A tweet or retweet at the Rajeev2004 blog showed that the Modi-led BJP had granted citizenship to Hindu and Sikh refugees from TSP. That's brilliant but not the reason for this spam.
Rather, this post is about Rajeev tweeting that India should grant 'automatic refuge to all Dharmics including Yezidis' (paraphrased from memory). That Yezidis=Abrahamics are Dharmics is false. And that they should be granted refuge is dangerous advice.
Here, this:
twitter.com/RajeevSrinivasa/status/601229426135793664
And a very useful comment there for my purpose:
Yezidis are 1. Abrahamics ("Adamic" - belief in Adam - is an Abrahmism from the Sanatana Dharma POV) and 2. specifically not-pagans
both by their own insistence, from their religion and traditions.
Whatever their ancestry (which was originally of an Iranian religion long ago, but which was replaced by an islamic one - yes an islamic one - and the Iranian motifs that linger are just that: lingering Iranian motifs), they are not anything other than Abrahamic.
They are entirely of the biblical cosmology, both with and without disagreements with the others of the same cosmology as to the details. (E.g. Jews don't think Satan is evil but a servant of the Jewish God testing mankind, whereas christians - and their spin-off the muslims - have transformed satan into an evil character.)
Repeat:
theconversation.com/explainer-who-are-the-yazidis-30280
And the Yezidis themselves say they are an Adamic (and Abrahamic) religion. And even that they worship the same monotheist God as that of the known Abrahamisms. Note: worshipping the monotheistic God of Abraham (whether Abraham himself is important or not) = definition of Abrahamism, right?
Again, the recently pasted example should suffice, repeating:
wildhunt.org/2014/09/in-the-crosshairs-of-persecution-the-yezidi.html
I've heard lots of well-meaning Hindu nationalist Indians today peddle that Yezidis are Dharmics. Presumably because they believe in reincarnation. So what? So do many other middle-eastern Abrahamic spin-offs influenced by lingering Hindu and Buddhist views (not just Manichaenism and the recently concocted Baha'i fraud either):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze
There. Quick "Hindu nationalists", claim the Druze - a spin-off of Ismaili Shia muslims - as Dharmics too.
Again, most of middle-eastern religions - christianism included - are heavily influenced by Iranian and Indian religions.
Christianism also had some historical subsects that believed in transmigration (Greek influence). "Therefore", by the same idiot logic, "Christianism must be dharmic too".
Yezidism has more in common with Zoroastrianism, and even traditional Zoroastrians refuse point blank to lump the Yezidis as a Zoroastrian group.
They're certainly not Dharmic. No more than the Druze or the christians or Manichaens or baha'i.
And now comes the other purpose of this post.
It is a *very* Bad - as in Terrible - idea to invite the Yezidis to India and give them refuge.
They could turn out like the more benign Jews who were given refuge in India, though even they have not avoided missionising* among the heathens of India and inculturating on Keertanas more recently (documented by Rajeev2004 blogposts themselves). * Both ancient and present conversions of Hindus/native heathens into Judaism (e.g. obviously-Indic Jewish communities in South India - Indians need not pretend these people were originally Jewish, leave that to western and Jewish people themselves - and more recently the Mizos of Mizoram who look very SE Asian and far removed from anything Middle-eastern, so Indians need not pretend here either.)
However, they could easily turn out like the Syrian christians. In India, monotheists often gang together. Nowadays, can see Indian and western christians trying to speak also for Jews in India as being opposed to Hindu "fanaticism" etc. And Yezidis nowadayas express very cordial relationships with Christians. If they're settled in India, their initial gratitude will eventually erode and self-entitlement and abrahamic brotherhood/monotheistic supremacism will very likely surface.
Even Zoroastrians and Sikhs in India - which aren't Abrahamisms and the latter is counted as Dharmic - are seen to have a monotheistic superiority complex going, with them both siding theologically with monotheism when faced with "polytheistic idolatrous" Hindoos.
In Yezidis, who are moreover a middle-eastern Iranic/Kurd population, they will choose Syrian Christians over Hindus.
The day will come when they will choose to side with muslims over Hindoos too.
