Tirade against Muslims
By Dr Javed Jamil
Mr Lalwani wrote:
Dear Javed Jamil and others,
Even if human race agrees that non Muslims, western devils and USA are enemies of Islam. But why Muslims attack in India, a docile community with no imperialist aspirations and home to the second largest population of Muslims.? Can Muslims explain this?
Why the Islamic invaders super imposed their mosques on temples while Britishers and other rulers like Portuguese never did it? Why Muslim youth ask other religion's partner to convert to Islam for marriage and not vice versa?
Why is it that a Muslim flares up on reference to Koran or any other dictates of mullahs by any non Muslims? Why Muslims cant bear criticism like others do?
Why is it that the unrest is always linked to Muslims in the world?
Can Muslims deny that in Koran, sunna and Sharia or whatever by correct name these are called ,there is clear mention for treating women as filth and treating non Islam world as non believers and deserve to be eliminated? It is exclusive and sick mind's attitude. The fact is that most of Muslims who are illiterate are brainwashed by mullahs and fanatics in Islamic community to wage war in name of Jihad.
"Jihad " means "Strugle". The Peacefull Strugle ( Jihad ) for the betterment, change and progress is necessary for mankind. But the "Jihad" for expansion of political Power ,or expansion of Territory, or expansion of Religion by Violent means; as embodied in the Muslim Jehad or holy war is contrary to world peace. All the Religions are great. No religion is superior. All religions have millions followers and those millions are not fools.
It is time Muslims reform their medieval and obsolete thinking, intolerance to criticism to their holy books and practises,and self praise of Islam and degrading other religions.
Muslims are restless lot with self assumed chastity and purity and frog eyed vision about their religion. They must update and open up themselves and learn to respect all humanity and remain in their limits. No race on earth can be assumed to be infinitely tolerant to their violent and vociferous means and noise and should not therefore
be taken for granted. It is historical fact that Muslims have never lived in peace in their
history since inception. It is time Muslims start behaving and mind their own religion and business.
Reply by Dr Javed Jamil
Dear Mr Lalwani,
You are either a victim of the incessant propaganda against Islam and Muslims or a party to it. It is time non-Muslims stop their malicious, irresponsible and baseless propaganda against Islam and Muslims. If this propaganda has been gaining strength during last hundred years or so, it is perhaps because during this period, Muslims have been socio-politically least potent and powerful to combat the designs of enemies. It is common practice for the bad to call others bad, especially if the others happen to be weaker. It is high time non-Muslims cleaned their own houses and let Muslims perform their divine duties without fear.
I am happy to note that at least you recognise the threats posed by the imperialistic forces in the world and are ready to accept some justification for Muslim resistance against it.
As far as India is concerned, though you accept the fact that Muslims are the second largest majority in the country, unfortunately people like you are trying to use this very fact to unite the rest against Muslims by propagating untruths.
You say, "But why Muslims attack in India, a docile community with no imperialist aspirations and home to the second largest population of Muslims.? Can Muslims explain this? "
The history tells the facts otherwise. Since Independence, which resulted in Hindus having gained dominance in Indian polity, it is Muslims who have suffered worst kinds of violence at the hands of Hindus. I searched to find the data of communal riots in India. Unfortunately, I could not find the data till this date, but I found the data of communal riots between 1968 and 1978. See this table:
DATA AND SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON COMMUNAL RIOTS AND MINORITIES
(i) Casualties in communal clashes during the period 1968-80 were as follows :-
The data show that 1598 Muslims were killed against 530 Hindus, that is, the number of Muslims killed has been three times the number of Hindus Killed. The data for other periods would clearly prove the same trend throughout the history of Independent India. Thousands of Muslims were bulldozed in Nille (Assam), more than 1500 were massacred in Gujarat and a similar number were killed in riots following the demolition of Babri Masjid. The number of Hindus killed in all these riots has surely been less than one third of Muslims killed. The blasts in Mumbai and other places attributed to Muslims, if the allegation is correct, are an illegitimate response on the part of some Muslims to genuine grievances shared by the whole Muslim community and many of the Hindus (except the proponents of Hindutva). Such illegitimate responses will continue to occur till the grievances are not given a serious consideration. We wholeheartedly support punishment for the perpetrators of these crimes but only if the perpetrators of riots and killings in Gujarat and other riots (whoever they are—Hindus or Muslims) are also brought to justice. Their condemnation and punishment in isolation would only help further alienate Muslims.
