Islam and the Non Muslims.
With the recent growth in terrorism and the terrorists claiming to be the flag bearers of the Islamic faith, a lot of questions are being raised about Islam as a religion. Vikas questions whether Islam is a peaceful religion. Confused asserts that Islam is not the real problem. And Nitin maintains that it is the state and not Islam per se and concludes that it is more of political issue than religious. There have been interesting comments on each of these posts. Though they all differ on what the problem is, they all acknowledge that there is a problem. Judging from the disagreements on issues it can be concluded that it is a fairly complex problem. But what is the problem?
In most simplistic terms the manifestation of the underlying problem is that, a bunch of madmen are blowing people and themselves up and while doing so claim that they have the religious authority to do so, and claim that the word of God is with them.
But why are they blowing people up? The answer to that is the real issue.
Is the issue religious? Do they want to convert the entire world to Islam? Or is it political? And religion is just a tool to achieve these political goals?
Let us take some places where terrorism is rampant.
- Kashmir -Territorial Dispute (political)
- Israel/Palestine - Territorial Dispute (political)
- Chechnya - Struggle for Independence (Again Territorial Dispute)
In all the above examples one can observe that all these disputes are political but there is one thing common…The tool used to fight is religion.
But where do the likes of Osama Bin Laden (OBL) fit in? What about Afghanistan and Iraq? To understand OBL’s position one needs to understand his goals.
So what is it that bin Laden wants today? His basic argument is that Muslims in the Middle East are currently suffering from political, social and economic deprivation for the simple reason that their governments have not fully implemented shariâa, or Islamic law. Because their rulers have failed to do this, bin Laden no longer considers them to be truly Muslim.
This is an interesting observation. There is a fact that the Muslims in the Middle East are currently suffering from political, social and economic deprivation. If this the problem then what is the reason? The reason according to him is that their governments have not fully implemented shariâa, or Islamic law. Note here that the end goal is to end goal is to end political, social and economic deprivation and the means to achieve that is extablishment of a governments based on shari’a or the Islamic law.
What is OBL’s gripe against America? In his article What does Osama bin laden want, David plotz notes the following…
What is his particular grievance against the United States? According to CNN’s Peter Bergen, author of a forthcoming book on Bin Laden, Holy War, Inc., Bin Laden is most enraged by the American military presence in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was incensed when the Saudis invited U.S. troops to their defense after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Bin Ladenâlike many Muslimsâconsiders the continued presence of these armed infidels in Saudi Arabia the greatest possible desecration of the holy land.
So why does OBL rely on terrorism as a means to achieve his goals? The author further notes that
Bin Laden has strategic reasons to believe in terrorism, too. The Muslim victory over the Soviet Union in Afghanistan showed him that superpowers are not so superpowerful. And the ignominious American withdrawal from Somaliaâfollowing a Bin Laden connected attackâconvinced him that the United States is morally weak. The U.S. soldier is “a paper tiger” who crumples after “a few blows.”
Now with his goal to cleanse the middle east he declared America as the enemy and declared a war. Now once the war is declared he is using Quranic verses written in times of war to justify all his acts.
The point of going through all this was to acknowledge Nitin’s point that it is more of a political issue that uses religion as a tool to achieve its objectives. I also agree with Confused that Islam is not the real problem.
Having identified the problem, how do you solve it? Obviously not an easy answer otherwise we would have done it by now. What makes it more difficult is the intertwining of religion with this issue. The first step in my view is to isolate the two (easier said than done. Right?).
At this point I would like to note that there is a vast majority of muslims that do not approve of OBL’s methodolgy of terrorism. These people fall into two categories. Moderates and Reformists. Moderates in my view are those who do not follow the extremist form of Islam. They go on living their lives having nothing to do with the likes of OBL. The reformists on the other hand are those who would come out in the open and oppose anything and everything that OBL does. They denounce terrorism. They acknowledge the problems in the Muslim society and are working towards changing it.
