I hear that a Muslim Bollywood star was detained at an American airport, Shah Rukh Khan (there is some confusion here, and a possibility that this is a publicity stunt related to a film about profiling which he is promoting). Out of curiosity I checked out Khan's bio on Wikipedia, and found out this interesting datum:
Shah Rukh Khan, born into a Muslim family, is married to a Hindu and his children follow both religions.
At home, next to idols of Hindu gods he has the Koran. The most important thing is that "the children should know about the value of God".
In this YouTube video Khan asserts his belief in Allah, while reiterating the dual religious identity of his children. These sorts of details made me wonder though, is Khan really basically a form of Hindu in today's world? I say in today's world because it seems likely that before the modern period in South Asia the lines between Hindus and Muslims were somewhat more blurred than they are now, and that in particular Ismailism served as something of a liminal identity for many. This thesis suggests that Hussaini Brahmins and Satpanth Ismailis are remnants of a richer and more diverse pre-modern tradition. It may be that these were marginalized first by Sunni persecution of syncretistic groups under Aurangzeb, who reflected a Muslim ideology where there were clear and distinct lines separating unbelievers and believers, and no room for Ismaili heretics in the second camp. Later the British bureaucratically driven classifications of native groups and Hindu revivalism in response to reformist Islam and Christian prosyletization forced further "sorting" out groups with hybrid identities. If this is correct the Meos of northwest India, who are separating into explicitly Muslim and Hindu classes, illustrate how exogenous pressures drive this dynamic.
If the story above is correct many groups who are Hindu today in northern India might have had a "semi-Muslim" past insofar as their identities were more fluid. The preservation of some rituals, custom and beliefs of Muslim provenance among some castes is a recollection of this past. The converse may be true of Muslims, but there is an asymmetry which makes this less notable: modern Islam tends to enforce a rather narrower set of norms than Hinduism upon its believers. So while a wide range of beliefs and practices flourish under the umbrella of Hinduism today, and is accepted as expected, modern Islam has been subject to several "reformist" movements since 1800 which are transnational and cultural in character which have marginalized local identities in favor of a universal set of norms. What occurred in India during the later period of Muslim rule prefigured this, as Sunni reformist sects attempted to eliminate deviation from their espoused orthodoxy, and in the case of Ismailis were forcibly converted them to Sunni Islam with the power of the state. As a side effect naturally liminal groups with a more Hindu identity would emphasize their Hinduism precisely to avoid the persecution which Ismailis were subject to because of their status as Muslim heretics.
So one story of modernity is homogenization and universal norms. Shah Rukh Khan is an example of the reverse through cosmopolitanism. My title derives from the fact that the latitudinarian religious sentiments of Khan, who places the Koran next to a Hindu idol, and praises Allah along with Ganesh. This broad tolerance and acceptance of the numerous specific expressions of religious sentiment is in many ways a hallmark of modern Hinduism as a religion, and contradictory to the main thrust of modern Islam. I suspect many Muslims would view placing a Koran next to a Hindu idol as verging on the sacrilege. Yet Shah Rukh Khan views himself as a Muslim, and if you are not a Muslim who are you to say he is not by his own lights?
Note Some of the speculations in the post above derive from Crossing the Threshold: Understanding Religious Identities in South Asia.
Overall a nice article, but the comments represented here are pretty shallow when concerned about Indian religiousness. Though Mr. Khan's detaining is regrettable, I would say it is got to do with the terrorism panic in the US post 9/11. Frankly, Indians are more used to terrorism then US. It is but one small incident, being blown out of proportion. I think it does not warrant a debate on religion. Thank you. :)
The opinions posted so far are quite alarming. However, we all have an opinion and each one is infinitely valuable. We have to see all sides and realize that there are really people out there that are incredibly ignorant. Profiling is a reality. I myself was "profiled" and detained and interrogated IN FRONT OF MY WORKPLACE! I'm a brown person and I had a backpack and what really is troublesome to accept is that there were several others stopped but none interrogated and none of them were female, none were blond and blue-eyed. Brown people need to stand up every single time something like this happens. Don't let the authorities get away with this injustice. SPEAK UP!
CUBATOURS.US
balaji, profiling isn't that interesting to talk about. the post wasn't about that at all.
You may find Qalander's posts on similar topics interesting, for example:
http://qalandari.blogspot.com/2009/07/manifesto.html
There is also some discussion in "Empires of the Sind" by Alice Albinia.
