Discussion in 'General Multimedia' started by bhramos, May 10, 2010.
Jihad- To struggle to live , not holy war.
What is Islam? What is the relation of Muslims and Hindus in India? Where do these two religions which appear diametrically opposed differ ... all Â» and where are they similar?
Dr. Zakir Naik discusses the relationship of Islam and Hinduism. He explores the Hindu Scriptures and how the Prophet Muhammad was prophesied in the Hindu Scriptures. Dr. Naik attempts to find similarities between these two religions in the hope of Peace in India between Muslims and Hindus. Please click on this link below to watch the debates and lectures:
Jihad is a meaning for Struggle in a life. It also a relation ship between Hindus and Islam . In a technical language it is called a holy-war . It is a war against the non-Muslim. Some of the person also says the Mujahudin for the jihad .
It doesn't matter if Zakir Naik is mentioning this or not.
Jihad literally means struggle in Arabic. Holy war would be tranlated as Harb (war) muqassada (holy). So when you use the words Mujahid. It means a person who struggles or strives. This is the Arabic lexicon. So for example even Christians Arabs will use Allah for God and Mujahid for a person who struggles and strives through hardship. The struggle against ones' desires and baseness is called Jihad - e- Akbar or the greater struggle
In the Quran the words used for fighting or killing is Qital. Ofcourse this does not mean that there is an armed aspect to Jihad. But this is a subset of Jihad in general. In other words, you have the general "Struggle (Jihad)" and then you have "The person who struggles (Mujahid)" and a subset where you have "armed struggle (armed Jihad)" while "struggle against your (base) self - Jihad-e-Nafs" is called the "Greater Struggle" or Jihad-e-Akbar.
Even in Qital there are guidelines, don't be the aggressors, don't kill women/children/holy people/old people or destroy farms/trees/animals/places of worship or burn people/animals. These guidelines are explicitly mentioned in the Quran. And at the same time, it mentions that if those opposed to you want to establish a peace treaty agree to that as well.
So the charge that Jihad advocated killing all "Kafirs-the label can be debated" is incorrect.
Now on Zakir Naik, I don't agree with him absolving OBL of any responsibility of 9/11. But keep in mind that OBL was not DIRECTLY involved in 9/11, that was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. IMO, he is a willing victim of the conspiracy theorists. And please note that its Americans who have made movies on 9/11 inside jobs and what not and for many muslims its an easy way out. Precisely because they are shocked at how anyone who has a proper understanding of Islam could justify such actions. The point is no one, including Zakir Naik justifies these actions. But while some muslims are able to own up and say, yup OBL instigated it and this is wrong. Others are still taking their time to do so. There is hardly any support to the OBL ideology so to speak.
And lastly about extremism as we know today is the direct product of American and western support to Jihadi groups in Afghanistan against the Soviets. They along with Pakistan and KSA, funded a politcal Islamist ideology with lethal militant training. Where else do you think they learnt to make bombs from fertilizers and other sabotage ops? Hilary Clinton has herself publicly admitted of the American role in promoting the extremist militants with money and training. At one point, Israel was sending shipments of captured soviet military equipment bound for the Palestinians to Pakistan along with MOSSAD agents for sabotage training there. And this was under Zia's watch!
Any politico-religious ideology will result in extremism, because once you have politics, spirituality goes out the window. This applies to all religions. So in extreme cases you have AQ justifying their violence to "protect muslims" even though they have killed more muslims than non-muslims, or groups like Abhinav Bharat that justify killing innocents in the interest of "protecting Hindus".
The reason why muslim groups have been more lethal is obviously because they had the training provided by the Superpower of the 80s as well as most of the western countries including Pakistani and Saudi govt. support.
fair enough , if extremism is due to super powers in the 80s ,why India is being targeted , why people were killed in Akshradham temple for no reason , why use the idea of " jihad" in kashmir to free it from "hindu" rule ? i dont see why extremism are targeting hindus in particular ,when we are Govt Of India is helping non militarily in Afghanistan.
by the way Abhinav Bahrat is very small organisation probably in 3 0r 4 cities , and not at all supported by RSS or VHP ( i have been member for RSS for over 2 years now , i know it does not support Abhinav Bahart)
Who told you what they waging against India is Jihad? Its a Proxy war played by a Neighbour!!! There is No Jihad being waged in the world at this moment! Its farce and its a name given by terrorists to use Islam and Justify their actions, which can never be Justified by the Quran.
In India, there is no single condition for Jihad or Holy war or anything. I can Pray safely, and I am sure no one will obstruct my prayers in the mosque. There is no threat to my life and property and I dont have to flee etc etc etc
Here is one of my Favorite Passages from the Holy Quran
"Do not let your hatred of a people incite you to aggression" (The Quran 5:2)
Who says it it India only which is targeted? What about 9/11? What about the failed NY Times Square Bombing attempt? What about the almost daily bombings in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan?
