social system of the Hindus), Christian castes, and even Buddhist meritw their own article.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the name should be kept as it is. WP:RS does not discard dictionary.com or thefreedictionary.com as unreliable sources. If you have reliable papers, you can present your links here. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Recommend RfC

I came to this page from the Village Pump. Looks like emotions are running high and some of the talk page discussion is drifting away from the article topic. That's a good time to request outside comments. Please summarize the dispute for visitors and have a look at this essay. Regards, Durova 14:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

Na kulam vrittahinasya

Pramanamiti me matihi /

Anteshwapij jatanam

Vrittameva vishishyate //

– Mahabharata, Udyoga Parva, Ch 34, v 41.

Rucham no dhehi brahmaneshu

Rucham rajasu naskridhi |

Rucham vishveshu shudreshu

Mayi dhehi rucha rucham ||

–Taittiriya Samhita V 7.6 3-4

I'm leaving those up there to see what the Hinduism bashers have in response.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Single Research Article

The following are WRONG statements sourced from a SINGLE STUDY ARTICLE.

1. Chapels for Dalit Christians are often segregated from Christians of a higher caste.
2. Other churches admit Dalit Christians, but keep separate pews for them.
3. In addition, Dalit boys are not allowed to be altar boys or lectors.
4. In addition, there are various instances of economic discrimination where Dalit Christians are not allowed to own arable land by upper caste Christian clergy.
5. In many Christian communities in India, bonded labor is still practiced

They are completely baseless statements and need to be removed THe statement Dalit Christians are buried in separate cemeteries. has to be verified been based on one single research paper. It is widely not practised in Tamil Nadu. If the statement is found true, the words have to be changed.  Doctor Bruno  00:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, they are well-sourced per WP:RS.Check the sources.Read the writings of Bama Faustina, a Tamil Dalit, who sings a different song I'm afraid.Hkelkar 01:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Another ref: http://www.newindpress.com/Newsitems.asp?ID=IET20030413133514&Topic=&Title=This%20is%20India&Page=O

from sikhspectrum: http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112002/caste_christian.htm

History of Casteism in Indian Christianity:

1. Popular Christiantiy in India: Riting Between the Lines - Dempsey and Raj
2. Hindu and Christian in South-East India -G. Oddie

Hkelkar 01:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In case you don;t want a login, the new India press article is below:

Caste discrimination comes to stay in churches too

MADURAI (TAMIL NADU): It is an accepted thing that many Dalits seek refuge in Christianity because of oppression by non-Dalit Hindus. But there seems to be no escape for the neo-converts as discrimination continues in churches too.

Dalit Christians have separate pews and burial grounds and are served Holy Communion wine from a separate chalice.

The most visible form of untouchability is the double tumbler system in which a separate drinking glass is kept for Dalits in tea shops.

A similar system followed by the church till the late 20th century, particularly in Thanjavur district, was the double chalice system. A separate chalice was kept for serving Holy Communion wine to Dalit Christians.

The practice is now waning following agitations within the church by some 'enlightened priests and sisters'. Following the ban on double chalice system, some churches have now resorted to serving communion wine with a spoon.

"Shocking as the revelation may seem, this is the truth, asserts Rev Dr Dhyanchand Carr, the rebel priest, who is the principal of the Tamil Nadu Theological Seminary, Arasarady, in Madurai.

Speaking to the newspaper of this website, Carr said Dalit Christians still suffered ostracisation, segregation and oppression in the church. Neo-converts have to sit in separate pews during mass and have separate burial grounds.

Some churches have also 'generously' built crucifixes, (miniature churches) in the vicinity of the main church for Dalits to make their appeals to the Creator.

A majority of the Christians from Tamil Nadu and Kerala were converted from upper-caste communities in the early centuries of AD, and to this day, their descendants hold lower-caste brothers at bay.

A majority of the clergy too belong to upper castes and so the Dalits are treated with scorn.

Carr relates an incident which happened at the church in Tiruppuvanam, near Madurai, in the early 80s. About 200 Hindu Dalits embraced Christianity. On one occasion, a Dalit member 'dared' to handle the offertory bag.

The pastor, who noticed it from the altar, shouted at the man mentioning his caste and demanded to know how dare he touch the offertory. Unable to bear this insult, the Dalit flock walked out and reconverted to Hinduism.

It took almost five years to bring them back into the Christian fold, says Carr.

Though the situation has changed over the years, the relics of casteism still remain deep rooted in the church. Converted Dalits find no place in the decision-making bodies.