As far as the question of Muslim invaders is concerned, they have been responsible for much lesser killings than the other invaders of the medieval and ancient world. When Aryans came to India, they were very cruel to the local population. It is notable that the two most popular Hindu epics (Mahabharat and Ramayan) are basically war accounts of wars among Hindus themselves. It is also not without significance that Hindus are the only religious community in the world, which has a full varna, Kshatriya, dedicated to war services. Hindus have been very aggressive against Buddhists as well and converted large number of their places of worship into Hindu temples. India has a long history of terrorist attacks involving Hindus and Sikhs. Sikh militancy in Punjab killed thousands in 1980s. The Government response to the movement culminated in an attack on Golden Temple in which hundreds of army men and Sikh militants were killed. There have been separatist movements in Eastern India that led to the killing of thousands of people in terrorist attacks. Naxalites have been killing people in several parts of India for almost half a century. The biggest seat of terrorist violence in the recent history has been Sri Lanka, where Hindu Tamils have been involved in terrorism for more than two decades; about one hundred thousand persons have become victims of this violence. In Nepal, Maoists have slaughtered several thousands in recent years. Maoists have more than 30000 fighters in their ranks and hundreds of thousands of sympathisers
Ahimsa (non-violence) is the avowed principle that Hinduism preaches. Yet, Ahimsa has sufficient scope for Himsa (violence). The Hindu scriptures are full of grandiose descriptions of wars and battles. The Mahabharat, one of the most sacred scriptures of Hindus is in fact all about the "greatest" war that was ever fought on the surface of the earth, under the command of Lord Krishna. The Ramayana, the other important scripture too has the war between Ram and Ravan as one of the main chapters. The major Hindu festivals like Diwali and Dussehra are celebrated in the memory of the victories in the wars. Many Hindu thinkers have been preaching for years the desirability of the use of force against their "enemies". It will be worthwhile here to quote from an article, "THE REAL HINDU VIEW OF AHIMSA (non-violence)" by Shri Nandan Vyas. He says:
"The Hindu scriptures extol virtues of Ahimsa (non-injury or non- violence) and consider it an essential tenet of and guide for PERSONAL behaviour (ONLY). However destruction of wicked essential for establishing the Dharma (righteousness) is considered Ahimsa also……As the Bhagavat tells us: Jivo jivasya jeevanam Bhagavat - 1.13.46 .... (1) Knowingly or unknowingly a larger life form consumes a smaller life form, thence complete Ahimsa is not possible. Also in this respect one must define right or justifiable Himsa, and unjustifiable Himsa….in the context of the Mahabharat war wherein Bhagawan Krishna repeatedly asks Arjun to fight the righteous war (Tasmat yuddhasya Bharat!)….. Because the HINDU SCRIPTURES CONSIDER UNAVOIDABLE VIOLENCE (HIMSA) RELUCTANTLY UNDERTAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A RULE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS (DHARMA SANSTHAAPANA) FOR THE BETTERMENT OF SOCIETY AND FOR SUSTENANCE OF ONE'S BODY AS JUSTIFIABLE AND CALL IT AS AHIMSA ALSO. ….Dayaa tiche naav bhutaanche paalan aanika nirdaalan kantakaanche (Tukaram Gatha - Abhanga 129)...(4) Meaning - Compassion is thy name - nurturing all (living) beings AND the destruction of the wicked. …..Even Manusmruti says : Aatatayinaa mayaantam hanyaadevavichaaryan (Manusmruti 8.350) ...(1) Meaning - A wicked, evil aggressor should be killed without any hesitation. ….…In fact in Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavan Krishna promises - 'paritraNaaya saadhunaam vinaashaayacha dushkrutaam dharma sansthaapanaarthaya sambhavaami yuge yuge (Gita 4.8) ...(7) Meaning - For the protection of the good, for the destruction of the wicked, and for the establishment of dharma, I am born age after age…..real popular Hindu view considers destruction of wicked as Ahimsa also. Hindu scriptures are full of incarnations of Vishnu and Shiva with the destruction of wicked demons as their main Avatar karya (reason to be). It is also more than a coincidence that all Hindu divine images are always bearing arms. Even Hindu goddesses, such as Durga, Bhavani, Kali, carry weapons, and are immortalised in the stories of their destruction of the wicked. Even now during the Dasshera festival Hindus perform puja of their weapons. This tradition is followed even in the Indian and Nepali armed forces, particularly in the Gorkha regiments. Thus bearing arms and destroying the wicked are considered necessary for the preservation of society and are considered as Ahimsa."