Only those terrorists can answer this question.
Hindu rule? What Hindu rule are you talking about? Are Muslims not killed in Kashmir due to cross border terrorism? You are contradicting the very idea of Secular India. I would request you to read the Salient features of the Constitution of India, incase you have forgotten those.
Your news feed is very biased whatever the source is. Terrorism is targeting India & Indians, not Hindus in particular.
Support or not Abhinav Bharat should be banned if found indulging in terrorist activities or activities against any particular religion. For that matter RSS, Shiv Sena or any political or religious outfit should also be banned if found acting against the State or against any particular religion.
Please bear in mind, posts that incite bickering, and malign other communities will not be tolerated. Discuss this in an utmost technical and non-judgmental way.
Yes, Oracle just summed it up, the Fight against India is not against Hindus AJSINGH, Its against Indians. For the Terrorists I am also an enemy, because I am an INDIAN. Their war is for Land, not for God or Devil! God Speed
Actually man, most have a grudge against "Hindus" and other non-non Muslims in specific. But true, they will also hate your for being Indian.
This is what the Indian Muslims say.
This is what everyone else says..
43 Prez of the US for you: (Fareed Zakaria reporting)
When George Bush saw Manmohan Singh, at some event; First time he had the opportunity to introduce his wife (Laura Bush) to Manmohan Singh. Her said to her,
"Honey, This is the Prime Minister of India. This is the country that has 150 million Muslims and not one member of Al-Qaeda"
Be proud you're born an Indian, brother.
Is India being targeted by Arabs or Afghans? by Chechens or Uzbeks? By Palestinians or Saudis? IF you honestly look at these questions the answer is a resounding no. Infact, in some AQ videos the infamous Hakemullah Mehsud actually says that we consider India free but not Pakistan because since Independence Pakistan has been a colony of the US and UK. The politcal Islamic ideology actually directs these militant groups to attack muslim countries that they perceive to be not "Islamic" enough than non-muslim countries as they see this as the first step. What OBL did on 9/11 was in fact an aberration in their ideology even among the Jihadi groups.
I will come to "Jihad in Kashmir" and the relation with India issue a little later. But what you are looking at is a "narrative" --that only hindus are targeted. This is the narrative that Abhinav Bharat and other similar groups use to finally attack innocent Muslims. Infact, they will even attack Hindus who do not share their ideology. There were reports the AB members were plotting to kill Mohan Bhagwat because of his (according to them) soft approach to Muslims.
What role did Muslims in Malegaon or those eating in Ajmer Sharif had to do with say the killings of Kashmir pandits or the terrorists bombings in temples and trains? What role did the poor villagers around Godhra and other parts of Gujarat have to do with the killings of Karsevaks? What about the HR abuses against Kashmirs by Indian security forces? The same narrative is used by Muslim extremists as well to attack other non-Muslims and Muslims as well who don't share their ideology. That "Islam is in danger" and this is the best way to "protect it".
What I'm showing you is how the cycle of violence gets enhanced and aggravated. Finally just being identified with a particular community is enough to take action even though they are wholly innocent.
About RSS, I also agree that RSS would not support such actions and its because of these that members with extremists views from RSS split out to form new groups. Actions of these should not be blamed on RSS and is wrong. That is why using religious labels is wrong.
I assume you are talking in the Pakistani perspective. It is well known fact that the politcal and military establishment in Pakistan has used the term Jihad for its own ends. Wether be it Afghanistan or Kashmir. It has co-opted politco-religious groups like Jamaat Islami to do its bidding and sell the idea of Jihad in Kashmir.
But here is the real deal. The independent Ulema (Islamic scholars) in Pakistan do not agree with this. Of course they can't go against the military and political establishment. Most likely they would be tarnished as an Indian agent.
The Jamaat Islami founder Abul Ala Maududi (although not a traditional scholar but well known) was AGAINST the Jihad in Kashmir and opposed GoP decisions in this regard. Check out this interview with his son.
An Interview with Haider Farooq Mawdudi, Noted Pakistani Islamic Scholar
Not only that, Indian ulema from various schools including ulema from Kashmir have consistently held that there is no Jihad against India or Kashmir. These statements or fatwas if you will get published not just in India but in the Arab world as well were ulema from Deoband for example command a lto of respect.
Deoband fatwa ruffles feathers of Kashmiri separatists
A quick summary about this is here as well.
There is no case for (armed)Jihad in Kashmir
And its not just because Indian muslims are Indians but because of the much maligned Indian ulemas like Maulana Wahiduddin Khan and other from Deoband in particular among many others of various traditional Islamic that have REJECTED the politico-Islamic ideology that there are hardly an AQ Indians. It is their theological arguments that the Indian constitution is a treaty between the muslims and the GoI and as long as the constitution is upheld we are required by our religion to defend our country, even if attacked from a muslim country.