Carr, who never covers himself with cassocks or vestments, says Dalit students find it difficult to enter educational institutions and hostels run by the church.

Those who raise their voice against such discrimination have been stigmatised as 'Dalit pastors'.

Dalit Christians are denied the rights and concessions extended by the Government to Dalits who haven't converted to Christianity. The church too does not compensate them for this loss, says Carr.

The neo-converts find it hard to shed their Hindu identity and continue to dress as before and observe the same customs.

The case of Dalits who convert to Islam is different. They shed their dhotis and begin wearing lungi and often sport a beard.

Mercifully, the situation is changing for the better with more progressive young non-Dalit men entering priesthood in the church. But it will take a long time before the Dalit Christians begin to feel that they are being treated as members of the same fraternity, the rebel priest feels.

Plus, here, of course, is the Indian hope site itself (which is a Dalit emancipation group)

http://indianhope.free.fr/site_eng/article_5.php3

Hkelkar 01:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that double tumbler system and other social problems have nothing to do with Christianity. Dalit Christians are discriminated, but NOT BY CHURCH. It is not given in the Bible or in any Vatican Doctrines that There should be seperate pews are so. The paragraph uses wrong words and should be edited appropriately. Moreover Indian Express is known for its anti-christian articles. Discrimination of Dalit Christians is different from Discrimination of Dalits by Christianity. While the first exists, the second is a non-entity. The article, should mention this clearly  Doctor Bruno  01:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. Indian Express is anti-Christian. pardon me if I laugh! Can you prove such outlandish statements? bear in mind that IE satisfies WP:RS. Plus, the article does not say "Caste System in christianity" but "caste System among Christians" which was done in deference to your point about casteism being absent in normative christianity. The words are fine as they are. They are carefully worded so as to qualify that this happens among Indian Christians rather than within Christianity.Hkelkar 01:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Still I object because they are not fine to NPOV. I would like to change the words.  Doctor Bruno  01:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the basis of your objection exactly???Hkelkar

Plus, the discrimination is done by Christian priests and Nuns. the article does not say that the papacy or the Papal institution is directly involved (though I'll bet that the ol' ex-Hitler-youth gang Pope Benedict 16 does have something to do with it).Hkelkar 01:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, everybody knows what the Bible says about "Equality" and blah blah (despite the centuries of Christianity and anti-Semitism). There is no need to re-iterate the obvious for the sake of some bizarre form of political correctedness. Misplaced Pages, after all, is not a soapbox :) .Hkelkar 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not told that the entire section is wrong. I have pointed out few WRONG SENTENCES regarding which there are no references. Please don't divert the attention from the problem giving references for sentences which are not contested. As such there are 5 POV statements which are wrong and unsourced and they have to be modified. Few of your comments are unwarranted at this page  Doctor Bruno  01:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, the Indian hope ref sources ALL the claims made, as well as the IE source. They both satisfy WP:RS. You haven;t advanced any sources that refute these edits, see the problem?Hkelkar 01:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you about "Not fine to NPOV". Indeed, the whole article is "not fine to NPOV". However, certain *ahem* users have been edit-warring and whitewashing certain other sections and so the article got protected and will stay so until mediators intervene (there is a mediation cabal filed). when they do, come back and raise your issues.Hkelkar 01:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What? Indian Express is Anti-christian? Why in the world didn't I hear about it? Indian Express is a reliable newspaper... and if the article is by someone other than an employee or someone who is expressing his opinions... then that has to be mentioned in the article... along with other sources in an WP:NPOV tone. Please do not discount something as credible as Indian Express. Next time, I'll hear other users discounting The Times of India saying that the newspaper is bound to publish POV items as it is Christian newspaper. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

tabulated list

1. Assertion:"Chapels for Dalit Christians are often segregated from Christians of a higher caste"

Support from TFA point #1: "Construction of two chapels, one for non-dalits and the other for the dalits. In some parishes liturgical services are conducted separately."

1. Assertion: Other churches admit Dalit Christians, but keep separate pews for them.

Support from TFA point #2:"Separate seating arrangements within the same chapel. Dalits are usually seated at the two aisles. Even if there are benches or chairs, dalits are required only to be seated on the floor."

1. Assertion:In addition, Dalit boys are not allowed to be altar boys or lectors.

Support from TFA point #5:"Dalit boys are not allowed to be altar boys and lectors at the sacred liturgy."