The article also opines about the need of taking arms in the current world and exhorts Hindus to fight their enemies:
"In the present day context, the fight against historical injustice against Hindus and the Hindu way of life must be considered as Ahimsa also. Because fighting for justice is a Hindu's righteous duty (dharma). "
The article criticises Gandhi’s approach towards non-violence: "Gandhiji's non-violent struggle worked against an educated and cultured oppressor, namely the British." It then goes to prove that Gandhi’s style will not work against less cultured enemies who must be suppressed by force without hesitation.
I would like to say here that as I believe in justice, I do not condone any injustices committed by Muslim rulers some of whom proved to more rulers than Muslims.
You say "Why is it that a Muslim flares up on reference to Koran or any other dictates of mullahs by any non Muslims? Why Muslims cant bear criticism like others do?
Answer: Even dedicated Hindus flare up to any derogatory reference to any of the religious scriptures, and so do Christians. Muslim response is more vocal because unlike Christians and Hindus, most of them are dedicated to their religion. The population of practising Muslims is surely much greater than the population of practising Christians or Hindus. Furthermore, Muslims never insult the scriptures and founders of other religions, and so they feel appalled how others can do this to their Prophet and Scripture. In contrast to the allegation that Muslims are intolerant, they are in fact most tolerant of all religious communities. Did you ever hear Muslims denigrating Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Ram or Krishna? Did you ever hear Muslims desecrating Bible, Vedas or Gita? Muslims respect all scriptures and all founders of religions, and most Islamic scholars regard them as previous scriptures and messengers of God. Islam means peace in submission to God, and Quran says that God sent messengers to all parts of the world who all were true.
Why is it that the unrest is always linked to Muslims in the world?
Answer: This again is an absurd allegation. The last century witnessed two world wars and in both these wars, Muslims were not the key players. Listed below are the details of the wars and civil wars that have been fought in last 150 years.
Wars in last 150 years
1860-65: American civil war (360,000)
Out of the total number of around 160 million dead, an overwhelming majority has been killed in or by countries that are now the five big powers of the world, namely China, the US, the UK, France and Russia. The killings by, or in Muslim countries, form a very small percentage of the total killings. This is despite the fact that Muslims form about one fifth of the world population. If we convert the figures into a community-wise break-up, about 90% of violence has involved Christians, Buddhists and Atheists. The majority of the killings in Muslim countries or regions have been the direct effect of foreign interventions. These include the deaths in Afghanistan, as the corollary of Soviet and American invasions, Iran-Iraq war (which was fought at the behest of the US), and Iraq as the result of American invasions. The biggest pogroms of the history have taken place in Germany, Russia (both Christian countries) and China (Buddhists, other religions, atheists). Stalin and Hitler, two of the biggest killers of all times were Christians; few massacres that have taken place at the behest of Muslim rulers, like Saddam Hussein and Idi Amin, have been by those whose loyalty to their religion was almost negligible. While China and Russia hold the distinction for murdering their own people in maximum numbers for political ends, the credit of killing most people abroad goes to the US, especially during last 60 years. Apart from its role in the killings in the Second World War, it killed about half a million people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, 3 million people in Vietnam and about 100, 000 people in Iraq. America’s role in Afghan’s struggle against Russia, Iran-Iraq war and Arab-Israeli conflicts is too well known to require elaboration.
You say: Can Muslims deny that in Koran, sunna and Sharia or whatever by correct name these are called ,there is clear mention for treating women as filth and treating non Islam world as non believers and deserve to be eliminated? It is exclusive and sick mind's attitude. The fact is that most of Muslims who are illiterate are brainwashed by mullahs and fanatics in Islamic community to wage war in name of Jihad."
Mr Lalwani, you are not only wrong on both accounts. Quran, Sunnah or Shariah, none calls for treating women as filth. The Quran describes man and woman as each other’s "apparel"; it also declares men to be the "guarantors" of the security of women. It is unfortunately true however that the Muslim women today do not enjoy some of the rights enshrined to them by the Quran and Sunnah.