Therefore shortsighted Hindus need to nip this idiotic talk of inviting Kurds to take refuge in heathen India in the bud. Either some Iranian country with a reasonable Zoroastrian presence - Tajikistan? - can take them, or Israel, or European nations (last two being Abrahamisms). NOT Hindoo India. Modern nationalist Hindus - with the advantage of hindsight - must stop repeating the mistakes of the less knowledgeable Hindu kings of the past who gave refuge and citizenship to middle eastern religions especially Syrian christianism and Arabian islamics in Kerala.
Also, if Yezidism - which affirms faith in the monotheistic God that 'Abraham' believed in (i.e. Yezidism = Abrahamism) - is a "Dharmic" religion, then every Abrahamic religion can be declared an equally 'dharmic' religion.
Indians have already turned the term Hindu into toilet paper, and - just as I predicted - they've turned Dharmic hence Dharma into toilet paper too. I'm surprised christians in India haven't encroached on it yet, and declared that acting according to biblical commandments + accepting jeebus is the new (i.e. christian) definition of "Dharma". Rajeev Srinivasan and who knows how many others now (SEWA also, btw) have met them more than half-way by issuing the Dharmic certificate to the Adamic Abrahamic Yezidis.
Vikas Raina asked: "Sir, How would you define Dharmic unless you want to say Non-Abhramic instead."
While Dharmic is not defined by non-Abrahamic, but apparently by being [Indic plus] the use of the word "Dharma", it is certainly an implicit feature of Dharmic religions that they are not Abrahamic. [I could be wrong but I haven't yet heard of any Sikhs affirm that their invisible monotheistic once-Hindu/ex-Hindu godhead is the same as the invisible monogawd of christoislam/of Abraham. Although this may be a development that happens tomorrow, since Sikhism has evolved quite far away from its roots in its definition of its deity, so why stop now, especially since its re-formulation is inching ever closer to the monotheisms of the Abrahamisms?]
Yezidis have claimed variously to be Zoroastrians - to be accepted by Zoroastrians - all through the late 90s and early to mid 2000s. And have affirmed close cosmological/religious kinship with Christians and Jews (which is also not false). More recently/suddenly, since the ISIS crisis, rumours have surfaced of Yezidis being "Dharmic"/long lost Dharmic brothers all of a sudden. To get Indian support. It is opportunistic.
Of course new-agey Hindu Indians lap it up, because they see some motifs (reincarnation of old Indic influence, a peacock which is also Indic influence, sun worship which is remnant of Iranian religion) and decide that "therefore" Yezidis "must be" Dharmic.
Yezidis *have* Indian support. Both on the ground (R2004 blog mentioned Sri Sri & co. IIRC) and monetary from the average Hindoo (myself included), and moral from all Hindus.
But India should not offer permanent settlement of Yezidis in India - and it may never ever be made permanent, unless they forswear monotheism and revert to ancestral Kurdish/Iranian religion (which no one remembers what it is, so there's no way to reconstruct it, so it won't work out). India has had only slightly bad to genocidally bad repercussions from letting in any Abrahamisms. Hindus can finally decide to learn from the past.
And no rewriting that Abrahamisms - which Yezidis' religion is - is suddenly "Dharmic" too.
This post was on:
Why this next tweet is factually wrong and its suggestion is very ill-advised
twitter.com/RajeevSrinivasa/status/601229426135793664
And unless RajeevSrinivasan wants to redefine the meaning of Dharmic to include Abrahamic too (i.e. that Dharmic is the next term to mean "anything and everything"), he can't include Yezidis:
wildhunt.org/2014/09/in-the-crosshairs-of-persecution-the-yezidi.html
Note that even in 2014, when Yezidis are severely persecuted by their Adamic brothers in Abrahmic monotheism, there is a palpable abhorrence for not the just word "pagan" but what it means: they don't just want to be identified by it, but it is used as a pejorative in their own culture.
So consider, when they are given refuge in heathen "pagan" India and doing well, they will feel this distinction w.r.t. and odium towards "pagans" more deeply than during their current plight.