1. Assertion:In addition, there are various instances of economic discrimination where Dalit Christians are not allowed to own arable land by upper caste Christian clergy.

Support from TFA section "Powerlessness":

The Church has under its control vast land property, medical and educational institutions, and developmental organs like multi-purpose society. These various departments are largely manned by non-dalits. In fact, the authority of the Church is in the hands of non-dalit priests. Non-dalit priests occupy 92.3 per cent of the offices in the five Catholic dioceses. The lack of dalit representation in the administrative and consultative bodies means lack of opportunity to present their cause at the decision-making level. This is crucial factor. For example, out of the 9,000 respondents, 5,766 (64 per cent) said they were not consulted by their priests on parish activities. Only 305 (9.43 per cent) said that they had been consulted. That too not in any significant way.

Hmmmmmm. perhaps the last statement needs some rewording after all.Maybe "Dalit Christians do not hold as much arable land as the upper-caste Christians" is better. Hkelkar 01:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Can you give the exact references for this. I am not able to understand TFA  Doctor Bruno  02:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am just telling my opinion about the facts. There is no need to go fighting over this. IF there are sources for that, that can be cited and we can add that. I just want to know the correct source for the statements I have questioned.  Doctor Bruno  02:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

TFA is a slashdot acronym meaning "The Fine Article" (actually the "F" doesn;t stand for "fine", but I won;t say what it actually stands for, heh heh). In this case, TFA is the indianhope article:

http://indianhope.free.fr/site_eng/article_5.php3

Read it and cross-reference my tabulation.Hkelkar 02:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting factoid from the Dalit Christians website http://www.dalitchristians.com/Html/arulappa.htm

Out of 156 Catholic bishops in India, 150 bishops belong to the upper caste community. Only 6 bishops belong to dalit community. Out of 12,500 Catholic priests, only 600 are from dalit community. 75% members of the Indian Christian community are from dalit community . 25% of the Upper caste Christians (clergy, religious and laity) have complete control over the dalit or untouchable Christians

Hkelkar 02:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I never contested that point. Please don't get angry with me. I contested only 5 few statements which are based on one article and not the entire para  Doctor Bruno  02:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear me! I've done it again, haven't I? I wasn't angry with you bro. I was just pointing out that the edits were very carefully worded to be consistent with the facts, as well as the precept that casteism is not subscribed to by normative Christianity.Hkelkar 02:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus, how many articles do you want? I've ordered the Bama Faustina books and, when they arrive, i will reference from them also.Hkelkar 02:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hkelkar plz try and be more civil with Bruno. Though I agree with you, Bruno is a nice user and not a troll like certain users in above discussions. Bruno, you're probably right the bible doesn't condone caste, neither for that matter does the Rigveda/Upds/BG/Ramayan, the Tripitaka, the Quran etc.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You bet.Hkelkar 04:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we have all agreed to the point. It was probably my fault of not being able to look at the correct place. I am sure that we can close this topic in an amicable way.  Doctor Bruno  02:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC) and continue editing and improving Misplaced Pages. I consider this discussion as closed.

This article should be based on facts and not views

This is an important topic. I note that it has been edited to insert specific views and in the process hard facts about the subject have been deleted.

The caste system is present among the Christians and Muslims, perhaps a separate article is needed to treat them in detail, while keeping the basec information here.

The term caste and varna are not interchangable. There is a separate page for the varna system. This page should focus on caste.

--Vikramsingh 17:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea.It creates a potential for POV forks.Best to keep everything in one place only.Besides, what "views" are you talking about exactly? I mean, what are "hard facts" and what are "views"?As long as the wikipedia policy of WP:Verifiability is maintained the distinctions between the two are irrelevant.Hkelkar 08:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Muslim Castes

Hkelkar, please provide a source that states the fatwas established various Muslim castes. You cannot use the text of the fatwas themselves to make such a claim. BhaiSaab 00:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, let the mediators decide. Hkelkar 00:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I will file an RfC on this Hkelkar 00:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the need for an RfC? This is a pretty simple request. BhaiSaab 01:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made my case above. I will not repeat the same thing again and again for your benefit.Just wait for comments.Hkelkar 01:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of other people who have to read our arguments I suggest we succinctly repeat relevant quotes. BhaiSaab 01:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotes provided by BhaiSaab

