I’d been meaning to mention this to you; when you visit the Golden Temple in Amritsar, if you get the time/chance then try to sit next to the central pool for a while either early in the morning or during sunset. Many people find it to be extremely calming and therapeutic, and you get more of a feel for the spiritual vibe of the place, especially with the hymns being played over the loudspeakers. Might also help to sooth your frazzled nerves from all the hustle & bustle and general “touristy” hassle you’ve been experiencing.

By the way, regarding your Hindi, there’s actually a famous Bollywood actor (now appearing more frequently in Indian tv serials) called Tom Alter, who is of white American descent and basically grew up in India. He speaks the most eloquent, flawless, accent-free Urdu in real life — and he’s got the baritone voice to go with it too. It’s quite a pleasant surprise (and very disconcerting for those not used to it) to see him chatting away in the language !

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/creating-islami.html

The AK in Turkey has shown us that non implementation of sharia is a pre-condition for the Turkish electorate and they have won on the strength of their civil policies.

Bob, what you offer as a remedy is not only a good suggestion for Islamist parties, but for religious parties in general. Oppression of women, sexual discrimination, and prejudice and hate against other religions is not a monopoly that only Islamists have.

To add, like the dervishes in Syria and on the border of Turkey; the Chinese Muslims where some animism is thrown in; in North Africa, some mystical berber type of stuff; and now, in America, Islam which is striving to strip itself of any “cultural baggage” and linguistic affiliations but oddly, taking on an American “cultural” flavor (for lack of a better word).

“1) are in the so-called Arab world and 2) where the majority is not Muslim.”

Should read:

“1) are NOT in the so-called Arab world and 2) where the majority is not Muslim.

“But still useful when describing the collection of countries from West Africa to Indonesia which are completely culturally and linguistically different but share a common religious tradition.”

But jaanam, that’s what I’m taking issue with. Their religious traditions differ. They differ in Morocco, which has a blend of pre Islamic stuff in it (and would cause Wahabbists to denounce them as “unIslamic”. In Indonesia, there are instances by Indonesian Muslims which do not go strictly by the Good Book. What I am saying is that there ARE religious differences on the ground, in the way Islam is practiced, conceived, etc. And in our own South Asian backyard, Islam is NOT the same as how it is practiced in, say, Jordan. Hell, Islam in the subcontinent is variegated itself!

“As to the point of the need for forging allegiances between pro-democracy activists and groups in non-Arab countries, well that’s because, as I said, there just seems to more of an appetite for democracy in these countries than there is in Arab [gulp] World.”

What I meant was not looking exclusively at even the Arab World. Part of me wants to bet money that we disproportionately hear about desire of democracy or lack thereof in Arab and majority Muslim countries because of the media attention due to geo-political events. But there are many, many movements throughout the world where 1) are in the so-called Arab world and 2) where the majority is not Muslim.

“I also feel thoroughly chastised for using it and I won’t do it again. I promise.”

I’m not chastising you Just saying what I think, and your point about how we say “the West” is a good one and taken. Smooches.

“Muslim World” is a naff term, I agree. Smells like colonial spirit and all that. But still useful when describing the collection of countries from West Africa to Indonesia which are completely culturally and linguistically different but share a common religious tradition. For whatever reason, this shared theological thread confers certain commonlities in culture and philosophical outlook. Its a utilitarian term that is as suitable as “the west” when describing countries of the North. I am not implying a homogeneous theocratic bloc when I use it since such a thing doesn’t exist. I also feel thoroughly chastised for using it and I won’t do it again. I promise.

As to the point of the need for forging allegiances between pro-democracy activists and groups in non-Arab countries, well that’s because, as I said, there just seems to more of an appetite for democracy in these countries than there is in Arab [gulp] World. Thats not to say I am excluding Arab democratic causes, since the Algerian and Egyptian struggles for democracy offer invaluable lessons.

