Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments

FerozK#68

``With all due respect to your arguments on the concept of jihad, it still does not change the fact that the United States is in any mood debate this concept and try to understand its historic origins. ROFL :)``

Apparently, it seems to be the case. But isnt that what was happening all along? Why and how would be the results different this time?

Venki # 13

You ask:

``Explain how an imported ideology called Islam, which is native to Arabia, came to be seen as the hope of the people in a place called Pakistan and a number of other countries far removed from the Arab milieu of the 7th century.``

Reply:

The basic premise of this argument is wrong. Islamic ideology was never imported from Arabia into Paksitan. Islam has a over 1400 years of existence in the subcontinent. Even then the most of the influence did not come from Arabia. It was from North. If Islam were forced onto the local people then it should have died as soon as the British took over. Or instead of being 16% of the total population of subcontinent Muslims would have been 95% over a course of 1000 years. and the name Hindustan would have been Muslimanistan. The ideology appealed to the people throughout the centuries. It was better than what people had at the time, so it convinced them and ideology became local. And the nature of idelogy itself is universal in nature, it is independent of nationalism and yet recognizes it as well.


You say:

Perhaps there is hope for Pakistani society after all. The nominally Muslim people of Pakistan will choose from Islam what is relevant and harmonius to their cultural norms and reject the regressive, radical and fundamentalist interpretation of Islam (as practised by the Taliban) that seems to be masquerading as the `real` version of Islam.

Reply:

Islam permits such adaptations,otherwise, it is virtually impossible for any ideology to grow and spread. The presence of Islam from North America to Japan is an attestation to this effect.

Nameless # 15

The struggle to eradicate social evils is an on going struggle. And it is happening in Paksitan as it is happening in India or United States or Madagasker.

THere are several movements and organisations in Paksitan, both religious and non-religious who are trying to raise the level of awareness of the people. Since most of the problems that you have pointed out, exist despite having legislation, because they have more to do with level of awareness of pople. The education is another tool which is being employed. And BTW I am not satisfied the way things are progressing. One should never be.

Sadna # 23

Please read the article one more time. It answers all your questions.

Narain #26

You said:

....and while society today feels that all wars should be avoided as far as possible even if there is some cause, no such restraint need apply to Muslims since (according to you) jihad is demanded by God and therefore incumbent on all muslims. So where exactly does the ``Islam is a religion of peace`` fit in?

Reply:

I have quoted 4 verses with the objectives of Jihad. Please explain how can one interpret that Islam ``compels`` its followers to go on a war. Jihad is incumbent upon Muslims because Islam recognizes war as a fact of life. It is not some fairy tale religion, it is the life of living and breathing people that it deals with. So if war is so premitive thing to do and present day society is in a process of paradigm shift on wars then why US which is supposed to be most advanced society of the world is getting ready for a war. Why dont they talk their way out of it? Why they, and other NATO, and even India has the biggest arsenal in the known universe.

As far as your comment ``Islam is a religion of peace`` is concerned, according to Islam taking the life of one innocent is equal to taking life of whole humanity.

You say:
..and of course by these rules, it is okay for Israel to kill the Palestinians, since they represent a ``potential threat`` (item 3) to their nation, not to mention their being ideologically different (item 1)? Much as it was Allah`s command that the Turks massacre millions of Armenians for precisely the same reasons?

Reply:

Islam draws a very discreet line between right and wrong. There are hundered of verses in which Muslims are specifically instructed
to uphold justice. Do you think Israelis killing stone throwing Palitinains with asault rifles is justice? Please provide evidence that Armenians were killed in the name of religion.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

hey urstruly!

right of self-determination:

what jihadis are fighting for?

to repress women, to deprive them of their identity, marry many women and don`t use protection (biblical beliefs), leave more jihadis in this world. when prophet preached whatever`s in Quaran, probably he did it unite people for some common cause, which might have been relevant then, want to still strictly follow the strict interpreation of islam, change people, change is the way of life. did Quaran talk about kalahnikovs, TNT, grenade, landmines. If jihadis are following stricct interpreation of islam why not take a camel ride and sticks to fight. No one text can give what a man is looking for, however holy it may be.

what jihadis are fighting for, i don`t understand, wherever such elements are present they cause chaos, fighting, incite communal violence, no freedom, no security, repressing women, steal women of their identity. I understand in every race, religion there`re violent elements. But wherever islamists are majority or reasonably big in number the disruptive elements are large in number, what should be an exception is so prevalent why so?

if islam is so pure and islamists are so pure, why the people of afghan (99% muslim) is dying of hunger and poverty, go and get aid from the arab mullahs, why beg the west and kafirs?

the arab muslims, will treat south asians like sh.., regardless of whether you`re muslim or non-muslim.

tell me one thing where islam is a majority religion, people are free, women aren`t oppressed, other believers can freely practice their religion. I know there`re only couple of countries that`re moderate others are intolerant to others beliefs and freedom. since the islamists are oppressed by their own people, they try to vent their anger in some form.

