Jihad – The Misperceptions

Abrar,

This is another pathetic attempt by a dimwitted schooled pakistani to white wash a religion. What is amusing is that all this honey and milk interpretations of the religion is coming from the western based or exposed writers in english media. No mullah has ever spoken about jihad like this, for that matter no one in a position of power in an islamic country dared to interpret like you.

Pakistan is a good example, it has the highest court, the sheria court manned by islamic scholars. These courts are not with out teeth, they have asked for the removal of interest rates. But they have never bothered about the open activities of the jihadists, for that matter did not question the legalisation of honour killings, blasohemy linchings and similar other joahduc acrtivities.

Jihadists that stream accross the borders to kill the kafirs are coming out of madrassas manned by people who have spent a life time learning the book. They have no clue what so ever about ahat you are talking about.

The reality is that having exposed to the western values, you are rereading the book and finding things that you want to see. Obviously you are either misquoting or have no idea about the context in which it has be understood. One thing is certain, these interpretations have never existed untill the exposure of muslims to secular values. No islamic country today express any of the interpretation that you expose. This is pathetic verbal masterbation of a book. Iam sure that urstruly will find this a fatwable offence and he will quote from the book.

#25 This is how pseudo liberals find much to agree with in hydra`s writings.

Like an imbecile, he justifies Pakistanis killing of innocent people in Kashmir, blames these killings by Pakistanis on the FAILURE OF THE Indian government, and makes remarks against American liberation of Afganistan from Pakistani hired Taliban.

What is there in all this that the `Jinnah liberals` of Pakistan wil not gleefully lap up? Two birds of the same feather.

#24 A relief to know that there is at least one honest muslim.

#23 If Pakistanis could understand what you write, their whole world will come crashing down.

Abrar Akbar,

Your`s is probably the most analytically correct article i have read on this forum. Great work at striking the nail on the head. The peice comprehensively summarizes the mentallity responsible for our ills.

To implement this visions of ... ``construction of the Petronas Towers, Kuala Lumpur, not the demolition of the World Trade``, each muslim nation needs a strong intellectual community, guiding the people as well as the governments in the right direction. Unfortunately, this in many Islamic countries is scarce if not non-existant. Whatever intellectually groomed individuals you find in these nations are more inclined towards bashing Islam and what it stands for. Given that they might be right in doing so, because of the blatant bigotry demonstrated by religous right in many such countries.

However, after a dispassionate look at the core issues, one reaches the conclusion that mere importation of western culture, social structure and norms would only lead to further chaos. To support this, we can look at the example of Turkey. The people over there finally got fed up an alien system.. though it took them more than eight decades.

The solution has to be indegenous. While keeping economic, educational, cultural progress as front line objectives ... the Islamic world needs also to preserve its distinct identity and social structure.

Note to sameerJB:

Incompatibility of Islam and progress is a false notion!!!!

U.S. policies have been anti-India since independence, sometimes virulently so, e.g. during the Bangladesh crisis. Much of Pakistan`s weaponry has been supplied by the U.S. and they pose a grave danger to India. F-16s are the prime delivery vehicles for Pak nukes. But I don`t think there is one Indian who thinks that American civilians should be targeted because of their government`s policies.

On the other hand, we have a respected newspaper like Dawn running editorials about how Australian civilians essentially deserved to die in Bali because of their Government`s policies.

So many other countries have a beef with the West but they don`t run around slaughtering Westerners like the crazed Jihadists.

All of it points to a warped sense of thought encouraged in the Islamic world as alluded to in this article.

ferozek

``The problem with Islam is that its followers are not sure as to what their religion preaches and those that do preach the religion, do so for reasons, which have nothing to do with religion. ``

............ nonsense, gibberish, sophistry and yet another pathetic excuse of ``islam is good, muslims are bad`` ............the fact of the matter is that most muslims are too well versed in their religion ..... they know more about islam than the pope knows about christianity and the one legged syphilitic whore knows about swx ............ they are painfully well educated ........... it all starts at their mother`s knee with tales of badr and how 313 muslims were able to defeat a thousand infidels, and how the idols were smashed in the kaaba, and how the scheming jews were made to dig their own graves at khandaq ............all of us know about khalid, tariq and qasim.......... we are all taught to line up for a military drill five times a day and know all about ghazni`s seventeen expiditions ............ the muslims are very well educated about islam, more so than the average christian who can`t tell john from luke and the average hindoo who can`t tell his cousin from the elephant nosed god .......... and therein lies the problem - we know our religion and, unfortunately, actually believe in it ........................

