Political cartoons

[Wezil]

.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are a ****. Sure, don't listen to the person who has actually been to Pakistan and attending weddings there.

I've attended a wedding as well, for two Catholic friends of mine, one Indian, one Canadian.

But then, I'm just a **** and I know nothing...

[Imran Siddiqui]

But then, I'm just a **** and I know nothing...

That's the first right thing you've said in this thread.

Especially since you completely missed the point in your sentence above it.

[Ben Kenobi]

The point that Indian Catholic culture is different from other Indian cultures and Canadians?

[Nikolai]

I used to date a Sikh all throughout high school. Very lovely girl, and yes I have seen Bollywood movies. I live not far from the Sikh temple here. Used to live with some Sikhs when I went to university down in Vancouver. Heck, I even took courses on Indian history, and wrote a thesis on the partition.

I think it's hilarious that you base your entire knowledge of Indian culture on 'slumdog millionaire'.

Which culture? Jain? Parsi? Sikh? Buddhist? Hindu? Christian? Muslim. There are many, many different cultures in India that all intermingle.

I study Indian history this year. I'm fresh, but I know a thing or two about Muslims in India already. Enough to know you obviously don't. The history of Islam in India is a history of mutual influence between it and the religions and cultures already present. Making Islam in India not the same as Islam other places. F.ex. the acceptance of pre-islam cultural form, Hindu and other religions' practices into the Muslim fold. BTW, you constantly confuse religion and culture in this thread. They're not the same. Not mutually exclusive either though.

Muslims are very strict in that there is only one God. Do you know anything about the Partition? When given the option, they self segregated.

Muslims are strict. Sometimes. Other times, they're not. Part of the history you claim to know.

[Ben Kenobi]

I study Indian history this year. I'm fresh, but I know a thing or two about Muslims in India already.

Great. I love it how students who are just learning it are free to go off and lecture.

The history of Islam in India is a history of mutual influence between it and the religions and cultures already present.

Clearly, you haven't read the same books I have, or your courses aren't teaching you what you should be learning. If you mean, "there's a difference between Wahabbi Islam and the Islam in Pakistan", then yes I agree. If you mean, "India is a place where Muslims and Hindus co-exist in mutual harmony", then no, no they don't. Imran seems to be saying that Muslims in India are syncretists, and I don't have any evidence to support this position. Islam is very big on this whole "one god thingy" which Hindus see as wack.

Making Islam in India not the same as Islam other places. F.ex. the acceptance of pre-islam cultural form, Hindu and other religions' practices into the Muslim fold. BTW, you constantly confuse religion and culture in this thread. They're not the same. Not mutually exclusive either though.

Religion is an intrinsic part of culture. Different religions, different cultures. Arguing that there is one 'overarching' Indian culture is wrong, very, very wrong.

Muslims are strict. Sometimes. Other times, they're not. Part of the history you claim to know.

It depends on the subject. WRT to one God or many, yeah they are pretty darn strict.

[Nikolai]

Relax. No need to be cheeky. Try to be mature here, okay?

The book I have is written by SarDeSai, one of the foremost Indian historians. Islam in India has over the centuries had parts of syncretism in it. Take Akbar f.ex. Nobody has said anything about total harmony, but you claimed Islamic culture are a mono-culture. It's not. Islam in Bangladesh has taken over lots from the preislam cultural look. Same in today's state of India. Less so Pakistan, but also there they are pragmatic. The reason all Hindus wasn't getting their guts spilled out back when northern India was conquered for the first time, was because of the use of ijtihad. Hindus was termed as People of the Book. Over time, Hindus and Muslims coexisted, sometimes well, sometimes not, but even under Augrangzeb they were an integrated part of society and as such influenced it.

As for your next claim, no, there is no such thing as one Indian culture. You haven't seen me claim that. Stop making a fool of yourself.

[Ben Kenobi]

but you claimed Islamic culture are a mono-culture.

No, I explicitly said this was not so.

If you mean, "there's a difference between Wahabbi Islam and the Islam in Pakistan", then yes I agree

After I already said this. What more do I have to say? There are different Islamic cultures, but there is a difference between Islamic culture in India and Hindu culture in India. Big differences that need to be understood.

Islam in Bangladesh has taken over lots from the preislam cultural look.

Do they believe there is more than one god?

The reason all Hindus wasn't getting their guts spilled out back when northern India was conquered for the first time, was because of the use of ijtihad.

To claim that Hindus were at all appreciative of the situation, is not true. They were quite happy when the British came, which is one of the reasons why they were so successful. Both sides Muslim and Hindu trusted the British more than they trusted the other.

they were an integrated part of society and as such influenced it.