The case of Muslim priests in Ramakrishna Mission may also be interesting; I understand that one of them tirns the pages of Koranafter dipping his fingers in gangajal.
Even when profiling is a reality, detaining a movie star whose face nearly everyone has seen before isn't something that you expect to happen.
Newsweek seems to think the same way for America too.
"Shah Rukh Khan" and "So Much Fail" share the same syllable count.
From Mark Twain's Following the Equator:
Overall its a good post. but SRK is not hindu.he is perfect Indian.
hindu used to be the word for indian (same root).
The issue is not that Mr.Khan was detained for 2 hours. The issue is that he was detained for simply being a Muslim and having the name Khan. The US which does this racial/religious profiling accuses India of being discriminatory towards Muslims and Christians. That is the greatest comedy.
chi Pink dazzle flat iron
Even when profiling is a reality, detaining a movie star whose face nearly everyone has seen before
You vastly over-estimate the percentage of Westerners who have ever heard of SRK, let alone being able to identify him on sight. I'm one, but only through peculiar personal circumstances.
There is a long tradition of inclusivity among the elites, from Akbar creating its own syncretic religion to Gandhi claiming to belong to all traditions at the same time. But how much does this extend to ordinary folks, in their everyday life? It seems like the populations at large have always been keenly aware of who was a "Muslim", a "Hindu", a "Jain", a "Sikh", etc. While the actual precepts and customs for each tradition may fluctuate over time and space, the identity aspect ("us" and "them"), and the political consequences (who gets oppressed and who doesn't) seems to be a strong invariant.
As an Indian, I think this is unfortunate. US has does what i needs to do, and this kind of questioning is absolutely justified. On the other hand, I think the officers could have handled the situation differently.
On a seperate note, we, the Indians, think that Sharukh over-reacted since he is a ordinary citizen and does not enjoy diplomatic cover.
Please understand that we are the biggest democracy in the world and we do understand our duties. Kindly check this article....
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Dont-make-a-big…
Yet Shah Rukh Khan views himself as a Muslim, and if you are not a Muslim who are you to say he is not by his own lights?
He can be a Muslim by his own lights, but Islam has certain precepts and SRK isn't following them. I don't have to be a Muslim to know that any more than I have to be a cat to tell a cat from a dog.
SRK is not a Muslim by the lights of some other Muslims: http://www.siasat.com/english/content/fatwas-against-shah-rukh-khan-his…
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47039
I don't know whether he's a Hindu. I know with certainty that he is not a Muslim in any rigorous sense of the word.
SRK is not a Muslim by the lights of some other Muslims
some is key. if you do a poll i suspect most indian muslims would say he is muslim, because he's famous.
But how much does this extend to ordinary folks, in their everyday life? It seems like the populations at large have always been keenly aware of who was a "Muslim", a "Hindu", a "Jain", a "Sikh", etc. While the actual precepts and customs for each tradition may fluctuate over time and space, the identity aspect ("us" and "them"), and the political consequences (who gets oppressed and who doesn't) seems to be a strong invariant.
1) i think that in a pre-modern context issues of religious identity in south asia exhibited some similarities in terms of tolerance at the very peak of the pyramid, for political reasons (e.g., many of the later mughals did not eat beef lest they expend political capital with their hindu vassals), and at the level of the broad masses because of the localized and non-universal level of religion. where crips religious identities mattered was for the "middle class," the lettered, professional, urban artisan, mercantile, etc., who formed a small minority of the population in the past. not so small now. indonesia is a better test case because of the confound of a non-muslim majority is removed. the increase in the influence of the "orthodox" santri tracks the decline in power of the old nobility, who were strongly influenced by dharmic and indigenous javanese philosophical & cosmological traditions, and the shrinking of the rural peasantry, whose islam was a superficial layer on indigenous javanese religiosity.
2) i agree about the importance of these labels as group identifiers, with the substance of the labels mattering a lot less than people think. this is why i think one should be careful about assuming that sharukh khan is perceived as a non-muslim by muslims because of his religious heterodoxy. i suspect, for example, if you ask middle class indian muslims on the grounds of a mosque on eid they would say he is no longer a muslim, but if you asked him in the context of their living room at a party they might give a different response. i've seen this sort of behavior personally, and it tracks well with what we know about social psychology.
Guys, If he wants to follow whichever faith he chooses, let him. Its his life, it should be his choice.
We are free to choose the faith we like for ourselves. Aren't we?