Why am I talking about these muslims? For everyone to acknowledge their existence and their importance! If we ignore such people and equate all muslilms to OBL, we end up attacking Islam. Once Islam is attacked these moderates and reformists, being believers, will take sides with other believers even if they are like OBL. So it is important not to attack Islam in this problem or we will end up losing muslim allies. The more Islam is attacked, the more it will turn into clash of the civilizations.
So now someone asked me, what do we do? We cannot attack Islam. We cannot say things against OBL that even have slightest religious undertones so what do we do? Sit like a duck and let them kill us? Hell no! Acknowledge that you are in a different kind of war with OBL and his gang. I repeat here , Isolate them within their religion. Of course being a non muslim, no one would believe what I say then what? I say, support the reformists. Do not isolate the moderates.
Acknowledge and respect their faith and believe them when they say Islam does not support violence against innocents. The usage of the slayer verse from quran that OBL used while asking muslims to attack American’s everywhere has been questioned and criticised by muslims. Take that explanation and run with it. Spread the word.
People ask why can’t muslilm cleric issue fatwas against terrorism. Beleive me they have! For every fatwa that OBL has issued there have been dozen other fatwas issued against him and terrorism. Aisha Eteraz has post explaining why fatwas don’t work against mad men. That post has a link to most of the fatwas issued against terrorism.
How come fatwas issued by OBL is known to everyone and these fatwas do not even get a mention? We need to fight this by media power. Unfortunately the media is only interested in ratings and would not take up this cause. But we have to keep pushing. We need to fight the propoganda war.
People also say why can’t muslims protest like civilised people if they don’t like something. Akram’s Razor tries to come with an explanation here. The important thing to note is how someone acts has something to do with his socio-economic and political condition.
We all must understand that finger pointing and name calling will not bring about any reform in any community, if that is the intention . It has to come from within the community. We can do our part by supporting them. If you have questions and doubts then talk to someone who knows about it. Here is an example.
Once the terrorists are stripped of their religious authority, it will be very difficult for them to recruit in the name of religion. Once their ranks start thinning down, it will be very easy to defeat them.
Islam and Muslims are going through a turbulent phase that every religion has gone through at some point in time. It is their turn now to reform. I would like to quote from this article by Abdul Hakim Murad.
One does not have to subscribe to determinist social theories to realise the importance of the almost universal condition of insecurity which Muslim societies are now experiencing. The Islamic world is passing through a most devastating period of transition. A history of economic and scientific change which in Europe took five hundred years, is, in the Muslim world, being squeezed into a couple of generations. For instance, only thirty-five years ago the capital of Saudi Arabia was a cluster of mud huts, as it had been for thousands of years. Today’s Riyadh is a hi-tech megacity of glass towers, Coke machines, and gliding Cadillacs. This is an extreme case, but to some extent the dislocations of modernity are common to every Muslim society, excepting, perhaps, a handful of the most remote tribal peoples.
Such a transition period, with its centrifugal forces which allow nothing to remain constant, makes human beings very insecure. They look around for something to hold onto, that will give them an identity. In our case, that something is usually Islam. And because they are being propelled into it by this psychic sense of insecurity, rather than by the more normal processes of conversion and faith, they lack some of the natural religious virtues, which are acquired by contact with a continuous tradition, and can never be learnt from a book.
The author goes on to conclude
At this critical moment in our history, the umma has only one realistic hope for survival, and that is to restore the ‘middle way’, defined by that sophisticated classical consensus which was worked out over painful centuries of debate and scholarship. That consensus alone has the demonstrable ability to provide a basis for unity. But it can only be retrieved when we improve the state of our hearts, and fill them with the Islamic virtues of affection, respect, tolerance and reconciliation. This inner reform, which is the traditional competence of Sufism, is a precondition for the restoration of unity in the Islamic movement. The alternative is likely to be continued, and agonising, failure.