• "Islamic caste - any of the units of social stratification that developed among Muslims in India and Pakistan as a result of the proximity of Hindu culture. Most of the South Asian Muslims were recruited from the Hindu population; despite the egalitarian tenets of Islam, the Muslim converts persisted in their Hindu social habits. Hindus, in turn, accommodated the Muslim ruling class by giving it a status of its own." "Islamic caste." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 18 Oct. 2006 http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9042918
• "One of these was the place given to caste, with converts clinging to some memory of their former status in a hierarchical society, while what may be called Muslim castes developed as Indian Muslims classified themselves as Sayyid, Shaikh, Mughal, or Pathan. This structure was never very rigid; as Bernier commented, anyone who put on a white turban called himself a Mughal. An old saying makes the same point: "Last year I was a Julaha (weaver); this year a Shaikh; and next year if the harvest be good, I shall be a Sayyid." And in the mosque the Islamic ideals of brotherhood and equality remained triumphant." Muslim Civilization in India S. M. Ikram, New York: Columbia University Press, 1964
• "The Muslim caste system is a result of Hindu influence; the Indian Muslims have acquired the system, …, from the Hindus through constant and continuous culture contact; the system of caste groupings itself resulted in the concept of social distance between the two communities, the Hindus and the Muslims." Muslim Caste in Uttar Pradesh (A Study of Culture Contact), Ghaus Ansari, Lucknow, 1960, Page 66
• "Following from this, the existence of caste-like features among non-Hindu, including Muslim, communities in India is thus generally seen as a result of the cultural influence on these communities of their Hindu neighbours or of Hinduism itself." (Sikand source)
• "There do, however, seems to have been some Hindū influences on Muslims in social rather than in religious practices. The Hindū conception of caste (d̲j̲āt, d̲j̲āti), a pre-Āryan social division of society which, by being grafted on to the Āryan concept of social order (varṇa), has acquired Brāhmanical sanction and consequent sanctification, has certainly spread to Muslim minority communities in some of the remoter districts of India. Caste is, for example, usually endogamous, and some Muslim communities have adopted similar restrictive endogamic patterns to those of their Hindū neighbours; in some cases even community of worship has ceased to be observed, and commensality has been replaced by mutually restricted eating groups. This is particularly noticeable among recent converts from Hinduism, especially from the lower caste Hindūs or from the so-called “untouchables”; it applies also to converts to Christianity in districts where a competent ministry is only rarely available." Burton-Page, J. "Hindū ." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzeland W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2006. Brill Online. <http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=islam_SIM-2884>

BhaiSaab 01:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Quotes provided by Hkelkar

• Reasoning:Caste system is NOT a cultural export out of India (at least not exclusively) as Yemen did not have any significant links with India historically or today. Same with the Latinos. Muslim Caste System is established by Islamic Fatwas NOT CONNECTED TO HINDUISM. Plus, there are also the Hindu castes among Muslims. Muslims have not one but SEVERAL caste systems. The Ashraf/Ajlaf/Arzal divide as created by Fatwa-i-Jahandari (Muslim holy text), the Hindu Caste Systems exported into Muslims AND the Quomiyat of Bengal and Swat, Pakistan (not India). See caste based incident of Mukhtaran Mai in Pakistan where Muslim woman of lower Quom got gang raped by Muslim men of higher Quom.

• Mehta book on Ideology, Modernization & Politics p136-137. Barani clearly said that he ESTABLISHED Ashraf discrimination of Ajlafs:

"Barani, in his Fatwa-i-Jahandari, had a concept of rights which did not ensure equality emphatically believed that though all are equal in appearence, they differ in character"

• Amedkar, Pakistan and the partition of India ref:

"Muslim Society is even more full of social evils than Hindu Society is"

There can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim Society in India is afflicted by the same social evils as afflict the Hindu Society. Indeed, the Muslims have all the social evils of the Hindus and something more. That something more is the compulsory system of purdah for Muslim women.

The existence of these evils among the Muslims is distressing enough. But far more distressing is the fact that there is no organized movement of social reform among the Musalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their eradication. The Hindus have their social evils. But there is this relieving feature about them—namely, that some of them are conscious of their existence, and a few of them are actively agitating for their removal. The Muslims, on the other hand, do not realize that they are evils, and consequently do not agitate for their removal. Indeed, they oppose any change in their existing practices.

