Origins of our Caste System: Hindu Jaat or Arab Kafa'a?

[Riyadh Haque]

It has often been said that the Caste System (or Racism, Tribalism, Casteism, Classism) in Pakistan is merely a left-over from the Hindu past and that having separated from Hindu-India, Pakistan will very soon eliminate all this to become a truly egalitarion Islamic Society.

But it this true? Does our Caste System (or Racism, Tribalism, Casteism, Classism) really originate in the pre-Islamic Hindu society from which Pakistan was formed?

Or do at least parts of it come from the Arab Caste System (or Racism, Tribalism, Casteism, Classism)?

After all, most Pakistanis who have lived in the GCC countries have experienced the painful fact that the Arabs do not consider us to be their equals. They will not allow Pakistani Muslim men to marry Arab women. Even amongst themselves, they are well-known to be obsessed with their lineage and the lineage of all the people they know.

And this is not something new that came after the Oil Boom. This is a traditional approach, that is actually encoded in Shariah as follows--

QUESTION: What exactly is kafa’a (suitability) in marriage?

ANSWER: Suitability (kafa'a) for marriage is considered in six things:

1. Lineage, if the two parties are of Arab origin;
2. Islam;
3. Freedom;
4. Wealth;
5. Religiousness;
6. Profession.

------------------

1. Lineage:

Arabs, according to the fuqaha, are those whose lineage is established to go back to one of the Arab tribes. Others are considered non-Arab (`ajami).

All of Quraysh (whether sayyid or non-sayyid) are considered suitable for each other.

All Arabs are considered suitable for each other, except that non-Qurayshis are not considered suitable for Qurayshis.

Non-Arabs are not suitable matches for Arabs.

Lineage is not considered for non-Arabs.

2. Islam

Muslim ancestry is considered in non-Arabs, but not in Arabs.

Among non-Arabs, then, Muslim ancestry is considered with respect to father and paternal grandfather only.

Someone Muslim whose father is not Muslim is not a suitable match for someone whose father is Muslim.

Someone Muslim whose father is Muslim but paternal grandfather is not Muslim is not a suitable match for someone whose father and paternal grandfather are both Muslim.

3. Freedom

Free-man status is considered in non-Arabs, but not in Arabs.

Among non-Arabs, then, Free-man ancestry is considered with respect to father and paternal grandfather only.

Someone who is a free-man (non-slave) but whose father is not a free-man is not a suitable match for someone whose father is a free-man.

Someone who is a free-man (non-slave) with a free-man father but a slave grandfather is not is not a suitable match for someone whose father and paternal grandfather are both free-men.

4. Wealth

This entails the suitor possessing:

a) the amount of mahr (dowry) that is customarily given up front, and

b) a month's support for the wife, if without a job, or being able to provide for the wife daily if with a job.

Beyond this, having little or much wealth is of no consideration in terms of suitability.

5. Religiousness

A religiously corrupt man is not suitable for a righteous woman with a righteous father.

A religiously corrupt man is suitable for a religiously corrupt woman, whether she has a righteous father or not.

6. Profession

This is considered in other than Arabs, and among Arabs who themselves work [i.e. as opposed to owning business interests, for example].

If the profession of the suitor and the woman's father are similar in social standing, then he is considered a suitable match.

If the profession of the suitor and the woman's father are disparate in social standing, then the suitor with a comparatively low profession is not considered suitable for someone of a high profession.

The customs of each land are considered in terms of the social standing of different professions.

------------------

Search Kafa in this article: CC November 2005

 

[KingMamba]

You are reading way too much into this. Their is not a caste system in Pakistan there is feudalism at its worst. That however can be dismantled if a willing open hearted leader takes control of Pakistan and implements changes. Think Shah of Iran buying the land off of the landlords and redistributing it to his people at reasonable prices ridding Iran of feudalism. There should also be a limit to how large an amount of land one can purchase in Pakistan. This can be done if someone has the will.

 

[Riyadh Haque]

You are reading way too much into this. Their is not a caste system in Pakistan there is feudalism at its worst. That however can be dismantled if a willing open hearted leader takes control of Pakistan and implements changes. Think Shah of Iran buying the land off of the landlords and redistributing it to his people at reasonable prices ridding Iran of feudalism. There should also be a limit to how large an amount of land one can purchase in Pakistan. This can be done if someone has the will.

I agree with you that Pakistan still suffers from the problem of Zamindars, Jagirdars & Waderas.

However, the idea that "there is no caste system" in Pakistan has been debated a long, long time ago by Pakistanis themselves in the New York Times. Here is the reference:

1) CLAIM: Pakistan Has Differences of Clans, Not Castes - Letter - NYTimes.com

2) REBUTTAL: Pakistan Certainly Has a Caste System - Letter - NYTimes.com

Note: Both these two writers in the New York Times were Born & Raised in Pakistan.