Syrian christians also came to India as refugees with their tails between their legs, but now are filled with self-entitlement to convert the land to their religion and fight the native "paganism" of India and conspire with their brothers in monotheism in India and overseas to bring down the heathen identity of India. Is it too beyond people's abilities to foresee that adding Yezidis into the cocktail will not in the long run favour the native heathens at all, but only raise another hand by which christoislam will slap and restrict Hindoo heathenism with?
Rather, this post is about Rajeev tweeting that India should grant 'automatic refuge to all Dharmics including Yezidis' (paraphrased from memory). That Yezidis=Abrahamics are Dharmics is false. And that they should be granted refuge is dangerous advice.
Here, this:
twitter.com/RajeevSrinivasa/status/601229426135793664
Quote:rajeev srinivasan
@RajeevSrinivasa
Hindus but also other dharmics incl Yazidi should be given automatic refuge. Buddhists have Thailand doing same.
rajeev srinivasan added,
Quote:Naren Ramakrishna @NarenMenon1
This is what I've been saying all along. Like Jews, Hindus should have the ability to perform 'Aliyah' to India
https:// twitter.com/prasannavishy/status/601224950758780928
1 retweet 3 favorites
And a very useful comment there for my purpose:
Quote:vikasraina @vikasraina
@RajeevSrinivasa Sir, How would you define Dharmic unless you want to say Non-Abhramic instead.
Yezidis are 1. Abrahamics ("Adamic" - belief in Adam - is an Abrahmism from the Sanatana Dharma POV) and 2. specifically not-pagans
both by their own insistence, from their religion and traditions.
Whatever their ancestry (which was originally of an Iranian religion long ago, but which was replaced by an islamic one - yes an islamic one - and the Iranian motifs that linger are just that: lingering Iranian motifs), they are not anything other than Abrahamic.
They are entirely of the biblical cosmology, both with and without disagreements with the others of the same cosmology as to the details. (E.g. Jews don't think Satan is evil but a servant of the Jewish God testing mankind, whereas christians - and their spin-off the muslims - have transformed satan into an evil character.)
Repeat:
theconversation.com/explainer-who-are-the-yazidis-30280
Quote:9 August 2014, 12.38am AESTAnd:
Explainer: who are the Yazidis?
Christine Allison
[...]
Yazidism, as we know it today, began in the 12th century, when the Muslim sheikh ââ¬ËAdi bin Musafir settled in the Kurdich hills north of Mosul, where he was acclaimed as a ââ¬Åkhas by locals who followed an older religion from Iran, the origins of which are still debated.
Quote:Christine Allison (is the) Ibrahim Ahmed Professor of Kurdish Studies at University of Exeter
And the Yezidis themselves say they are an Adamic (and Abrahamic) religion. And even that they worship the same monotheist God as that of the known Abrahamisms. Note: worshipping the monotheistic God of Abraham (whether Abraham himself is important or not) = definition of Abrahamism, right?
Again, the recently pasted example should suffice, repeating:
wildhunt.org/2014/09/in-the-crosshairs-of-persecution-the-yezidi.html
Quote:The references to Adam and God are not coincidental according to Hatim Darwesh, a American-based Yezidis who maintains a Yezidi Facebook group. [...] While quick to say that he is not a "religious expert," Darwesh was clear on several points: God is the same being who is worshiped in Abrahamic faiths; the Peacock Angel is not any sort of devil and the Yezidi religion is definitely monotheistic. In addition, within Yezidi culture, he says that the term "pagan" is used as a pejorative and not a label they themselves would welcome.