What we (Non Muslims) should do is help/support the moderates and reformists and not attack them (by attacking Islam) and corner them. As somone rightly noted once, “As long as they are on the defensive, they cannot be on the offensive (against terrorism)”
Related Post:
September 22, 2006
Posted in: Islam, Politics, Terrorism
29 Responses
You have done a lot of reading
I cannot agree more to the points you have raised. btw you need to answer few questions on my blog (the post on vande mataram)
Completely agree that best way to fight such terrorism is - identify the Terrorists as just that - don’t link them to any religion.
This may make a lot of difference. Perhaps Bush should seriously think about this.
I have reproduced the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, accessible from here, against Salman Rushdie for his Satanic Verses:
The author of The Satanic Verses, a text written, edited, and published against Islam, against the Prophet of Islam, and against the Koran, along with all the editors and publishers aware of its contents, are condemned to capital punishment. I call on all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world to execute this sentence without delay, so that no one henceforth will dare insult the sacred beliefs of the Muslims.
I’d appreciate it very much if you or Aisha Etreaz could point me to one fatwa against Osama Bin Laden that called for his death in such clear terms, and from an Islamic religious authority who’s of Khomeini’s standing. Please, spare humoring me with Musharrafesque statements of condemnation. For a complete history of fatwas, statements, and actions surrounding the Rushdie incident, see here. When you read thm, please bear in mind that these are a mere ng a criticism of a few verses that were written one and one half of a thousand years ago, when the brightest intellects around the world thought that sun revolved around the earth, and not for the cold-blooded murder of nearly 3000 ordinary folks like you, me, and Aisha.
Shaarique,
I will get to your blog soon.
Apun Ka Desh,
Glad to see that there are others who think like these.
mimamsaka,
Shouldn’t you take comfort in the fact that the moderate clerics are not asking for Osama’s head on a dinner plate? Isn’t that indicative of the fact that not every fatwa issuer is as evil as Osama Bin Laden or Ayatollah Khomeini? What would you rather have? One evil pitched against the other?
Also if all the muslims take these Fatwas by OBL and ayatollah khomeini seriously, Sulman Rushdie would be dead by now. Do you think it is impossible for 1.5 billion muslims to kill Salman Rushdie if every muslim took this as seriously as the evil minded few?
The whole point of the post is to point out that there are moderate and reformists muslims and that we should support them and you are asking me to go look for those violent fatwa issuing clerics?
As for criticising the verses written 1500 years ago, I don’t think that intolerance to criticism comes from the fact that someone criticising quran is right or wrong. It comes from how they have been living for all these years and it is futile to measure that inability against the secular standards and free speech and other democratic standards.
The best way to make them understand the benefit of adopting these values is a reform within the community. And this reform has to come from the insiders. What I have pointed out that there are insiders trying to do that job. We should help them if we want to participate.
PI (may I call you “pai”) - a real long post! the last paragraph in there - that is the most important one. Hate breeds hate. Hate brews biases. We should not corner all of “them” whenever these incidents happen. We need to help support whatever efforts the islamic community makes to attack and question the terrorists amongst them.
Being a moderate myself (don’t go by my Vande Mataram posts - those were more of questions), I get attacked at times for this “dont corner all of ‘them’” theory. One questions I get asked is - how come there were so many protests over Danish cartoons, but no visible protests against acts of terrorism themselves. Fatwas etc have been issued against OBL and all, whether those were ‘visible’ or not, I dont know. And I dont know if that question is fair and justified.
silkboard:
The protests against terrorists and fatwas do not get that much visibilty is true. I think this has to do with the fixation of the media with sensational news. They do not provide the similar coverage to other news. Also sometimes there is a bias in the media. One such observation is here at indscribe
You can call me that but why do you want to type an extra character? You have already shortened it enough
The other reason I think is that people don’t tend to react the same way to different issues. More so if they are not affected by it directly. An example that I always quote is that when hindu gods and godessess are depicted on lingerie then it is the Hindus who protested VISIBLY a lot but not the muslims. When Pope issued a statement against Islam, it was the muslims who VISIBLY protested and not the hinus.