Warning: This man is not Ashraf (Sh-R-F) and not even Ajlaf (J-L-F) ---He is an Arzal (R-Z-L) Pakistani

 

[turbo charged]

what is the purpose of this thread?

 

[shuakataftab]

racism is everywhere in the world if you think only hindus or arabs are racist then you are ignorant
you should see the level of racism in pakistani's first then criticize others

 

[Awesome]

Simply put there is classism in every, EVERY society.

If on nothing else - The rich don't intermingle with the poor.

The Educated don't interact with the illiterate

The high end professionals won't befriend Janitors.

Its a larger equality issue than Pakistan adopting things from Hinduism or Arabism.

In fact deep down Hindus and Arabs have the same issues of lack of equality - they are just more open about it, we beat around the bush.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Why is tribalism, racial pride, & nationalism associated with racism? They are certainly not the same thing. It's true that some Pakistanis may face difficulties in G.C.C countries, there are many factors contributing to this cause. Arabian society isn't multicultural or a "melting pot" like some western countries. Instead it's more like a "salad bowl", different people live here, but they do not integrate entirely. The difference in language & culture is by far the greatest barrier. This results in people developing friendship to those closest to them. There are exceptions to this of course. Personally, I have more Arab friends than Pakistani friends.

I don't think there is any "caste system" in Arabia. However, tribalism does exist in Arabian society, & most people do happen to be conservative. Races generally tend to marry among themselves, it has always been this way. Most of us are generally attracted to women of our own race, there is nothing odd about that. Religion, wealth, & profession is always taken in to consideration when thinking of marriage. Let me remind you that according to the Islamic law, Muslim men may only marry Jewish, Christian, & Muslim women. Muslim women may only marry Muslim men, & before someone yells "discrimination" at least understand the reasoning behind this law. This law exists because a wife generally adopts her husband's culture & values, so this regulation ensure that she will be able to follow her religion appropriately after marriage.

Socio-economic background is always given priority when searching for a spouse. Do you know of any rich person that marries his daughter to a poor person? How would a poor person ensure her the quality of life that she had in her father's home? You may want to check out this verse of the Quran when discussing whether morally corrupt people should marry religious ones. Speaking of marriage to Arab girls, the sexiest ones come from Lebanon. Saudi girls require permission from their government to marry a foreigner, & I have heard that permission is usually given to spinsters, widows, or divorcees.

Moving on to Pakistan, there are bound to be socio-economic classes in Pakistan, just like there are in other societies. Personally, I think that feudalism & to some extent tribalism have to be dealt with in our society. The solution clearly lies in educating our populace, once people are educated & manage to adopt a modern lifestyle, tribalism is bound to disappear. Land reforms may be introduced to eradicate feudalism or at least diminish the influence of landlords. Anyway, these were my views on the subject.

 

[Riyadh Haque]

...........Muslim men may only marry Jewish, Christian, & Muslim women.

Muslim women may only marry Muslim men, & before someone yells "discrimination" at least understand the reasoning behind this law.

This law exists because a wife generally adopts her husband's culture & values, so this regulation ensure that she will be able to follow her religion appropriately after marriage............

I am not sure I follow.

A Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim man. You justify this because "a wife generally adopts her husband's culture & values, so this regulation ensure that she will be able to follow her religion appropriately after marriage"

So how does a Christian/Jewish woman married to a Muslim man manage to follow her religion appropriately after marriage?

I mean if a Christian/Jewish woman can remain Christian/Jewish after her marriage to a Muslim man, what makes anybody think that a Muslim woman cannot remain Muslim if she were to marry a non-Muslim man?

What about the other posters on this thread? Does this not strike anyone as strange?

.........In fact deep down Hindus and Arabs have the same issues of lack of equality - they are just more open about it, we beat around the bush.

Why?

What is so different about us as Pakistanis that while the Arabs & the Hindus are open about it, we somehow "beat around the bush"?

Are we more sensitive than the Arabs & Hindus? Or are we just more in denial than they are?

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

I am not sure I follow.

A Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim man. You justify this because "a wife generally adopts her husband's culture & values, so this regulation ensure that she will be able to follow her religion appropriately after marriage"

So how does a Christian/Jewish woman married to a Muslim man manage to follow her religion appropriately after marriage?

I mean if a Christian/Jewish woman can remain Christian/Jewish after her marriage to a Muslim man, what makes anybody think that a Muslim woman cannot remain Muslim if she were to marry a non-Muslim man?

What about the other posters on this thread? Does this not strike anyone as strange?

I only presented one justification, you may read more about this issue on the link below. I think it will sufficiently answer your question, I found the link after a quick search on Google.