Even those Indians involved in local terrorism did not attack India because of say Israel or Chechenya but because of their perceived grievances that are all local. Moreover majority of them were radicalized in gulf countries rather than India proper.
So India should be grateful to these Indian ulemas who are the unsung heroes on the AQ-India issue so to speak. Most of their work in this regard is in Arabic and Urdu with some in English now this hardly gets reported in the mainstream media. Is it not a fact that despite the many legitimate grievances that Indian Muslims have, leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi were not killed by them.
The Pakistani establishment tries its utmost to paint India as Israel but till now have not succeeded. This is particularly to gain Arab support against India. But thanks to Nehru and India's policy since independence for maintaining a balanced approach with Palestine, the general feeling is not at all anti-Indian. Infact, Palestinians look up to Indian freedom fighters and significant non-violent protest movement amongst the Palestinians draws inspiration from us. Economic ties have also contributed to this particularly with the GCC countries.
The biggest coup for the Pakistani intelligence agencies would be to divert AQ energies from Pakistan to India. Till now they have been unsuccessful. That is why from the train bombings to mumbai attacks, its Pakistani nationals or locals that have been involved terrorism in India not say Arabs, chechens e.t.c.
On a personal note:
I don't expect everyone to just be convinced straightaway with what I say, but I hope to generate a meaningful and sophisticated interaction. If you wanted to accept comments about the Chinese, Peruvians or Swedens say, you would validate those that you hear from a person who is an expert on their respective cultures and most definitely well versed in their local languages. However, when discussing Islam this is not seen as an important criteria. Of course muslims as a while are to share a major portion of the blame for not following the teachings properly as well.
In this view, there are two books that I would recommend to read.
People Like Us by Waleed Aly is available on google books although you may only be able to read just one chapter. Then do read the chapter "The War on Jihad".
The other and more interesting book is The Far Enemy: Why Jihad went Global by Fawaz Gerges that actually tracks the shady Jihadi groups and their shady theological manipulations. It explains why OBL's logic is fringe movement among the fringe Jihadi groups as a whole. And that the mainstream "Jihadi" groups actually target muslim states to establish a proper "Islamic state" rather than target foriegn countries. Fawaz Gerges is a Egyptian Chrisitan who teaches International Affairs in NY
A good book review is given here http://blogcritics.org/books/article/book-review-the-far-enemy-by/
A brief version here
But a must read if you are interested in this phenomenon.
Bullet does not ask a person's religion, it only asks for blood.
Because, Indian Muslims are the most educated Muslims worldwide. They know the story, they know Quran. They do not distort religious teaching to suit terrorists POV.
Do you believe in what everyone says?
See, even Bush commends Indian Muslims.
I don't know in which sense you said that. But he does not need to prove if he is a proud Indian in here.
@Thanks ejazr =)
Is that why the terrorists of Mumbai attacks targeted anyone that "looks" like a westerner and attacked the Jewish places in Mumbai?
So are the Arab Muslims. But why are they so radical? I don't know.
That's what they say. Why does the Taliban exist? What does me believing have to do anything here?
I don't know what you mean by this. But i meant in a good way, if you didn't catch.
You are going offtopic. Please stick to the topic. I could have answered all of your points, but this is not the thread to do that.
In muslims these world is follow jihad. There are lots of meaning of jihad but as my point of view the real concept of these word is to struggle to live , not holy war.
Jihad is simply the procedure of "utilizing the best efforts," including some form of "struggle" and "resistance," to accomplish a particular goal. In other words, jihad is the struggle against, or resistance to, something for the sake of a goal. The meaning of the word is independent of the nature of the invested efforts or the required goal.
May I ask you all to carry out a little bit of Jihad yourself - cleanse yourself - struggle against stereotyped ideas.
The paramount point that should never be forgotten - all religions are a guide to a better life. It is those who wish to misuse religion for their personal agendas are the scoundrels who bring religion to disrepute!
Please be moderate in your words and thoughts in the discussion.
One of my favourite saying that I have heard is - Take it easy to look busy!
1. Muslims were also killed in mumbai....as person earlier said bullet doesn't see anything infront of it.
2. arabs are radical because saudi royals fund extremism and are in turn allied to the yanks....in the 50's whole middle east was moving towards democratic socialism when yanks couldn't let that happen because of cold war and installed puppets....as you may know both iraq and iran were once "allies" of usa. arabs want foreigners out and mullahs are the only outlet they could find.
3. taliban exists because they want power and because isi want afghanistan under its wing and uses taliban as proxy.
Separate names with a comma.