Woman in Hinduism
In contrast, Hinduism pictures women in very bad colours. Hinduism is well-known for Sati Pratha, where women would burn herself with the pyre of her husband, absence of the right to divorce (given later in the country’s constitution), the concept of Kanyadaan (gifting of daughter to her husband), restricted rights in religion, dowry deaths and Female infanticide. See the following excerpts from Hindu scriptures, which show the inferiority of women:
"Tasmat striyam jatam parasyanti ut pumamsam haranti"(Hence they reject a female child when born, and take up a male.) [Taitt. Samh. VI.5.10.3] [Muir I 26]
A man, aged thirty years, shall marry a maiden of twelve who pleases him, or a man of twenty-four a girl of eight years of age; if (the performance of) his duties would otherwise be impeded, he must marry sooner."[Manu IX.94]
"When a woman, proud of her relations [or abilities] deceives her husband (with another man), then the king should [ensure that] she be torn apart by dogs in place much frequented by people"[Manu Smrti 8:371]
VIII.371. "If a wife, proud of the greatness of her relatives or (her own) excellence, violates the duty which she owes to her lord, the king shall cause her to be devoured by dogs in a place frequented by many. VIII.372. Let him cause the male offender to be burnt on a red-hot iron bed; they shall put logs under it, (until) the sinner is burned (to death)."[Manu Smrti Buhler VIII 371-372]
"A wife, a son, and a slave, these three are declared to have no property; the wealth which they earn is (acquired) for him to whom they belong. A Brahmana may confidently seize the goods of (his) Sudra (slave); for, as that (slave) can have no property, his master may take his possessions. [Manu VIII.416-417]
"Let these women, whose husbands are worthy and are living, enter the house with ghee (applied) as corrylium ( to their eyes). Let these wives first step into the pyre, tearless without any affliction and well adorned."[Rig Veda X.18.7] [Kane 199-200]
"By means of the eldest son- as soon as he is born—a man becomes possessed of a son, and is thus cleared of his debt towards the ancestors" (manusmriti 9.106)
Through a son, one conquers the worlds, through a grandson one attains endlessness, and to a great grandson one attains the world of the sun" (9.137)
Bharat Jhunjhunwala, the well-known writer and a staunch supporter of Hindu traditions, says, "The Indian Tradition repeatedly treats women and Sudra with the same contempt. This attitude permeates the entire Indian Tradition. Though there is veneration of the female as Durga, Laxmi and Saraswati, this is at the divine plane. There are references to noble women like Gargi and Maitrayi who were scholars in their own right, but these isolated examples are the exceptions that prove the rule. Grand women like Sita and Kunti are treated no better than the rest of women where their gender roles are concerned." (Indian Approach towards Women Empowerment")
Even rapes of women by kings and ministers are encouraged:
"It is said that kings and ministers should not indulge in sex with other’s wife because the people follow the rulers. (5.5, 1-3). However if due to irrepressible desires, it becomes necessary to have such sex relations, then they must use various techniques to secure this end (5,5.4). The desired woman should be called into the palace to show the invaluable gems etc and then the king should have sex with her, even if she has to be got drunk first(5, 5.14-22)(. The king may forgive the husband his crime if his wife accept his bed (5,5.24)."
More examples of women’s inferiority:
""It is the nature of women to seduce men. The4y are careless and wanton." (2, 213-4)
"There is no separate sacrifice for women. Women reach heaven by obeying their husbands." (5, 155)
"She must worship even a husband of bad qualities." (5, 154)
"A wife is not released from her husband even by sale or abandonment." (9, 46)
One can argue that Hindus have abandoned these injunctions of their religious scriptures. But the truth remains that even today, female Infanticide is the order of the day in many parts of India, dowry deaths are common, women are ill treated by their in-laws and widows can hardly hope to marry easily. The religion does not give women any rights in hereditary properties, though now Indian constitution gives.
In contrast, in Islam, women are secure. Unlike several other religions, a Muslim woman enjoys the same status in religious affairs as a man. If she obeys God in the prescribed way, she is as much entitled to Paradise as her father, husband, brother or son. As mother, she commands respect several times greater than man does as father. She has right to choose her spouse, reproductive rights, right to remarry as a widow or as a divorcee, right to seek divorce and in case of any defamation she can demand punishment to the offender. She is as much exhorted to earn knowledge as man. If there are places where man seems to be a little more privileged there are a number of places where woman seems to be more privileged. A woman is privileged in many ways. For instance, she is exempt from services in military though she can join it if she so wishes. She is entitled to economic benefits though she can earn if she wants to.