Fatwa by Dr. Abou El Fadl: On Christian Men marrying Muslim Women

The justification for this rule was two-fold: 1) Technically, children are given the religion of their father, and so legally speaking, the offspring of a union between a Muslim male and a kitabiyya would still be Muslim; 2)It was argued that Muslim men are Islamically prohibited from forcing their wives to become Muslim. Religious coercion is prohibited in Islam. However, in Christianity and Judaism a similar prohibition against coercion does not exist. According to their own religious law, Muslim jurists argued, Christian men may force their Muslim wives to convert to their (the husbands') religion. Put differently, it was argued, Islam recognizes Christianity and Judaism as valid religions, but Judaism and Christianity do not recognize the validity of Islam as a religion. Since it was assumed that the man is the stronger party in a marriage, it was argued that Christian and Jewish men will be able to compel their Muslim wives to abandon Islam. (If a Muslim man would do the same, he would be violating Islamic law and committing a grave sin).

Scholars vary over the legality of this view. I simply presented the view some scholars hold regarding this subject.

 

[Riyadh Haque]

what is the purpose of this thread?

To annoy you personally.

 

[zip]

Power divides people .. If you rest it in God or religion then crack will appear in religion itself ..it happened in every society and religion in one or other time ..

 

[Riyadh Haque]

It was argued that Muslim men are Islamically prohibited from forcing their wives to become Muslim. Religious coercion is prohibited in Islam. However, in Christianity and Judaism a similar prohibition against coercion does not exist...

If you think that Islam, as well as Christianity, have not indulged in jingoistic state-sanctioned religious coercion throughout history, then I will just leave you to your thoughts & beliefs on that point.

However, Judaism is not a proselytizing religion. It is an inherited one. Conversions are strongly discouraged under most circumstances. So the question of coercing someone to "become" Jewish does seem outlandish. You can verify this yourself by speaking to the people right there in Saudi Arabia. Many of the people pretending to be Muslims in the Hejaz are actually Arabic-speaking Jews who have been there for more than 2000 years and they are still practising Judaism; of course, they do it in secret because they are afraid of persecution & coercion, but they will speak to you if you ask them.

As for Christianity, it is a matter of record that the during the days of Church power in the West forced conversions did place. But those days are long, long gone. Christianity has little Church power left anywhere, and forced conversions are almost absurd in this day and age amongst Christians. So why still have this rule today? Why not allow Muslim women to freely marry Christian men now? After all, according to what you say, the law was not God's Word but only a response to some conditions that may have existed a long, long time ago. Since those conditions don't exist anymore, why hold on to this outdated law? Why not just chuck it into the dustbin of history where it belongs?

In fact, since you googled the answer, try googling this: "Kidnapping, forced conversion, forced marriage". Any hits for Christianity or Judaism? No? What turns up these days? Buddhism? Taoism?

In addition, you might want to listen to the Grand Imam of the Haram as Sharif in Makkah (The whole 2 minutes are good, but remember to listen very carefully to the 30 seconds from (0:20 to 0:50)--

"FOR US LIBERTY HAS LIMITS" IMAM EXPLAINS LIMITS OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN SAUDI ARABIA - YouTube

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

If you think that Islam, as well as Christianity, have not indulged in jingoistic state-sanctioned religious coercion throughout history, then I will just leave you to your thoughts & beliefs on that point.

There have been some forced conversions in Abrahamic religions, the question is; so what? You don't like your religion then feel free to convert to another one, nobody cares. By the way, the text you quoted is essentially the text I quoted from another website.

However, Judaism is not a proselytizing religion. It is an inherited one. Conversions are strongly discouraged under most circumstances. So the question of coercing someone to "become" Jewish does seem outlandish. You can verify this yourself by speaking to the people right there in Saudi Arabia. Many of the people pretending to be Muslims in the Hejaz are actually Arabic-speaking Jews who have been there for more than 2000 years and they are still practising Judaism; of course, they do it in secret because they are afraid of persecution & coercion, but they will speak to you if you ask them.

That's true, Judaism doesn't encourage conversion. However there have been forced conversions to Judaism too, I found this on Wikipedia.