This is human nature. Another non religious example is that of section 377. Homosexuals would protest against it but most of the straight guys won’t come on the street. Some would support the homosexual but not as VISIBLY as the homosexuals themselves. What I am trying to say is that individual events need to be analysed within its own merits.
Now with muslims it becomes even more difficult with the use of Islam to justify terrorist acts. Now most would say , I know OBL is evil but he is quoting verses from quran so is it possible that he is right? Remember not every muslim is a SCHOLAR on Islam so he might not take a stand at all and get on with his own life.
A parallel can be seen among hindus. Most hindus would say that the statues cannot drink milk but some would believe in their minds what if that thing is true? Am I doing something wrong by saying anything against it?
The two examples have different degree of intensity attached to it but I hope I have been able to point the mindset aspect of it.
You are trying to put words into my mouth. I am not saying I want musslim clerics to issue fatwas asking for OBL’s head. My comment was in response to you emphasized “We need to fight the propoganda war.” This is an attempt to shift the blame from the terrorists and the impotence of moderate mulsims to the media. I was merely pointing you to facts. The inability of moderate muslims to check terrorism among muslims - in fact, there is some credibility to the allegation that terrorists could not have done what they did and remain incognito without shielding from some moderate muslim - is not a fantastic fiction created by conspiratorial journalists from around the world. And, of course, I don’t dismiss “an eye for an eye can save the other eye”, lightly either. If you did, this is what’d happen:
mimamsaka:
It is not true that I am shifting the blame from the terrorists to the media. I was responding to your question. All I am saying is that the media doesn’t give as much attention to moderates as it gives to the extremists. People like OBL can get as much coverage as they want and at the time of their choosing and not others. OBL uses religion to incite violence and there are others who denoune his use of religion and explain the fallacies in his arguments. While OBL gets the coverage and others don’t. It is this propaganda war that we need to fight.
In the next comment you say
Even though these two posts are conflicting I won’t argue on this and take your word that you are not looking for such clerics.
I agree that the terrorists would not be successful if not for support from some muslims. But I would not term them as moderates. If they are helping terrorists they can not be moderates. So yes, there are muslims who are helping terrorists but not the moderates unless they are being asked to help at gunpoint.
Regarding intolerance…Let me first make clear that I am not saying that their intolerance is correctly justified, what I am saying is that there is a reason to it.
I emphasize again that the Muslim world is in need of reforms and these reforms will come from the muslim community itself. Non muslims cannot lead those reforms but can only help it by supporting the reformists in whatever way we can. In order to aid the reforms it is important to understand how an ordinary muslim always works within the framework of his religion.
The other point that I am making from this post is that terming Islam as evil or as non peaceful religion can not help. It will only alienate the moderates and the reformists. We cannot afford to let that happen.
The issue of terrorism is a major one and an important step to fight them is to isolate them within the religion and not club every muslim with them.
arre bhai sorry for the confusion…frivolous referred to those posts that sparked the controversy not your precious comments
Sharique,
Thanks for clearing that up.
I replied on your post as well.
Krishworld Politics » Blog Archive » What can non-muslims do to stop Islamic fanaticism - September 30, 2006
[...] If you ask my honest opinion on this issue, I will just say that non muslims should mind their own business and first stop the fundamentalists in their own religion. However, it cannot be the case always. Especially when the terrorism by Islamic fundamentalists hits on the face of everyone including non muslims. Polite Indian has this great post about how non muslims should deal with Islamic fanaticism. I have offered similar opinions in bits and pieces on my blog. But he has put it in a very neat way. It is a must read if you even have a passing interest on this issue. I would just want to add the following to his great post. [...]
Silkboard,
When people ask questions like
I would do the following.