• Habib From "Political thought in the Delhi Sultanate" with Fatwa-i-Jahandari translation by Mohamed Habib

Since God is held to have made the ajlaf innately despicable and base, to promote them would be a gross violation of the divine plan. 'In the promotion of the low and low-born brings', Barani argues, ' there is no advantage in this world, for it is impudent to act against the wisdom of Creation'. Hence, he insists that if the Sultan confers any post in his court or

government service to the ajlaf, the 'court and the high position of the king will be disgraced, the people of God will be distressed and scattered, the objectives of the government will not be attained, and, finally, the king will be punished on the day of Judgment'. In this regard, he refers to a tradition attributed to the Prophet, according to which Muhammad is said to have declared, 'The vein is deceptive'. Although this tradition might be interpreted to suggest that one's social status does not depend on one's heredity, Barani offers a novel explanation of the tradition to suggest precisely the opposite conclusion, that 'the good vein and the bad vein draw towards virtue and vice', and that 'in the well-born and the noble only virtue and loyalty appear, while from the man of low birth and bad birth only wickedness and destruction originate'. Likewise, he provides a novel interpretation of a Qur'anic verse (xlix: 13) to support his claim of ashraf superiority. He quotes the Qur'an as saying that God honours the pious, a statement that has generally been read to suggest that superiority in God's eyes depends on one's piety and not birth, to arrive at precisely the opposite conclusion. The verse, he says, implies that it ought to be known that in the impure and impure-born and low and low-born, there can be no piety'

• Quotes from the fatwa itsself:

Teachers of every kind are to be sternly ordered not to thrust precious stones down the throats of dogs or to put collars of gold round the necks of pigs and bears, that is, to the mean, the ignoble and the worthless, to shopkeepers and to the low-born (Ajlafs) they are to teach nothing more than the rules about prayer,

fasting, religious charity and the haj pilgrimage, along with some chapters of the Qur'an and some doctrines of the faith, without which their religion cannot be correct and valid prayers are not possible. But they are to be taught nothing else, lest it bring honour to their mean souls.

They (the Ajlaf) are not to be taught reading and writing, for plenty of disorders arise owing to the skill of the low born in knowledge. The disorder into which all affairs of the religion and the state are thrown is due to the acts and words of the low born, who have become skilled. For, on account of their skill, they

become governors (wali), revenue-collectors ('amils), auditors (mutassarif), officers (farman deh) and rulers (farman rawa). If teachers are disobedient, and it is discovered at the time of investigation that they have imparted knowledge or taught letters or writing to the low born, inevitably the punishment for their disobedience will be meted out to them.

• Sikand here:

Following from this, the existence of caste-like features among non-Hindu, including Muslim, communities in India is thus generally seen as a result of the cultural influence on these communities of their Hindu neighbours or of Hinduism itself. This claim is based on the untenable assumption of a once pure, radically egalitarian Muslim community in India later coming under the baneful impact of Hinduism. However, as several studies on caste among the Indian Muslims have shown, while the influence of Hindu social mores on the Muslims might partially explain the continued salience of caste among them it does not fully explain how the Muslims of the region came to be stratified on the basis of caste in the first place. It also ignores the role of sections of the 'ulama, scholars of Islamic jurisprudence, in providing religious legitimacy to caste with the help of the concept of kafa'a

Hkelkar 01:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Article here

They (low caste Muslims) claim that over 75 percent of the Muslim community comprising backward Muslims, including the Ansari, Kunjra, Churihara, Dhobi and Halalkhor.

The upper caste Muslim comprises of Syed, Sheikh, Pathan and Mallik.

Notice that the upper caste Muslims have names that are entirely Arabic, not connected to Sanskrit or any aspect of Hindu society. The upper castes have no connection to Hinduism at all.

• Will add more quotes from these books:

Arthashastra of Kautilya and Fatawa-i-Jahandari of Ziauddin Barani : an analysis / by Arbind Das.

Ideology, Modernization and Politics of India by V.R. Mehta

Comments

Hkelkar, would you like to specifically comment on any of the quotes that I provided? BhaiSaab 01:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I already have. Let the mediators/commentators decide now.Hkelkar 01:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually like us to go through this again. Our discussion above is quite messy. If you don't want to comment on my quotes, I certainly have a few comments about yours. BhaiSaab 01:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you do. However, wikipedia is not the place for ululating. Get a blog for that.Hkelkar 02:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Does that mean you don't want me to comment? BhaiSaab 02:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the talk page is big enough as it is.Comment on the commentators' responses.Hkelkar 02:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Plus, I'm not done gathering quotes.I have tons more refs to peruse. Here in the US of A nobody can behead me for it, or even cop my hands off. Hkelkar 02:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead with listing the problems in the sources and commentary you provided (in the same order).