I've heard lots of well-meaning Hindu nationalist Indians today peddle that Yezidis are Dharmics. Presumably because they believe in reincarnation. So what? So do many other middle-eastern Abrahamic spin-offs influenced by lingering Hindu and Buddhist views (not just Manichaenism and the recently concocted Baha'i fraud either):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze
Quote:According to the narrative of the Druze, Jethro is considered an ancestor of all Druze and revered as the spiritual founder as well as chief prophet, who lived in Midian.(11)(12)(13)(14)(15) The Druze faith is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion based on the teachings of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Akhenaten, Hamza, and Al Hakim.(16)(17) The Epistles of Wisdom is the foundational text of the Druze faith alongside supplemental texts such as the Epistles of India.(18) (Like the 'Epistle to the Romans' concocted by christianism?) The Druze faith incorporates elements of Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, Pythagoreanism, Ismailism,(19) Judaism,(10) Christianity,(10) Hinduism,(20)(21) Buddhism(21) and other philosophies and beliefs, creating a distinct and secretive theology known to esoterically interpret religious scriptures and to highlight the role of the mind and truthfulness.(10)(20)
There. Quick "Hindu nationalists", claim the Druze - a spin-off of Ismaili Shia muslims - as Dharmics too.
Again, most of middle-eastern religions - christianism included - are heavily influenced by Iranian and Indian religions.
Christianism also had some historical subsects that believed in transmigration (Greek influence). "Therefore", by the same idiot logic, "Christianism must be dharmic too".
Yezidism has more in common with Zoroastrianism, and even traditional Zoroastrians refuse point blank to lump the Yezidis as a Zoroastrian group.
They're certainly not Dharmic. No more than the Druze or the christians or Manichaens or baha'i.
And now comes the other purpose of this post.
It is a *very* Bad - as in Terrible - idea to invite the Yezidis to India and give them refuge.
They could turn out like the more benign Jews who were given refuge in India, though even they have not avoided missionising* among the heathens of India and inculturating on Keertanas more recently (documented by Rajeev2004 blogposts themselves). * Both ancient and present conversions of Hindus/native heathens into Judaism (e.g. obviously-Indic Jewish communities in South India - Indians need not pretend these people were originally Jewish, leave that to western and Jewish people themselves - and more recently the Mizos of Mizoram who look very SE Asian and far removed from anything Middle-eastern, so Indians need not pretend here either.)
However, they could easily turn out like the Syrian christians. In India, monotheists often gang together. Nowadays, can see Indian and western christians trying to speak also for Jews in India as being opposed to Hindu "fanaticism" etc. And Yezidis nowadayas express very cordial relationships with Christians. If they're settled in India, their initial gratitude will eventually erode and self-entitlement and abrahamic brotherhood/monotheistic supremacism will very likely surface.
Even Zoroastrians and Sikhs in India - which aren't Abrahamisms and the latter is counted as Dharmic - are seen to have a monotheistic superiority complex going, with them both siding theologically with monotheism when faced with "polytheistic idolatrous" Hindoos.
In Yezidis, who are moreover a middle-eastern Iranic/Kurd population, they will choose Syrian Christians over Hindus.
The day will come when they will choose to side with muslims over Hindoos too.
Therefore shortsighted Hindus need to nip this idiotic talk of inviting Kurds to take refuge in heathen India in the bud. Either some Iranian country with a reasonable Zoroastrian presence - Tajikistan? - can take them, or Israel, or European nations (last two being Abrahamisms). NOT Hindoo India. Modern nationalist Hindus - with the advantage of hindsight - must stop repeating the mistakes of the less knowledgeable Hindu kings of the past who gave refuge and citizenship to middle eastern religions especially Syrian christianism and Arabian islamics in Kerala.
Also, if Yezidism - which affirms faith in the monotheistic God that 'Abraham' believed in (i.e. Yezidism = Abrahamism) - is a "Dharmic" religion, then every Abrahamic religion can be declared an equally 'dharmic' religion.
Indians have already turned the term Hindu into toilet paper, and - just as I predicted - they've turned Dharmic hence Dharma into toilet paper too. I'm surprised christians in India haven't encroached on it yet, and declared that acting according to biblical commandments + accepting jeebus is the new (i.e. christian) definition of "Dharma". Rajeev Srinivasan and who knows how many others now (SEWA also, btw) have met them more than half-way by issuing the Dharmic certificate to the Adamic Abrahamic Yezidis.
Vikas Raina asked: "Sir, How would you define Dharmic unless you want to say Non-Abhramic instead."