1) If the person is a Hindu, I will ask him “when there is a blast in mumbai, we see so many people protesting in Mumbai and the blogosphere is full of condemnation. But if there is a blast near a mosque in Malegaon, there are no protests (the modis and advanis appear to be unaware of where Malegaon is) and the Indian blogosphere is very quiet about it. Why is it so?”
2) If the person is Christian or an American, I would ask him “When an Ayotollah in Iran talks rubbish about Christianity or America, there is widespread condemnation. But if a Pope talks crap about islam, there is an eerie of silence. If 9/11 or 7/7 happens and innocents are killed, there are loud protests or calls for retaliation but if innocents are killed in Iraq or lebanon, there is not even a murmur and no calls for retaliation against the perpetuators of crime. Why is it so?”
I hope these two answers helps you take care of such questions.
Whether it is muslims or hindus or christians, their societies don’t apply the same yardstick everywhere. It is not just an issue associated with a single religion. Do you really want to know what every religion should do. They should shut their mouth up about other religions and concentrate on clearing the crap in one’s own religion. Only when people try to promote the “We are superior, you are inferior” mantra, trouble starts to brew.
PS: I apologize to Polite Indian for taking up his space with my kinda talk. Hope you don’t mind this. Great work dude. Keep it up. I wish I could use a language similar to yours when talking about these issues.
Krish,
Thanks for stopping by.
You are most welcome here to share your views.
Is Islam violent? « Polite Indian - October 3, 2006
[...] Why? Because OBL(Osama Bin Laden) and the Ayatollahs rely on those 300+ verses to justify their acts? Because these verses are used to recruit new terrorists? How stupid is it to believe that the new recruits join only because of those verses and that they have no other grudge against their enemies? They don’t have anything Social, Politial or Economic agenda and they want to only implement these violent passages of the Quran? If the Quran is the sole guiding principle for them why don’t follow the other 5899 verses? Also if they are so keen on following the Sharia then why don’t they heed to the fatwas issued against them? I have provided a link in my previous post to an article explaining why fatwas don’t work against madmen. [...]
Arguments with muslims (read Islamists) are absolutly useless-history has proved that at every step.
All those who have committed the mistake of assuming that islam can be peaceful or muslims could be befriended, have ended up with burnt hands. A most relevent example is our own foolish Gandhi-baba.
One critical fact that we ignore too often is that the hatred and fear of islam in the west is not a result of prejudice or bad-press etc. it is result of the bitter experience the people of west had had from muslims, again and again snd again.
The self-consolation that “Islam is generally a peaceful religion, only a microscopic community is spreading terror and hatred etc. etc…” I wish my judgement could say that too, It sounds so great, pacifying !…no ?
But facts of real life are somewhat bitter. Those of history are far more bitter, even poisonous. If you have had the strange experience of discussing with our muslims friends you would know by now that they cannot accept criticism. Their minds and heart are closed to the light of reason and inquiry, no matter wherever they live in the world, in India, in Porkistan, in USA, in Europe, in Arab or anywhere else their first love is not their national identity but islam !
04/04/07
Krish speaks
“1) If the person is a Hindu, I will ask him âwhen there is a blast in mumbai, we see so many people protesting in Mumbai and the blogosphere is full of condemnation. But if there is a blast near a mosque in Malegaon, there are no protests (the modis and advanis appear to be unaware of where Malegaon is) and the Indian blogosphere is very quiet about it. Why is it so?â
Thiagan retorts
The answer is simple. It is the sunni muslims who are bombing the shia mosques; why we should protest. We welcome such sectarian killings and the problem is solved. Advani and Mody treat these incidents as acts of Islamic love between brothers.