• This article is about the Indian caste system, not Yemeni. That there exists an independent caste system in Yemen does not exclude the possibility of a Muslim caste system in India being influenced by Hindus. As Pakistan was considered a part of India up until 50 years ago, we can quite safely assume the same influence applies there. BhaiSaab 02:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It refutes the (typically) anti-Hindu comment by MerryJ-Ho/TerryJ-Ho/lkadvani/whateverhecallshimselfnow that Caste is unique to Hindus.Hkelkar 02:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with that here. I'm concerned with the origins of the caste system among Muslims in India. BhaiSaab 02:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add to my initial statement here. Britannica states "India and Pakistan" in the quote above, so I guess there's no need to assume in this case. BhaiSaab 03:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• "...had a concept of rights which did not ensure equality" How does that indicate that Barani's fatwa established the system? It says he had a concept of rights - not that this concept of rights influenced Muslim society. Something analagous would be that if George Bush had a concept that the U.S. should prepare itself for nuclear war against Great Britain, it doesn't follow that everyone will therefore necessarily abide by his concept.

• Ambedkar does not support your statement here. It does not say that a fatwa established the system. BhaiSaab 02:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It supports the claim that Caste is not unique to Hindus.Hkelkar 02:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with that here. I'm concerned with the origins of the caste system among Muslims in India. BhaiSaab 02:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Again, Habib only details the fatwa. He does not say it established a caste system. BhaiSaab 02:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• The fatwa itself cannot be used as a source to say that "the fatwa of Barani established the caste system." That is a logical fallacy. BhaiSaab 02:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the Manusmriti cannot be used in the same way either but that doesn;t stop the Muslims from doing it.Hkelkar 02:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Manusmriti can be used in such a way because secondary sources like Brittanica confirm a religious link between Hinduism and Hindu castes. BhaiSaab 02:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sikand et al do the exact same thing for a link between Islam and Islamic castes.Hkelkar 02:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You've failed to prove that. BhaiSaab 03:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Read his article. He clearly says that the Muslim Caste System was based on Barrani's reading of the Koran. I have said so multiple times.If you don't want to listen, then congrats, the Mullahs have done a good job. Hkelkar 03:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding the Sikand source, are you aware of what the phrase "providing legitimacy" means? It's not synonymous to establishing.BhaiSaab 02:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Bah! Semantics. And they call ME a wikilawyer. The usage of tenses in the entire text clearly indicates that there was no caste system prior to the fatwa (among Muslims), then lo and behold, good old al-barrani jumps up, ululates "teh w00T, let's oppress the Ajlaf" and the story begins.Hence his fatwa suggested the Ashraf/Ajlaf caste system to Tughlaq and thus established it. Hkelkar 02:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you're using your interpretation of word tenses to directly contradict sources like the Encyclopedia of Islam and Britannica? Interesting. BhaiSaab 02:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm using the standard meaning of the word tense to arrive at the conclusion regarding the paper that a ten-year old who didn't go to a Deobandi Madrassa would figure out rather quickly.Again, let the commentators decide on this one.Hkelkar 02:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, now that you've got your argument out, it's perfectly fine to let them decide. BhaiSaab 03:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• What do the names of castes have to do with where their influence comes from? Seems like this conclusion is original research.BhaiSaab 02:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just providing context, is all. I didn;t put this little tidbit into the article for precisely this reason.Hkelkar 02:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Understandable. No comment on this then as you confirm it cannot be used in the article. BhaiSaab 02:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

It seems to me, as an outside editor, that BhaiSaab has given reputable sources for reasonable material. Hkelkar, it seems is indulging in a certain amount of unneccessary Misplaced Pages:Original research. The text used in the fatwa cannot be used as the source for when and how caste systems came up. We must use reputable secondary sources, which might themselves interpret the Qur'an and the fatwas, but for us to interpret the texts directly in this way is original research, and is not allowed under Misplaced Pages policies. Mak (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I already used a secondary source, the paper by Sikand, not just the original fatwa.Hkelkar 08:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, see this interesting view, which I plan to research further on.Hkelkar 08:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, but you're misrepresenting what Sikand is saying. It's the equivalent of trying to say that the Slave Code Laws of 1705 were the cause of the first instance of slavery in the United States, and it's blatant original research. BhaiSaab 14:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• NA-Class India pages
• NA-importance India pages
• WikiProject India articles
• NA-Class Hinduism pages
• NA-importance Hinduism pages