Urstruly:

A good article, except for a few contradictions pointed out by a few people. One particular one that I found interesting was that when islam was first brought to subcontinent through Mohammad bin Qasim, was it not alien at that time? I mean dont get me wrong, I donot like what the west did to us any more than you do. But from that reasoning, you can even say that Islam came as an outside influence, and wasnt an internal phenomenon.

Another thing, why did the muslims have to go on a conquering spree, which meant waging wars even against ahle-kitab. Now if the entire time they were doing it in their own defence then its correct, but if it was to obtain power, then it is incorrect according to your logic.

What you said about jihad seems quite logical. Unfortunately, the khalifas were not the most democratic rulers. And they have been known to carry out injustices against their political enemies.

There are quite a few flaws with the so called islamic governements of today. So unless they dont perfect the art of practicing proper Islamic political structure, they should not be allowed to come into power.

People who think Pakistan is an Islamic political system:

Are you guys living in our neigbourhood? If so, have you not been catching PTV? Pakistan was at most in its ``wannabe`` Islamic political state at the time of Zia. And at that time too, Zia by virtue of being a military dictator, fails the Islamic structure.

The problem in Pakistans political system is a topic of another discussion altogether, so please donot even bring it in focus when we are talking about something else all together.

sadna

Many get confused about which is jihad and which is not and tend to have a geographic dimension to it. The central element of jihad is the willingness to die for the cause of relegion. Once a person is trained for this, then it is a simple act of showing the target.

It is the western idea of recognising the causes, the nationality etc that is clouding the issue. Jihad ariginates and is sustained by a frame of reference alien to what we know of.

No apology to YLH, anNy

You should have noticed by now that I do not take any ones posts in a personal manner, i dont refer to your rudgers and for that matter any specifics. You anny sarwari, to me represent the educated young of pakistan, and from your posts i devine the essential value concepts and my posts are directed at that. I have seen it several times the abu word for father by pakistanis, young pakistanis, and may be you are in a better position to say that abu is not used by any young pakistanis.

In any case your recod in accepting the tuth has been abysmal, even now you claim that no temples were distroyed in pakistan, may be not ven ahmadia mosques. Again you have never accepted the legal sanctity of honour killings, i dont expect you to accept the stonong during the zia times.

I dont create libraries with anti pak material, I dont even keep a copy of my posts, it is pure entertainment, revival of pakibashing. By the way even americans seem to be taking to it. Now that dwarf throwing is banned, time to invent a new sport, what you say for pakibashing, and you could be in the olympics, to be bashed.

tahmed,

{{Rest assured that it teaches respect for people of other faiths. It teaches mercy, it teaches kindness, it teaches living in peace with one`s neighbors. It teaches muslims not to consider themselves anything special since each individual will be judged by God.}}

Beautifully stated!

Which is why the US govt & the overwhelming majority of the US public has not held Islam accountable for those dastardly acts on 9/11.

The problem is not religion; but humankind. Throughout history, we have distorted something as sacred as religion into an instrument of hatred. More crimes against humanity have been commited in the name of religion than any other cause.

We mould religion to fit into our standards of morality. The irony is that all religions were created to mould morality into standards of religion.

Urstruly,

Tried to post this reply yesterday afternoon (10/01/01), and was told it had gone through, but evidently not.