Krish speaks
2) if the person is Christian or an American, I would ask him âWhen an Ayotollah in Iran talks rubbish about Christianity or America, there is widespread condemnation. But if a Pope talks crap about islam, there is an eerie of silence. If 9/11 or 7/7 happens and innocents are killed, there are loud protests or calls for retaliation but if innocents are killed in Iraq or lebanon, there is not even a murmur and no calls for retaliation against the perpetuators of crime. Why is it so?â
Thiagan retorts
What the Pope said is true and what Khomeni said is false. We are the witness to the after effects of the Pope’s remarks- violent protests, extensive damage to the property, murder of a nun in Somalia all certified that Islam is violent. Let Hizbolla stop acts of terror and suicide bombing and if Iraq did not invade Kuwait, these two places would not have been bombed.
Krish, I posted a detailed rejoinder for the gibberish that you wrote on Uniform Civil Code. Why did you run away from the debate.
05 04 07
The PI states
âLet us take some places where terrorism is rampant.
⢠Kashmir -Territorial Dispute (political)
⢠Israel/Palestine - Territorial Dispute (political)
⢠Chechnya - Struggle for Independence (Again Territorial Dispute)
In all the above examples one can observe that all these disputes are political but there is one thing commonâŚThe tool used to fight is religion.â
The conclusion is easily drawn and is also politically correct; it is, however, devoid of an honest appraisal of the situation. It is like treating cancer with penicillin; it is puerile. How will PI explain the following. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, met in 1786 in London with the Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. These future American presidents were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty which would spare the United States the ravages of jihad piracyâmurder, enslavement (with ransoming for redemption), and expropriation of valuable commercial assetsâemanating from the Barbary states (modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, known collectively in Arabic as the Maghrib). During their discussions, they questioned Ambassador Adja as to the source of the unprovoked animus directed at the nascent United States republic. Jefferson and Adams, in their subsequent report to the Continental Congress, recorded the Tripolitan Ambassadorâs justification:
⌠that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.
Thus as Joshua Londonâs Victory in Tripoli elaborates in lucid prose, an aggressive jihad was already being waged against the United States almost 200 years prior to America becoming a dominant international power in the Middle East. Moreover, these jihad depredations targeting America antedated the earliest vestiges of the Zionist movement by a century, and the formal creation of Israel by 162 yearsâexploding the ahistorical canard that American support for the modern Jewish state is a prerequisite for jihadist attacks on the United States.
05/04/07
Krish says
â Whether it is muslims or hindus or christians, their societies donât apply the same yardstick everywhere. It is not just an issue associated with a single religion. Do you really want to know what every religion should do. They should shut their mouth up about other religions and concentrate on clearing the crap in oneâs own religion. Only when people try to promote the âWe are superior, you are inferiorâ mantra, trouble starts to brew.â
Thiagan retorts
Hinduism has always respected other faiths and has given an equal treatment. Jews and Parsis are the examples and there is a minor attrition with Christianity due to conversion. Christian record may have been violent; but reforms have taken place and the violence is historical; the religion now treats others in a fair manner.
But the problem of violence in Islam is theological and more intrinsic; see the verses:
They shall be slaughtered or crucified
Or their hands or feet shall alternately
Be struck off or they shall be banished
From the landâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚâŚ..(5.37-38)
â strike of their heads till ye have made
A great slaughter among them and of the
Rest make fast the fetters
And afterwards let there either be free dismissals or ransomings
Till the war hath laid down its burdens. ThusâŚâŚâŚ(47.4-5)
How can we overlook a billion brain washed lunatics, quoting the above and similar verses and perpetrating violent acts of terror; intimidating others over trivia like Muhammed cartoons; inundating peaceful societies like Sweden with rapes, plunders, thefts etc; manipulating democracies by disproportionate increase of their numbers; causing enormous strain on well intentioned welfare states by being unproductive; enslaving their women, with purdha, female genital manipulation, honour killings, gang rapes etc and in short by indulging in barbarity. No civilised society can look the other way, unless they want to become dhimmies in their own country. Krish may be comfortable being a dhimmy, other are not.
