Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments

If its Jihad you want, it is Jihad you should get. Why doesn`t Pakistan have the balls to attack us openly to take Kashmir?

You guys scared of fighting man to man?

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:

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.

Wadera,

I must have missed those posts. You are right. The book I was talking about is by Salman Rushdie ... about the Bhutto-Zia fiasco ... and the abuse of Islam by Zia.

-YLH

Wadera

I just saw the post. It is by Mohajir aka Unkal Jay.... forget him... he and his aliases come up with the most outrageous nonsense....

That he hasnt read `Shame` by Salman Rushdie, and is willing to go as far as to rebut me shows what we have been subjected to in the past here on chowk. The ivy leaguers and Unkal Jay`s level of education is indeed pathetic. Maybe you should see the kinds of questions unkal Jay asks to bechara Ari Fleischer of the White House. I usually end up with stomach cramps.

Mohajir,

By the way, I am well aware of Shame by Taslima Nasreen which is frankly not the standard that Salman Rushdie achieves in his work.

Where as Rushdie and Nasreen are both atheists, there is a stark difference between them. Rushdie is an extremely educated man who has a great sense of history and probably has figured out a lot of things for himself. Whereas one does not always agree with Rushdie, one can always see where he is coming from and the rationale in what he says... and at some level you do imbibe the best out of him.

Taslima Nasreen on the other hand gives you a bad taste in the mouth and ruins your evening. You either have to agree with her or disagree with her.

And when you disagree with her, you have to despise what she writes. Hence nothing positive comes out of her writing.

-YLH

ad,

Please grow up.

Brad Cruise...

I think those who know their literature know that my credibility can only rise.

Maybe its time you read

Salman Rushdie`s `Shame` 1982 Alfred Knofp NY...

I think a key issue in the article is that ``People must accept the fact that Islam is not only a religion, it is a political ideology as well. `` This idea is promoted by Maudoodiites, but is clearly a violation of the Quran. The Quran says ``Let there be no compulsion in religion``. It tells the Holy Prophet that his job is to convey God`s message, and the implementation of this message is not his concern. Since even the Holy Prophet is not empowered with implementation of Islam, who can dare to have any business trying to obtain this power? The answer of course is the religious zealots who are either ignorant of the Quran or else consider themselves annointed with an authority that God denied even to the Prophet.

And on jihad: Non-muslims are not worried about Jehad by the pen or whatever. They are concerned about Jehad as a violent action. The Quran makes it clear that a muslim may only defend himself if attacked. This is no more than the right of self defense that I know is acceptable under the Pakistan criminal law and in all other countries too I think. To say that Muslim Scholars have stretched the definition to mean preemptive attacks is to beg the question: who gave these scholars the authority to determine what God want`s man to do? These are issues for society to come to decide, hopefully through a democratic process - and if through fiat, then that fiat should carry the weight of simply military power behind it, and not pretend to be empowered by God.

DOES MUSHARRAF WANT A WAR WITH INDIA?

WHO RULES PAKISTAN ANYWAY? -- THAT CONVICTED CRIMINAL AZHAR OF JAISHE MOHAMMAD? -- OR THAT SELF-APPOINTED ``PRESIDENT`` OF PAKISTAN -- MUSHARRAF OF PAKISTAN ARMY?

40 PEOPLE ARE DEAD MOSTLY MUSLIMS -- IN KASHMIR.

WHAT A LAWLESS COUNTRY -- APARENTLY NOBODY IS INCHARGE OF THAT GOD FORSAKEN COUNTRY CALLED PAKISTAN -- THE MURDEROUS JIHADIS ARE RUNNING THE COUNTRY -- INSIDE OUT.

``FIGHTING TERRORISM`` WITH USA IN AFGHANISTAN!!

MUSHARRAF IS THE BIGGEST FORK-TONGUED LIAR THAT EVER CAME TO POWER IN PAKISTAN.PERIOD.

IF MUSHARRAF AND HIS ARMY CANNOT CONTROL THESE LASHKARIYAS -- THE BUD-HARKATIYAS AND THE JAISHIS CRIMINALS -- THEN HE BETTER GET READY FOR A WAR WITH INDIA.

IT`S COMING.

Yes -- the ``Defining Moment`` of -- that damned criminal concept called JIHAD -- is nearing between India and Pakistan -- as well.

re tAhmed 321 #37:

For argument`s sake lets say I haven`t read the Quran or Hadith. Do you really believe I would think differently if I did?

How many Muslims(moderate or otherwise) do you know who have a firm grasp of Quran and Hadith? What is real Islam and when was it ever actually practised? A religion is not a compendium of instructions from God alone. A religion is a living breathing organism that mutates and evolves with time. Islam is not what is in a book or two, laid out for all to savour. Real Islam is how a self-professed muslim`s behaviour is interpreted by those around him. If ``real`` Islam has failed to effect that behaviour, it unfortunately is impractical and defective.

later

-sac

Bapu,

I will not get into the semantics of Nation and its variants... nor will I get into what Pakistan Movement entailed... and what its purpose was.

Maybe you should read `Iqbal, Jinnah Pakistan, Vision and reality` printed by Syracruse University... it is a collection of Essays.