The modern world can boast of giving rights to women; but it has hardly cared for their safety and security. The result is that "freedom" of women has opened ways for their exploitation; and a strange kind of chaos prevails in society. Freedom has in truth proved to be nothing but a ploy to ensure a growing availability of women in market. Sex has not only become one of the biggest global markets; it has also become perhaps the greatest tormentor of humanity. It is killing people (AIDS, suicides, murders), destroying families and disturbing social harmony; women and children become its biggest victims. In contrast, while giving them rights Islam also ensures their safety and security. A woman in a true Islamic system cannot become a victim of the sex market (for commercialisation of sex cannot have any place in a civilised society). She runs minimum risk of assault on her modesty (for Islam severely and in an exemplary manner punishes such crimes). She has an added satisfaction that her husband cannot drink, gamble or have sex outside marriage, which also safeguards her against several life-threatening sex-related diseases. All these are big security concerns for women, and Islam attends all of them with perfection. "
Does Islam call to kill all Unbelievers?"
This is yet another absurd allegation. Let’s see what Kafir is and how Islam deals with kafirs. It is argued that Muslims regard all others as Kafir and that Islam asks its followers to kill all Kafirs. This is oversimplification of facts aimed at nothing but denigrating Islam. Literally, Kafir means one who has disproved, disbelieved, rejected or dissented. So literally speaking, for Christians Catholics those Muslims, Jews and all others who disprove their principle of Trinity are Kafir; for Jews those Christians and Muslims who have rejected their fold are Kafir; and for Hindus Muslims and Christians rejecting Hindu principles are Kafir, that is dissenters. Similarly, for Muslims, all those who disprove Islamic principles of Oneness of God, Embassy of all Messengers of God including Jesus and Moses, Mohammed’s being the Final Ambassador of God, Quran’s being the Final Book of God and Hereafter are Kafir. Literally speaking, even Muslims are Kafir of Polytheism, Trinity, etc. Now in this connection following comments are important:
First, Unlike the melechh and rakshas used by Hindus and Heathens used by Christians for those who do not follow their faiths, Kafir, used by Quran for the disbeliveers, is not a derogatory term. It simply means one who disproves the ideology of Islam.
Second, all non-Muslims are not Kafirs. A person becomes a dissenter only after the message of Islam has properly been conveyed to him, has been given time to think, has been formally invited to Islam and has categorically rejected the invitation. All others remain in the category of "ignorant" or "undirected". It is the duty of Muslims to properly convey the message of Islam to all the inhabitants of the earth, through the best and kindest means possible, without any coercion. If they have failed in their duty, they will have to share the blame for the inability of the "ignorant" to accept Islam.
Third, even Kafirs fall into several categories. There are those who have simply disproved Islam but have no hostile intentions against it and are not engaged in hostile activities against Muslims or anyone else. Quran makes it clear (verses quoted before) that it does not want Muslims to fight those who have not fought with them or have not expelled them from their homes. Quran is still more benign on another category of Kafirs: those who follow the Divine Scriptures. They are called Ashab-al-Kitaab (People of the Book) and essentially include Jews and Christians, but according to a group of Indian Islamic thinkers, Hindus too come in the same category. Muslims have been told in Quran that they can maintain social relations with them and can even marry their women. (There is no categorical ban in Quran on Muslim women marrying Christian and Jew men, but most of the theologians believe the permission is there for only Muslim men to marry the women of Ahl-e kitab.) Quran even praises their priests who are engaged in services to humanity for the pleasure of God. Then there is a category of Kafirs who have formal treaties with Muslims. Muslims have been told to honour their commitments, as agreed upon in the pacts. This category also includes non-Muslim subjects living in Muslim countries who enjoy full protection by the state. There is always a scope of revising all forms of treaties depending upon the positions taken by the parties. Then there is the category of those Kafirs who are openly engaged in hostile activities, fights, rebellion and mischievous activities through campaigns of hatred or are violating their treaties with Muslims. These must be dealt with without any sympathy; different forms of punitive actions including sanctions, boycott and armed struggle can be used against them in accordance with the demands of the situation. But even in their cases, Quran makes it clear that if they return to peaceful ways God does not give Muslims a lead to unnecessarily pursue and persecute them. Quranic injunctions of killing "Kafirs", as appear in some verses related to the conduct during fighting, apply only to the last category.