faisaluno: Your characterization of the sitation makes sense from political point of view. However, chowk is a place for exchanging ideas on idividual basis. At individual basis nothing is more important to seek truth and knowledge in order to succed in this world. At the individual level, as sadna said, nobody has the licence to kill or turn to vigilantism (?). For the sake of Muslim lot, from praying to modifying the meanings has been in practice throughout this century and it is definitely not working. I hate to say it but as long as everybody keeps sitting on a sinking ship, everybody remains assured of survival by miracle. Once few people start abandoning the ship, rest of the people can lash out at them but at the same time think more vigorusly to fix the problem. It could wake them up.
Jihad has nothing to do with spiritual aspects of religion. Any time another person is involved as nemesis, the spirituality is totally lost. second thing is that defending on the basis of Quran is not my territory. I do not own a copy of Quran or its translation to point out actual or original meaning of Islamic terms. I see them as they are practiced. Arab, Persian and Urdu writers wrote volumes after volumes praising saqi and sharab, but that is not how it was/ is practiced. Go see a saqi and sharab in a pub/ bar or some adult entertainment place. Quoting from Omar Khayyam or Ghalib as a proof for its goodness and greatness is nonsense. similarly distributing copies of Diwan-e-Ghalib or Rubayat-e-Omar Khayyam from Indonesia to Morroco to USA is not going to decrease DWI cases or increase in resepect for saqis.

Not all jehadi groups are illegitimate. Background on the rise of Hizbullah:

http://www.yellowtimes.org/print.php?sid=804

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

Abrar,
One of the very best. A first rate article, without any bias and very objective. You speak for all the decent people who are under the umbrella of Islam. We need more of these at Chowk. This article needs to be distributed widely not only in the US but, more importantly, in the Muslim ummah from Indonesia to Morocco.

mr urstruly:

what present did the afghan mujahideen give to the people after the fall of communist government?

tvarad #10

I wouldn`t waste my time on Urstruly. He suffers from a disease called islamitis. People with this affliction can only see the suffering of muslims, everybody else turns invisible.

SO for example, killing of hindu pilgrims and minority in J&K is OK, but killing of muslim indians in Gujarat is to be condemmed. As you can imagine, in the more advanced stages of the disease, the paitent focusses only on his grievances and paranioa and becomes completely estranged from reality.

In the final stages of islamitis, we have the bizarre phenomenon of people begging for US visas who at the same time say things like ``U.S.A is the worlds biggest terrorist`` or ``USA wants to attack all muslims``.

There is currently no known cure, though treatment with shock-therapy and tough-love boot camps might have promise :)

``It would be unfair to mistrust the dedication and valour of the jihadis but the lack of peripheral vision renders them incapable of anticipating the unfavourable consequences or unintended effects of their misperceived jihad. As a result, the self-appointed “defenders of Islam” are wreaking formidably more damage to Islam than serving its cause, with their do-first-think-later attitude and insular approach.


The bottom line is that to live gracefully is far more difficult than to die gallantly. To deliver a fearsome punishment to an aggressor is one thing, but to invite an armed conflict is sheer insanity. ``

This is a disgusting set of statements in which the author is issuing certificates for religious/ethical authenticity of every jihadi killing to date.

He is stating that Muslims who take up arms are always dedicated and valorous when they kill, esp when they are killing nonMuslims (given the jihadi movements the author endorses in this regard). But Muslims killing others is `insanity` and `damaging to Islam` only because it doesnot work.

Dear chowk staff, if you are so committed to discussing armed jihad so rationally, let us also have equal opportunity articles discussing armed dharm yudhs and armed crusades and tribal wars with the same rationality and earnestness. You will be doing a great service to the universal fight against oppression because there are a considerable number of oppressed in the world. Unlike some, most of us have no oil to fund our grievances and have to make do with only ideology.

Seriously, doesn`t it strike you as wrong that articles like this propagate the assumption that Muslims come into this world divinely justified in using violence, when the rest of us who adopt a similar ideology are simply called genocidal murderers?