09/04/07
PI & Krish,
Why you are not responding
Thiagan
Dear Brother,
Please look at the full context —-
Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to Allah): It was accepted from one, but not from the other. Said the latter: “Be sure I will slay thee.” “Surely,” said the former, “Allah doth accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous.
“If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear Allah, the cherisher of the worlds.
“For me, I intend to let thee draw on thyself my sin as well as thine, for thou wilt be among the companions of the fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong.”
The (selfish) soul of the other led him to the murder of his brother: he murdered him, and became (himself) one of the lost ones.
Then Allah sent a raven, who scratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. “Woe is me!” said he; “Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?” then he became full of regrets-
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; âŚ.
(Quran : Al Maeeda Chapter 5, Verses 27 â 33)
The background here is that if the people wage a war against the Allah and His Messenger. Any army general in the background of war doesnât he command that if the soldiers find their enemy they ought to kill him? Furthermore, for those who donât want to fight the following is stated in the next Verse.
Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
(Quran : Al Maeeda Chapter 5, Verses 34)
Same with the other verses again –
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.
(Quran : Muhammed Chapter 38, Verse 04)
Again the background is Battle field.
12/04/07
It is the contention of Shri.Abdulla that the violent verses are event related; revealed at the time of war.Then the following will be the problem:
> why no muslim scholar of any repute categorically state that these verses have no eternal application, since they are event related. It is something like Bhagawad Gita; a call to Arjun to fight the war by the Lord and no Hindu understands today that it is a call to kill others.
> Ahemedias, a section of the muslims, actually believe this interpretation; but they are persecuted by both Sunni ans Shia muslims as apostates
> why such an understanding has not permeated to the majority of the muslims during the last 1200 years
> if Koraan is the last word of the omniscient Allah, why did he not be clear on this point, with an emphatic clarification
Sir, hence I suspect that your explanation is only taquiaa or deception in the war for world domination; did not Koraan say was is deceipt.
16/06/07
I am wondering why PI, Krish and Abdulla are not responding. Islam has undergone an intense scrutiny and it is found to be evil and unfit for 21st century.
Krish, PI:
Responding to your reasoning regarding lack of Muslims protesting against terrorism, I’m not sure how that computes.
What could be a bigger affront to Islam than some crazy Muslims doing acts of terrorism in the name of Islam? Shouldn’t that bring out people to protest? Surely, terrorism does more harm than cartoons.
Are OBL’s actions less of an insult to Islam than publishing of Danish cartoons and knighthood for Salman Rushdie? Acts of terrorism directly affect Muslims and how Muslims are perceived by the world. One bad apple and all that.
I’d also like to add that when Hindutva elements fan the flames of hatred, you can probably find a critic at every corner.
Hello everyone! Hi PI, Krish etc.
(Thiagan and I are acquainted. Hey Thiagan, I know you have responded to this post. But i’ve put it here for others to see and come to their own conclusions.)
I got here from http://satyameva-jayate.org/2007/07/08/discussion-on-hindutva-islam-zakir-naik-godhra/#comment-4586
Thiagan says:
âThomas Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, met in 1786 in London with the Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja
.
.
.
.
these jihad depredations targeting America antedated the earliest vestiges of the Zionist movement by a century, and the formal creation of Israel by 162 yearsâexploding the ahistorical canard that American support for the modern Jewish state is a prerequisite for jihadist attacks on the United States.
Firstly, please quote your reference.
Secondly, America back then was at war with Europeans, were wiping out the Native American population with unhindered cruelty, were proponents of slavery, bonded labour, subjugation of rights, and a White Supremacist State. If present circumstances are of any value to you, hereâs some food for thought. If the above state of affairs existed in an oil-rich country today, the US govt. would be the first to wage a war, no, a âpre-emptiveâ strike rather, for the sake of humankind. So being a supporter of US humanitarian initiatives in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. you should support the attitude of Sidi Adja. And last I heard, they were taking slaves in from Africa. All the more reasons to worry for Adja. Stop making it look like two innocent boys went about asking Uncle Adja for candy and the cruel uncle rebuked them (The last line based on the style of writing. Solomon will understand. Itâs for him).