I have read your article and found it to be of great interest. To reply as fully as I might like I would take something fairly extensive - only partly with regard to what you have written, but more broadly in regard to what I believe to be the importance of the issues you raise. On these matters I seek a dialog and would appreciate any and all participation. I have a day job, however, and time and energy are not as abundant as I would like. I beg, therefore, some indulgence in regard to the promptness of the more complete reply I hope to make. Some quick responses, however. (1) In the matter of Jihad, I consider myself considerably enlightened, and I am grateful. I am also heartened by an Op-Ed piece in the Sunday New York Times September 30, 2001. The general impression in the non-Islamic world isn’t that more reasoned and balanced voices are not present, but that they have not been prominent, or at least anywhere near as prominent, as the more strident and militant ones. It seems that what you term the lunatic fringe (and I think we agree on the characterization) enjoys a disproportionate share of the media available, and what they think, and their agenda are what much of the Islamic world hears too much of the time. Although I admit, people everywhere tend to hear what is presented to them as a threat far more loudly and clearly than something benign, and this may play a part. The converse of this would be the offense taken over President Bush’s use of the term Crusade. For the West the Crusades, are long past, and the term has been used in so wide a variety of contexts, that the associations the Islamic world finds in it are rather distant to both Americans and Europeans. Eisenhower, for example, used the word in the title of his account of the European Campaign he led in WWII against the Nazis (2) In the matter of the “plunder” of oil: My objection here only constitutes a small and minor element in what I want to say as a whole, and so separating it here is perhaps appropriate. Overall the modern world, and the West in particular, is guilty of great deal in regard to their imperial adventures, but in this case, we do PAY for the oil. Further, the oil is black goo in the ground which has been transformed through the alchemy of human creativity (rooted in modern science) into a resource which powers the world. In general, the people who pay for the resource are the ones who made it valuable in the first place. I am bemused, and a little bewildered, to find it regarded as an instance of exploitation. (3) If anyone would like to know something of the strength of my country as it begins to address this crisis, you would be well advised to seek out the Thursday September 27, 2001 issue of the Christian Science Monitor. It is a good beginning exploration of the attitudes towards America and the West held broadly throughout the Muslim world. (4) The question of inconsistency (and yes hypocrisy) in American, and more broadly in Democracies’ foreign policies, is the principal matter I want to discuss in what will follow. As an indicator of the complexities therein, consider that Western power in the Balkans was used to fight on behalf of Muslims against the Serbs; and that, in the Gulf War, the Allied forces fought along side some Muslims on behalf of one authoritarian (and professed Muslim) regime, against another far larger and more totalitarian regime, also claiming a Muslim identity. Things are not very straightforward in this matter.

Urstruly,

By definition, Terrorism is not part of a political structure. Yes, a group of people or an organization uses the act of terrorism to make THEIR statement, but it can not be treated as a statement from an elected body. These organizations may share views of masses, but until they are governing body of a nation, their political statement does not constitute terrorizing people in order to make their point. To this extent, Taliban, with their profile that fits terrorist group, are not terrorists but the one which harbors terrorist. Their actions against the allied forces or USA will not be considered as terrorist acts but war. Their political statements, for all its worth, must be heard. But if their demands are not met, Taliban government can not hide behind terrorist groups to justify their violence. Either they as a nation go to war, or stop supporting terrorism.

My views on some of the questions you have asked, and does not represent the views of ALL Americans:

1. If they hold virtue of Democracy above everything so much so that they have declared this attack on US as an `attack on Democracy` then why their government supports tyrants and despots throughout the world. Historically, US government has supported even those who have committed crimes against humanity and their own people. So the question is whether people of United State also support the actions of their government in this regard or not; since their government is Democratically elected?

Not always, not all the time, and never without opposition.

Historically, it is evident that when any one nation has overwhelming power (a super-power), it`s power is used or misused depending on it`s ruler. Those who misused it, has caused harm to the civilization. For example, Hitler in recent history, Some Moghul emperors in past history tried to use their power to suit their interests. When USSR and USA were in a position to become a single super-power, the state of the world was dependent on who will prevail as a super-power. Communism or Democracy. To maintain democratic environment throughout the world, it is absolutely important that peace is maintain in all parts of the world. To this extent, majority of people of USA support the government, not by overwhelming majority all the time (congressional vote to go on war against Iraq was very close where as vote to go on war against Taliban is unanimous). Another important fact the Americans are discovering is that we as a nation must not just get involved in restoring peace, but to follow up on restoring stable government in that country of involvement. When USA supported Afghans in fight against USSR, and once the soviets were defeated, USA pulled out without giving support to Afghans to rebuilt and establish stable government. As a result, foreign militants (Taliban) occupied and destroyed Afghanistan even further. This time around, the mission should not just be to address terrorism, but to help establish Afghan government (not taliban, not Northern alliance).

2. If they believe in freedom and justice then do they also support their government`s acts of plundering of the natural resources belonging to other people; as oil belongs to Arabs only? Are they a part of this plunder since they are a Democracy?

United States of America is not involved in stealing oil from Arabs. If you mean purchasing oil from Arab or Mexico and not using it`s own resources, than it is simply a business decision. With all due respect, Arabs have oil as their only resource of income to sustain their nations. You can have oil, but you can not eat it to stay alive. It is in both Arab`s and ours interests to have this business relationship.