The cry of Jehad is heard again and again and from many different quarters. But what was the Jehad to which God and His Prophet invited Muslims? And what is the Jehad to which we are invited today? The Jehad to which God invites us in the Holy Quran is described in the verse:

`So obey not the disbelievers and strive by means of it [i.e., the Quran] a great striving.` (Al-Furqan, 53)

The highest Jehad, therefore, is Jehad with the help of the Quran. Is it such a Jehad to which Muslims are invited today? How many are there who turn out to strive against disbelievers with only the Quran in their hands? Are Islam and the Quran so utterly devoid of inherent merit and attractiveness? If Islam and the Quran cannot attract people today by their intrinsic beauty, what evidence have we for the truth of Islam? Human speech can change hearts. Can the speech of God change no hearts? Can it bring about no change in the world except with the help of the sword? Long human experience shows that the sword cannot effect a change of heart, and, according to Islam, it is a sin to try and convert a people through fear or favor. Has not God clearly said in the Holy Quran:

`When the hypocrites come to thee, they say: ``We bear witness that thou art indeed the Messenger of Allah.`` And Allah knows that thou art indeed His Messenger, but Allah bears witness that the hypocrites are most surely liars.` (Al-Munafiqun, 2)

Here is a description of the hypocritical believers. If it were correct to spread Islam by the sword, then would it be meet or necessary to describe in this way those who had accepted Islam outwardly but were inwardly unbelievers still? If it were correct to convert people to Islam by force, then even such converts as did not believe in their hearts would have been true converts, according to the Holy Quran. Nobody can hope to win sincere converts by the sword. It is wrong, therefore, to think that Islam teaches the use of the sword for the conversion of non-Muslims. On the other hand, Islam is the first religion which lays down the principle of freedom in religious matters in clear and unambiguous terms. The teaching of Islam is:

`There shall be no compulsion in religion. Surely, right has become distinct from wrong.` (Al-Baqarah, 257)

According to Islam, every human individual is free to believe or not to believe. He is free to follow reason. Islam also teaches:

`And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, Allah loves not the transgressors.` (Al-Baqarah, 191)

Here the law of religious wars is laid down clearly. A religious war is to be waged against those who make war on Muslims because of religion; who seek by force to convert Muslims. Even in such a war Islam forbids the transgression of limits. If non-Muslims seeking to convert Muslims by force withdraw from such an attempt, then Muslims must stop fighting. In the face of such a teaching, nobody can say that Islam teaches the waging of war for its expansion. If Islam sanctions war, it is not in order to destroy or harm any religion. It is to promote religious freedom, to protect places of religious worship. It is clearly laid down in the Holy Quran:

`Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged. And Allah indeed has power to help those who have been driven out of their homes unjustly only for saying ``Our Lord is Allah.`` And if Allah did not repel some men by means of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques would have been pulled down wherein the name of Allah is oft remembered. And Allah will surely help him who helps Allah. Allah is indeed Powerful, Mighty.` (Al-Hajj 40-1)