Let me say this however, nationalisms are `imagined` communities as Dr B. Ahmad once said on this board. These imagined communities become true nations when they are oppressed, when they have common antecedents and when they fear oblivion of culture and tradition at the hands of a majority which wishes to impose its own ancient culture.

So in that yes, the Muslim community was a religion based nation since their nation had its basis in religion. However the purpose for making Pakistan was not to make a religion based state my dear. You have to understand this subtle point. Pakistan was created to escape `Hindu Domination` and `Cultural oblivion` within United India. Once Pakistan was made it would be stupid to then make it a non secular one.

So now that Muslims of the Muslim Majority Areas had escaped Political and cultural oblivion, the `TNT` had to be retired and it was retired asJinnah said

`the Hindu community will vanish and the Muslim community will vanish, not in a religious sense because that is the personal faith of an individual but in a political sense and we shall become equal citizens of one state.. if you ask me this had been the greatest problem in achieving Independence for India. Had it not been for this we would have been free peoples many years ago`

So mr Bapu, I dont think you understand the semantics very well... Indeed turning Pakistan into a Muslim state, is analagous to if the Americans had adopted Monarchy themselves instead of becoming a democracy.

The basic premise of the American revolution was freedom from the British, and their monarch. The basic premise of the Pakistan movement was to deliver Muslim minority from discrimination, political oblivion and cultural annihilation. So Pakistan can only be a `secular democratic` nation according to the principle it was built on.

The cornerstones of Pakistan`s creation are not rooted in religion, the cornerstones of Pakistan`s creation ideally were equality, liberty and social justice for all people of Pakistan. This is one thing Jinnah stressed before and after partition.

I think it is intellectualy dishonest of you Bapu to declare that Pakistan is a nation based on religion. Indeed that is the course Pakistan has taken because of the propaganda unleashed by the fundoos, who ironically were staunchly allied with your bapu.

Can you explain why the Jamaat e Islami JUH and Majlis e Ahrar were so committed to alliance with the Congress Party... when they consisted of rabid mullahs and communalists?

The answer my dear friend is that Your entire reading of history is based on simplistic premises, and it doesnot take into account the complexities of human interaction. You see History in good vs evil... in a theatrical perspective, ... Your history is like Movie Gandhi... an Indian equivalent of the Islamicized History that Zia invented for Pakistan.

Indeed, this is why I say Pakistan has suffered at the Hands of Indian Hindoos and Pakistani Fundoos! You people have forced a distorted Historical vision on us which is far from reality.

Like one famous Historian said, without a careful appraisal of Jinnah`s role as the Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim UNity, you cannot fully appreciate the the concept of Libertarian, and Egalitarian state of Pakistan..... something which is neither Pakistanis nor Indians like to study and which confined to history books as a footnote!

I call upon the people of Pakistan and India to give up their simplistic premises of good vs Evil,

secularism vs theocracy, Islam vs Hinduism.....

Where is that Joint Indo-Pak textbook Isa Daudpota Promised us? I think it is a necessity so that Bapus, rsaxenas, Gowardhans and MaheshGs are not created any more!

Most people in media and government in America are not admitting the failure of their foreign policies that has created such resentment and hatred in 1.5 billion muslims. Senior Bush promised middleast countries to help solve palestinans problems and did nothing after the coallition. Now, junior is having problem convincing the muslim countries. Media here has not shown how millions of Iraqis have died from US policies, half of them are children. Or how palestinians live among tanks and F16 bombings. In America, people all over have been having sleeping problems, but those people have to live 24 hours in this chaos. Clearly, extremists have used that anger to justify killings of more innocent people and the only way to stop the cycle is to understand the root cause of the problem. Bombing or killing those people will not help and new generation will be born with more hatred unless the underlying problems are solved.

Unfortunately, media/govt. have been trying their best to hide the links or root cause or anger. They have suggested that those people hate American because of their freedom, democracy, capitalism.

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

Ras Siddiqui #67 Not only is there silence over Kabul, but darkness as well. Quite literally. Last couple of times I took the flight (which until the recent events at least) used to fly over Central Asia and over Afghanistan on it`s way to Islamabad, I noticed how the lighted patches indicating towns and villages that one would see when going over Central Asia would give way to pitch darkness when one crossed over to Afghanistan. This wasnt just my imagination - I see from cnn that electricity had steadily become unavailable in many villages and towns all over Afghanistan.

So there was darkness, literally and figurtively, over Kabul under the rule of the mullahs.

I was debating on Jihad vs Jehad(in my mind, of course), when I ran into an article saying Jehad. Chalo, it means both are valid terms.

Great!

Re: nasah

``DOES MUSHARRAF WANT A WAR WITH INDIA?``

Pakistan`s next war with India will be it`s last.

``40 PEOPLE ARE DEAD MOSTLY MUSLIMS -- IN KASHMIR.``

Pakistan has never cared about that little ugly detail. They don`t care about Kashmiris, they care about land.

``IF MUSHARRAF AND HIS ARMY CANNOT CONTROL THESE LASHKARIYAS -- THE BUD-HARKATIYAS AND THE JAISHIS CRIMINALS -- THEN HE BETTER GET READY FOR A WAR WITH INDIA.``

I hope he doesn`t push India much more. Both for his sake and India`s -- a nuclear death blow will be the inevitable outcome for all of Pakistan and a couple of Indian states.