3. If they believe in human rights and freedom of speech, thought, and opinion so much then why their government supports those tyrants who suppress the dissent with full force of law. Are people of West not an accomplice to the atrocities committed by these tyrants to their own people; since governments in West are democratically elected?

In ALL cases of US involvement, it is already an ongoing conflict that it gets involved in. For example, USA did not start conflict between Palestine and Israel. Israel was formed according to and by support of United nations. There were countries which opposed it, but the majority of nations approved it. But it was done in accordance with United Nations. So people mostly oppose or question the US government`s involvement in conflicts which are not visibly or directly affecting United States. But people also understand that as a nation, we do not want to be a spectator of possible genocide or ethnic cleansing (Serbs/Bosnia/Afghanistan).

6. The political assassinations are protected by US constitution. Where do people of United States stand on this moral issue?

I am not sure what you mean by ``The political assassinations are protected``. But according to the constitution, political assassinations are not legal. That was THE reason Sadam Hussein was let go when US army could have killed him. By the way, terrorism is a crime and terrorists are not politicians, they only have political views and beliefs, like everyone else.

ref. shammi

Before talking about terrorism and the ways to eradicate it , we must define what really terrorism is? and how many forms and kinds of terrorism is currently rampant in different parts of the world.

If you look deeply, you `ll find out that there are four major types of terrorisms in the world, following are those types and i `ll give atleast one example in each category.

1--- Bigger states terrorism against smaller states.. for exp. (a) Iraqi invasion in Kuwait... (b)Israeli aggression aginst Palestine( Palestine is an independant state now)

2--- State terrorism aginst innocent people for exp. Indian state terrorism against Kashmiri people

3... Suppressed peoples against those who `ve supprssed them for exp. (a)Palestinian people against Israel,, (b)Kashmiri people reacting against Indian army`s brutalities.

4--- People creating havoc just to fulfill their criminal lust and get pleasure out of it, for exp. serial killers.. you can find `em almost in every part of the world.

After sorting out and having understood these types of terrorisms we can safely say that to end the terrorism is only in the hands of bigger states if they change their attitude towards smaller states and suppressed communities and find out means to end the 1st two types of terrorisms the 3rd type will automatically die out, because it is in the result of 1st two... it is like if u cut the roots of a tree its leaves will dry out automatically. for example if the Kashmir problem is solved according to the resolutions of UNO and wishes of the people of that area there will be no unsurgency , people will be satisfied and will not do anything which can be harmful to anybody... people only get violent when they see justice has been taken away from them otherwise this is not easy to give one`s own life .

Once the Kashmir problem is solved ,, automatically the movement will end and there will be peace all around.Same you can say about Palestine, if bigger states play their role and force Israel to show some flexibilty and reach some kind of agreement with Palestine on solid grounds, i am sure the unsurgency will end there too.But if bigger states don`t perform what they are required to and just waste their energies and resourses in finding and killling only one person . I don`t think they `ve done their job because God knows how many Bin Ladens are in the making if the oppression stays the same in Kashmir, Palestine or in other parts of the world.

The last kind of terrorism can be eradicated only by making strict laws with in the state and by the implimentation of those laws very swiftly and stricktly.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Following is the text of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee`s letter to US President George Bush sent last night after the terrorist attack on Jammu and Kashmir Assembly in Srinagar.

Dear Mr President:

I write this with anguish at the most recent terrorist attack in our state of Jammu and Kashmir, which has killed 27 people so far and injured over 60, through a car bomb outside the state parliament. A Pakistan-based terrorist organisation, Jaish-e-Muhammad, claimed responsibility for the dastardly act and named a Pakistani national based in Pakistan as one of the suicide bombers involved.

There has been understandable anger in the country at this wanton act of violence. Ironically it comes only a day after the President of Pakistan announced on television that Pakistan has no terrorist groups operating from its territory.

Mr President, the world is still coming to terms with the horrendous events of September 11. India joined wholeheartedly with the United States in its goal for the destruction and defeat of the global terror network which you eloquently announced in your Address to the Congress. With you we condemned any nation that continues to harbour or support terrorism.``

We fully understand that in resolutely countering the terrorism that attacked USA on September 11 you are discharging your core responsibility for the interest and security of the people of the United States of America. We are with you and do not wish to overload the agenda in any way.

However, incidents of this kind raise questions for our security which, as a democratically elected leader of India, I have to address in our supreme national interest. Pakistan must understand that there is a limit to the patience of the people of India.

I have asked my External Affairs Minister, Jaswant Singh, who is now in Washington, to convey to you more fully our sentiments in this regard.

With regards, Yours sincerely, A B Vajpayee