While Dharmic is not defined by non-Abrahamic, but apparently by being [Indic plus] the use of the word "Dharma", it is certainly an implicit feature of Dharmic religions that they are not Abrahamic. [I could be wrong but I haven't yet heard of any Sikhs affirm that their invisible monotheistic once-Hindu/ex-Hindu godhead is the same as the invisible monogawd of christoislam/of Abraham. Although this may be a development that happens tomorrow, since Sikhism has evolved quite far away from its roots in its definition of its deity, so why stop now, especially since its re-formulation is inching ever closer to the monotheisms of the Abrahamisms?]
Yezidis have claimed variously to be Zoroastrians - to be accepted by Zoroastrians - all through the late 90s and early to mid 2000s. And have affirmed close cosmological/religious kinship with Christians and Jews (which is also not false). More recently/suddenly, since the ISIS crisis, rumours have surfaced of Yezidis being "Dharmic"/long lost Dharmic brothers all of a sudden. To get Indian support. It is opportunistic.
Of course new-agey Hindu Indians lap it up, because they see some motifs (reincarnation of old Indic influence, a peacock which is also Indic influence, sun worship which is remnant of Iranian religion) and decide that "therefore" Yezidis "must be" Dharmic.
Yezidis *have* Indian support. Both on the ground (R2004 blog mentioned Sri Sri & co. IIRC) and monetary from the average Hindoo (myself included), and moral from all Hindus.
But India should not offer permanent settlement of Yezidis in India - and it may never ever be made permanent, unless they forswear monotheism and revert to ancestral Kurdish/Iranian religion (which no one remembers what it is, so there's no way to reconstruct it, so it won't work out). India has had only slightly bad to genocidally bad repercussions from letting in any Abrahamisms. Hindus can finally decide to learn from the past.
And no rewriting that Abrahamisms - which Yezidis' religion is - is suddenly "Dharmic" too.
This post was on:
Why this next tweet is factually wrong and its suggestion is very ill-advised
twitter.com/RajeevSrinivasa/status/601229426135793664
Quote:rajeev srinivasan
ââ¬Â@RajeevSrinivasa
Hindus but also other dharmics incl Yazidi should be given automatic refuge. Buddhists have Thailand doing same.
rajeev srinivasan added,
Quote:Naren Ramakrishna @NarenMenon1
This is what I've been saying all along. Like Jews, Hindus should have the ability to perform 'Aliyah' to India
https:// twitter.com/prasannavishy/status/601224950758780928
1 retweet 3 favorites
vikasraina @vikasraina
@RajeevSrinivasa Sir, How would you define Dharmic unless you want to say Non-Abhramic instead.
And unless RajeevSrinivasan wants to redefine the meaning of Dharmic to include Abrahamic too (i.e. that Dharmic is the next term to mean "anything and everything"), he can't include Yezidis:
wildhunt.org/2014/09/in-the-crosshairs-of-persecution-the-yezidi.html
Quote:The references to Adam and God are not coincidental according to Hatim Darwesh, a American-based Yezidis who maintains a Yezidi Facebook group. [...] While quick to say that he is not a "religious expert," Darwesh was clear on several points: God is the same being who is worshiped in Abrahamic faiths; the Peacock Angel is not any sort of devil and the Yezidi religion is definitely monotheistic. In addition, within Yezidi culture, he says that the term "pagan" is used as a pejorative and not a label they themselves would welcome.
Note that even in 2014, when Yezidis are severely persecuted by their Adamic brothers in Abrahmic monotheism, there is a palpable abhorrence for not the just word "pagan" but what it means: they don't just want to be identified by it, but it is used as a pejorative in their own culture.
So consider, when they are given refuge in heathen "pagan" India and doing well, they will feel this distinction w.r.t. and odium towards "pagans" more deeply than during their current plight.
Syrian christians also came to India as refugees with their tails between their legs, but now are filled with self-entitlement to convert the land to their religion and fight the native "paganism" of India and conspire with their brothers in monotheism in India and overseas to bring down the heathen identity of India. Is it too beyond people's abilities to foresee that adding Yezidis into the cocktail will not in the long run favour the native heathens at all, but only raise another hand by which christoislam will slap and restrict Hindoo heathenism with?