If by 'integral', you mean regarded as foreign overlords, then yes. Talk to some Sikhs, I mean really talk to them. Don't just read what's in your textbooks. Talk to some Hindus.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The history of Islam in India is a history of mutual influence between it and the religions and cultures already present.

This is most easily seen as Muslims from the Indian subcontinent who migrate to the US tend to be fairly close friends with Hindus from the Indian subcontinent who have migrated to the US. One of the main reasons is because they share the same culture and general language (Urdu and Hindi are basically the same language with different alphabets).

[SlowwHand]

"basically the same language with different alphabets"

I'm sure this is clear to you and many others, but to me and to many others I'm sure, it's a little hard to grasp.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Basically people who speak Hindi can be understood by people who speak Urdu and vice versa. The difference is that Hindi is written from a sanskrit alphabet and Urdu is written in a Arabic/Persian alphabet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi

The colloquial language spoken by the people of Delhi is indistinguishable by ear, whether it is called Hindi or Urdu by its speakers. The only important distinction at this level is in the script: if written in the Perso-Arabic script, the language is generally considered to be Urdu, and if written in Devanagari it is generally considered to be Hindi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urdu

Because of their identical grammar and nearly identical core vocabularies, most linguists do not distinguish between Urdu and Hindi as separate languages — at least not in reference to the informal spoken registers. For them, ordinary informal Urdu and Hindi can be seen as variants of the same language (Hindustani) with the difference being that Urdu is supplemented with a Perso-Arabic vocabulary and Hindi a Sanskritic vocabulary. Additionally, there is the convention of Urdu being written in Perso-Arabic script, and Hindi in Devanagari. The standard, "proper" grammars of both languages are based on Khariboli grammar — the dialect of the Delhi region. So, with respect to grammar, the languages are mutually intelligible when spoken, and can be thought of as two written variants of the same language.

The difference is also sociolinguistic: When people speak Hindustani (i.e., when they are speaking colloquially) speakers who are Muslims will usually say that they are speaking Urdu, and those who are Hindus will typically say that they are speaking Hindi, even though they are speaking essentially the same language.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is most easily seen as Muslims from the Indian subcontinent who migrate to the US tend to be fairly close friends with Hindus from the Indian subcontinent who have migrated to the US. One of the main reasons is because they share the same culture and general language (Urdu and Hindi are basically the same language with different alphabets).

Not been my experience, but then I have more experience with Sikhs, and they do not like Muslims. At. All.

[SlowwHand]

That's pretty fascinating, Imran. I assume that there's a breakdown in written, but speaking goes fine. That's pretty weird. Cool, but weird.

[SpencerH]

Basically people who speak Hindi can be understood by people who speak Urdu and vice versa. The difference is that Hindi is written from a sanskrit alphabet and Urdu is written in a Arabic/Persian alphabet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi

The colloquial language spoken by the people of Delhi is indistinguishable by ear, whether it is called Hindi or Urdu by its speakers. The only important distinction at this level is in the script: if written in the Perso-Arabic script, the language is generally considered to be Urdu, and if written in Devanagari it is generally considered to be Hindi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urdu

Because of their identical grammar and nearly identical core vocabularies, most linguists do not distinguish between Urdu and Hindi as separate languages — at least not in reference to the informal spoken registers. For them, ordinary informal Urdu and Hindi can be seen as variants of the same language (Hindustani) with the difference being that Urdu is supplemented with a Perso-Arabic vocabulary and Hindi a Sanskritic vocabulary. Additionally, there is the convention of Urdu being written in Perso-Arabic script, and Hindi in Devanagari. The standard, "proper" grammars of both languages are based on Khariboli grammar — the dialect of the Delhi region. So, with respect to grammar, the languages are mutually intelligible when spoken, and can be thought of as two written variants of the same language.

The difference is also sociolinguistic: When people speak Hindustani (i.e., when they are speaking colloquially) speakers who are Muslims will usually say that they are speaking Urdu, and those who are Hindus will typically say that they are speaking Hindi, even though they are speaking essentially the same language.

I'm reasonably familiar with Indian cultures (especially the Sikhs) and I've read the terms "hindi" and "urdu" many times but never knew this. I always assumed they were separate languages

Are there any others?

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's pretty fascinating, Imran. I assume that there's a breakdown in written, but speaking goes fine. That's pretty weird. Cool, but weird.

I think its just some sort of way to try to be seperate. However, I'd argue that aside from religious beliefs, people from Pakistan are almost exactly same as people from Northern India, right across the border. Speaking is perfectly fine and my family has had many Hindi friends with absolutely no breakdown in communication (the only thing to remember is to not say "Salam a la kum" (sp?) to Hindis, because that is a Muslim greeting, referencing God). Hell, my pediatrician was a Hindu and my mom and him spoke in Hindustani when I had a doctor's visit.