This passage from the Holy Quran leaves no doubt whatever that a religious war is not permitted by Islam unless it is against a people who force another people to abjure their religion; unless, for instance, Muslims are forced to abjure Islam. A religious war may be justified when there is interference in religion. But even when permitted, a religious war is not intended to force a people to give up their faith, nor is its purpose to desecrate or destroy places of worship, or to kill. The purpose of religious wars is to protect religion, to protect every religion, and to save from disgrace and destruction all places of worship, irrespective of the denomination to which they belong. Only such a religious war is permitted by Islam. Islam is a witness of other religions and their protector. Islam is no party to violence or cruelty or un freedom. In short, the Jehad sanctioned by Islam is to make war against a people who prevent others by force from accepting Islam, or who wish to force people to deny Islam. It may be made against a people who kill others because of Islam. Only against such a people is the making of war permissible in Islam. Against any other people, Jehad is wrong and contrary to Islam. War not sanctioned by these conditions may be a political war, a war between country and country or people and people. It may be a war between two Muslim peoples. But it will not be a religious war. The current view of Jehad, which is nothing but violence and lawlessness, has been borrowed by Muslims from others. There is no sanction for it in Islam. It is not even known in Islam. Strange as it may seem, the responsibility for the spread of this view among Muslims lies with Christians, who are loudest in their condemnation of Islam for its supposed teaching of Jehad. In the Middle Ages, religious wars were the order of the day. The whole of Europe took part in them. Christian warriors and crusaders attacked the borders of Muslim countries in the same way as semi-independent trans-border tribesmen attack the border of India. At the same time they attacked those European peoples who were holding back from Christianity. Christians who took part in these wars did so to earn the pleasure of God. It seems that, under the violent and unprovoked attacks of Christians, Muslims lost their balance. Following the example of Christians, they too started attacking the borders of other peoples and countries. They forgot the teaching of their own religion. So completely do they seem to have assimilated the Christian example that Christians themselves have started raising objections. In spite of the fact that objections now come from Christians Muslims fail to see through the Christian game. All over the world today this objection is directed against Islam. Everywhere it is used as a weapon against Islam; but Muslims do not realize it. Unwittingly they continue to supply the enemies of Islam with texts and arguments to use against Islam. The enemy is able to attack Islam with weapons forged by Muslims. The wars which they call Jehad have not helped Islam. They have only done it harm. Muslims have lost sight of the moral conditions of victory. Victory comes not from weapons or numbers, but from skill, organization, education, equipment, morale and the goodwill of other nations. A very small nation can sometimes score a victory over a big nation, because the smaller nation happens to have the moral conditions of victory on its side. Without these conditions the largest armies may prove useless. It would have been infinitely better had Muslims sought their prosperity not in misconceived Jehad, but in the virtues and skills which make for the success of nations. By subscribing to a misconceived Jehad they defame Islam and harm their interests. If a nation indulges in political warfare in the guise of religion, it only drives other nations into united hostility against it. The other nations begin to feel insecure. When international conflicts arrest imulated by religious differences, the state with the largest amount of goodwill for others is not immune from attack by an external enemy. When states are divided over religion, each is afraid of the others. Good behavior and goodwill are then of no avail. These virtues may avert a political war but not religious war. In short, we do not deny but affirm, the importance of Jehad. We deny only a wrong interpretation of it, which has done incalculable harm to Islam. The future of Muslims, in our view, depends on how far they succeed in understanding the true meaning of Jehad. If they are able to realize that the best form of Jehad is Jehad with the Quran (25:53), and not Jehad with the sword, if they recognize that difference of religion provides no sanction for violence against the lives or property or honor of others (Quran, 4:91, 2:191, 60:90), their minds and outlook will undergo a wholesome change, a change which will take them nearer to the right path. Then they will be acting on a verse of the Holy Quran which says: `And it is not righteousness that you come into houses by the backs thereof; but truly righteous is he who fears Allah. And you should come into houses by the doors thereof and fear Allah that you may prosper.` (Al-Baqarah, 190)

Then will they go from success to success.

From Invitation to Ahmadiyyat

sameerjb:

it aint gonna happen. you or i might not see the connection between organized religion and spirituality, but to most people in pak, these are one and the same. you will do your cause great damage if you try to bring reform by attacking the core beliefs of a society that is slowly coming to terms with modernity. asking people to completely reject everything they have been taught will only send them into the arms of people on the dark side (i.e. the mma).

also muslims have nothing to be ashamed off because their history is no different from the history of any other group/nation. were the actions of people like bin qasim any different from the actions of european invaders in places like congo or the americas? havent you heard of a good injun is dead injun. why do you think in the face of all the evidence, people like blair and bush continue to flaunt their christian beliefs? dont forget that only about thirty years ago, americans killed a million people in vietnam.

part of the solution in my opinion lies in developing a group of clergy that begins to emphasize the positive aspects of society found in islamic history. even the father of binyamin netanyahu (no less) acknowledged that all muslim societies were not evil. ``Turkey was a haven not only for Spain`s Marranos [Jews who converted to Christianity under duress], but also for the Marranos of Portugal . . . an asylum for many of the Neophytes [another group of forced converts to Christianity].``. By Ben-Zion Netanyahu , father of the better-known Binyamin. ( published in wsj, 10/28, letters to editors). seems to me that part of the iranian clergy has already seen the light. we can only hope for such developments. million dollar question is whether we can get there without the turmoil.

Iran Pardons Cleric Who Was Jailed for Insulting Islam, NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/06/international/middleeast/06IRAN.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

Former Hostage Taker Now Likes To Take On The Mullah, NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/05/international/middleeast/05TEHR.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

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