Thirdly, (Iâm assuming here) from the sound of it, I believe that was a private conversation. So there is no proof that Adja said anything like that. Frankly, I donât even know who he is. Iâm just speculating here.
And finally, even if Beavis and Butthead are telling the truth, and Jadeja really did say those things, that does not mean he speaks for all of Islam. Beavis and Butthead werenât from the most respectable, human rights-respecting country in the world back then. If they could capture people, plunder them, rape and molest them in the name of Colour, I donât see why Jadeja canât say silly things in the name of religion. Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja is a man I know nothing of and have never heard his name being quoted so often that I take him seriously.
You can delve into history and point out instances when Muslims said and did committed violent acts of rape and plunder. Well, you arenât the only one with access to the annals of history.
Pope Urban I, by the way, granted remission of all sins to anyone who joined the Holy War against Muslims. He said of the Muslim Turks â âan accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God.â He added, it was Christian duty to âexterminate this vile race from our lands.â
- from The Shade of Swords by MJ Akbar. Pg. 87 (You may question the veracity of the author due to his religion, but let me add that he is married to a Christian and she hasnât converted to Islam.
It is common knowledge that Popes authorized the Crusades).
You can say that the Popes did so because the Muslim menace became intolerable etc etc. But I would expect country folk to feel that hatred for Muslims. But the Pope?
I thought Christians are supposed to âshow the other cheekâ and also that there are âno violent verses in the New Testamentâ, then how is it that at one point of time, Christians had colonized the entire world? How is it that the Popes blessed their voyages towards rape and plunder? How is it that their Pope authorized war?
No matter how much you defend the political, military reasons why the Popes authorized the wars, fact remains - Wars were fought in the name of religion, irrespective of whether the religion was âVIOLENTâ or was a âWHITE LITLE PEACE DOVE.â
02/08/07
Regarding Ali’s comment:
Regarding the African piracy, you take any book on Thomas Jefferson and you will find the incident narrated in detail. Jefferson purchased an English version of Koraan to learn about the religion and the signed copy is still available in the Congress library and Keith Ellison, a muslim senator recently elected, was administered oath of office with this copy. You want to deny history; that is your pleasure.
03/08/07
Ali says
“Pope Urban I, by the way, granted remission of all sins to anyone who joined the Holy War against Muslims. He said of the Muslim Turks â âan accursed race, a race utterly alienated from God.â He added, it was Christian duty to âexterminate this vile race from our lands.â”
Thiagan says:
> The remarks are event related. It was exhorted at the time Crusades and today no Christian goes about killing muslims and quote a Papal sanction; muslims quote and kill
> Palestine was originally the home of Jews and Christians and muslims captured it in the eighth century after defeating them. Crusades was meant to recapture the Holy land fromthe Islamic aggression
> I have said earlier and again repeat that all converting religions are bound to be violent; marketshare being the driving force. Hinduism, non converting, never resorted to violence. Reform movements forced Christianity to separate religion and politics and eschew religious violence. Islam refuses to reform.
03/08/07
Ali says:
“Secondly, America back then was at war with Europeans, were wiping out the Native American population with unhindered cruelty, were proponents of slavery, bonded labour, subjugation of rights, and a White Supremacist State. ”
Thiagan says:
It is true that Americans killed the native population, practised slavery and was at war with Btitain; but that is for their independence. But they also abolished slavery, created a bill of rights and treat all citizens with equality and dignity.
Please name one muslim country that:
> guarantees human rights to its monority population
> has a sustained democratic structure, separation of powers, an independent judiciary
> ensures that its women are treated with dignity and empowerment
> practises religious tolerance towards others
The problem with Islam is that it demands secularism when in minority and practises theocracy when in majority. The world is fast losing its patience.
Leave a Reply