Forced conversion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forced conversions are rare, but are reported to have happened under the Hasmonean Empire. The Gentile Galileans, Samaritans and Idumaens were forced to convert to Judaism, (either by threats of exile, or threats of death, depending on the source.) For the forced conversion of the Idumaeans under John Hyrcanus, see Flavius Josephus Antiquities 13.257-258. For the forced conversion of the Ituraeans under Aristobulus, see Flavius Josephus Antiquities 13.319. In Eusebíus, Christianity, and Judaism Harold W. Attridge says that “there is reason to think that Josephus’ account of their conversion is substantially accurate.” He also writes, “That these were not isolated instances but that forced conversion was a national policy is clear from the fact that Alexander Jannaeus (ca 80 BCE) demolished the city of Pella in Moab, “because the inhabitants would not agree to adopt the national custom of the Jews.” Josephus, Antiquities. 13.15.4, 397[11]

Maurice Sartre has written of the "policy of forced Judaization adopted by Hyrcanos, Aristobulus I and Jannaeus”, who offered "the conquered peoples a choice between expulsion or conversion,”[12]
And in 'The early Roman period, Volume 2', William David Davies has written that. “The evidence is best explained by postulating that an existing small Jewish population in Lower Galilee was massively expanded by the forced conversion in c.104 BCE of their Gentile neighbours in the north.”[13]

I also recall hearing that the Edomites were converted to Judaism by force during one of the Hebrew conquests in the past.

As far as I know, Jewish tribes were exiled from Arabia. Some Jews did convert to Islam, including some of the companions of the Prophet. We do not have the right to doubt the sincerity of their conversion & neither is there anything wrong people descending from Jewish converts.

Present proof that some Saudis are secretly Jewish, the proof must come from valid sources. Do not use some conspiracy theories' blogs either.

As for Christianity, it is a matter of record that the during the days of Church power in the West forced conversions did place. But those days are long, long gone. Christianity has little Church power left anywhere, and forced conversions are almost absurd in this day and age amongst Christians. So why still have this rule today? Why not allow Muslim women to freely marry Christian men now? After all, according to what you say, the law was not God's Word but only a response to some conditions that may have existed a long, long time ago. Since those conditions don't exist anymore, why hold on to this outdated law? Why not just chuck it into the dustbin of history where it belongs?

I never said the part in bold, that is what the source I provided claims. Do you understand that the source I provided wasn't written by me? In any case, Muslim women are discouraged from marrying non-Muslims till this day because the off spring will most likely not be following the religion of Islam. Even if they do follow it, the argument presented is that their belief is bound to be weaker. My own personal view is that the strength of a religious belief depends entirely on that individual himself or herself. Another problem is that since the husband is the head of the household, he is bound to have some influence on his wife, & that may lead to diverting a woman from her faith. The Quran also forbids both Muslim men & women from marrying polytheists. In fact, there are certain conditions that need to be met even if a Muslim man desires to marry a Christian or Jewish woman, the most important of these conditions is "modesty" & that the woman be "chaste". Culture plays a part here too. Most Muslim families aren't likely to tolerate marrying their daughters to non-Muslims.

In fact, since you googled the answer

I searched for that link on Google while typing my first response to this thread, I meant to use it as a reference for what I typed.

, try googling this: "Kidnapping, forced conversion, forced marriage". Any hits for Christianity or Judaism? No? What turns up these days? Buddhism? Taoism?

Yes forced conversions & marriages are a problem in some Islamic societies, this has been acknowledged many times.

In addition, you might want to listen to the Grand Imam of the Haram as Sharif in Makkah (The whole 2 minutes are good, but remember to listen very carefully to the 30 seconds from (0:20 to 0:50)--

Daily Hadith -- Hadith Explanation | Expelled from Peninsula

The Messenger of Allah (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) said: “Expel the idolaters (Mushrikeen) from the Arabian peninsula.” He (sal Allahu alaihi wa sallam) also said: “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslims.” [Sahih Muslim]

“These clear and unambiguous texts, and others, illustrate quite plainly the extent to which Islam is concerned about the protection of the nation from disbelieving communities, and from political coexistence with them which may cause the Muslims to take them for friends and protectors, a thing which Allah has forbidden them from doing.” [Al-Wala Wal Bara by Shaykh Muhammad Saeed Al-Qahtani]

Imam Ash-Shafiee (rahimuhullah) said: “They are prohibited (from entering) the Hijaz. That is to say, Makkah, Madinah, Yamaamah and their respective hinterlands. As for those parts of the Hijaz lying outside the two Harams (of Makkah and Madinah), while those of the People of the Book, and others, and prohibited from either settling or taking up residence therein, they may, nevertheless, with the permission of the Imam, enter for the accomplishment of some mission which is in the interests of the Muslims, such as for the delivery of a letter, or the delivery of goods of which the Muslims are in need. They are permitted to do this so long as they surrender a portion of their trade, though they may not remain for more than three days.” [Ahkaam Ahl add-Dhimma by Ibn al-Qayyim Vol.1/184]

This is the map of the region known as "Hijaz".

As far as I know, Christians & Jews are allowed to live in other portions of Arabia outside the Hijaz, & there is no Islamic ruling that denies them their own places of worship.

 

[Scorpius]

No our caste system comes from our Hindu heritage, chaudharies, rajput, malik etc. India is our neighbour, arabs are a long way away from us.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

What is this thread I am reading , it says I am white