Among these Muslim, non-Arab countries which are in the midst of massive social upheaval into democracies are the faction of the Pakistani Muslim League that held sway until the military takeover in 1999; the Awami League and the BNP in Bangladesh; Malaysia’s ruling UMNO party; and a cluster of mildly Islamic parties that share power in Indonesia.

I don’t see the same upheavals, the same agoninsing discourse for democracy in the Arab world at this point in time. Even the pro-Western liberals in Egypt are principally pro-Mubarak elites who are more than happy with an autocratic despot in power as long its not the Islamic Brotherhood.

Compare and contrast with Indonesia’s history with Suharto. He was a complete despot yet still played out sham elections so that people would be appeased with the perception of a democratic process.

“Local factors play a considerable part, including popular interpretations of the religion the majority there may practice.”

“Nevertheless, when there is a common religious affiliation and it has a sizeable impact on local norms, customs and attitudes, there is often (by no means not always) a vein of commonality that the regions concerned may share in various aspects.”

I understand your argument hon, but I’m really hesistant to subscribe to the notion that a common religion can allow for a term like the “Muslim World” period.

Particularly with your second paragraph I quoted above…I have been to several “Muslim countries” that were startling different from one another. Language, dialect, history, and local customs (such as “nazar” in Turkey and then Berber practices that Sufi Muslims in Morocco follow) are not somehow more negligible or have a lighter impact than “Islam”. They very are a part and parcel of those locations. And whoever plays that tune of the “Global Ummah” and “Muslim solidarity” raises my suspicions as well on several different levels(especially when they take on a so-called “Muslim cause” and when you talk to them, you realize how little they know about what is actually going on in certain places.)

Just out of curiosity, I am wondering how many people consider India as part of the “Muslim” world because 1. Its Muslim population is greater than the Muslim population in Arab countries put together and 2) Turkey, with a majority Muslim population, and India have lots and lots of similarities due to historical relationship…

(by no means not always)

Typo in #69: That should of course say “by no means always”, but y’all already knew that.

Yet we pervasively say “Muslim World” in the media, our national discussions, global discussions, etc and I find that problematic.

And yes this term should only be used when there really is an unequivocal degree of similarity on any given topic right across most of the populations where the majority are Muslim. It should not be used as a one-size-fits-all phrase unless it really is accurate.

my point is that there’s a good reason why people do not say “Hindu World,” “Jewish World,” and “Christian World” because it depends on location, not exclusively on religion.

People do not say “Hindu World” and “Jewish World” because neither exist (not any more, in the case of the former); they would, however, have been accurate terms if India was fragmented into multiple smaller independent nations and places like Thailand and Indonesia still had huge Hindu populations. Ditto if there were numerous countries across the planet where Jewish people were the majority.

“Christian World” or “Christendom” would be accurate terms if countries where the majority of the population are currently nominally Christian were more staunchly devout in their religious beliefs and declarations of affiliation, particularly if the ruling groups also supported and espoused this. This was the case in medieval Europe and also during the colonial period, but is not applicable now. However, in the modern era the term could perhaps be applied to some parts of Africa and possibly parts of Latin America. Some would of course also say that some quarters of the modern United States also fall under this definition, but I would not presume to comment on that.

However, it is correct to be cautious of making unnecessary generalisations or presuming commonality between disparate groups on any given issue purely on the basis of a common religion. Local factors play a considerable part, including popular interpretations of the religion the majority there may practice. Nevertheless, when there is a common religious affiliation and it has a sizeable impact on local norms, customs and attitudes, there is often (by no means not always) a vein of commonality that the regions concerned may share in various aspects.

“Surely then there is need then for highlighting the activities and struggles of the pro-democratic groups in Pakistan?”

Or we could detain and interrogate key individuals for 8 hours like the US authorities did with Mr. Edhi:

“Mr Edhi runs the largest social welfare network in Pakistan, and has offices in several countries, including the US.

Officials interrogated him for over eight hours at JFK airport on 9 January and then took his passport, he says.

Mr Edhi told the BBC that while he was allowed to enter the US, the passport has still not been returned to him.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7215145.stm