Lastly about Jihad
Islam is not a religion aimed merely at spiritual training of individuals. It is also not there just for social reform. Its area of action encompasses every sphere of individual and collective life, viz. health, education, politics, economics and social affairs, including those at the national and international levels. It is not just a set of rituals and customs or a way of life. It is a fully-grown system, which like every other system of governance, needs to propagate its ideology, safeguard its interests, protect its followers and areas of influence and combat any actions of hostility directed against it. It has the right to self-defence like any other country or organisation has. Jihad means struggle; it denotes earnest efforts to achieve Islamic objective of grand peace and safeguard its ideological, political and geographical sovereignty. Under normal circumstances, Jihad primarily involves intellectual, political and social means; in extraordinary circumstances, it does not shy away from adopting military or militant means. What differentiates Islamic method of armed confrontation however from that in vogue in the current international arena is that in Islam Jihad is not for selfish geographical, political and economic interests of a country or a group of countries. In contrast, it is aimed at ensuring peace, rescuing people in duress and fighting the forces of evil, exploitation and injustice. But Quran categorically states that fighting should be restricted only for the stated objectives, namely in the event of aggressive intents or actions of a hostile force, infraction of agreement, widespread chaos, exploitation or oppression and to counter excesses. It also makes clear that while during fighting every effort must be made to strike telling blows to the enemy, Muslims must return to the negotiating table as soon as the enemy appears inclined to cease-fire and lasting peace.
The term "Jihad" in Islam does not mean an armed fight, which at best is only a part of it. Jihad, in fact is an incessant struggle to spread what is good and uproot what is evil. The best Jihad, according to Islam is against one’s self. And when this definition is extended to a social level, it again means struggle against forces that exploit human weaknesses or oppress the weak and poor.
Islam is for peace. God clearly abhors mischief, and loves peace:
· Every time they kindle the fire of war, Allah doth extinguish it; but they (ever) strive to do mischief on earth. And Allah loveth not those who do mischief. (5:64)
· And We shall try you until We test those among you who strive their utmost and persevere in patience; and We shall try your reported (mettle). (47:31)
· …verily Allah loves those who act aright. (3:76)
· ..but do thou good, as Allah has been good to thee, and seek not (occasions for) mischief in the land: for Allah loves not those who do mischief. (28:77)
· Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with might and main, in Allah’s cause, with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah. they are the people who will achieve (salvation). Their Lord doth give them glad tidings of a Mercy from Himself, of His good pleasure, and of gardens for them, wherein are delights that endure.. (
Thus Islam has a perfect, yet pragmatic approach towards establishing a lasting peace in society. In an effort to prove that Islam is for peace, some scholars tend to totally disregard any form of armed struggle. Islam does not merely ask its followers to engage themselves in a few rituals; it prepares them to establish a system and protect it. Every ideology and system takes all the necessary measures to protect it from external and internal mischief and to consolidate it. Islam is no exception and it has greater right to work in that direction because it aims to establish the rule of God, not an oligarchy.
Jihad in Islam is obligatory. It is an important constituent of the Islamic mission of universal peace and justice. It is in fact incumbent on all the human beings to engage in this mission. But for Muslims it is a divine duty. Jihad is meant for protecting the weak against the mighty; for alerting the forces of evil that their sordid adventures will not go unchallenged; for giving the oppressed sections a voice and wrecking the nerve-centres of the tyrants; and for giving the exploiters sleepless nights. Jihad prepares a person to sacrifice his possessions including his life if required for the cause of God. But Mujahids must clearly know that the objective of Jihad is not to bring certain persons to power, nor to bring theocracies to the whole world through sheer use of force. "Deen", the system of God does not necessarily mean the establishment of a theocratic government through violent means; it means the rule of justice. Fighting is only the last but an open option in Jihad. If conditions are justifiable for fighting, it becomes obligatory; if conditions do not demand fighting, it becomes aggression. If its objectives are for the welfare of the masses it is desirable; if it is an excuse for selfish ends, it is an unparalleled sin. Jihad through peaceful means must always continue without halt; Jihad through arms must be an aberration. But once the conditions are justifiable, fighting must see no sympathy for the enemy; it must be given a crushing below. Fighting against the wicked is no violence; it is an exercise aimed at minimising violence. Killing bacteria and viruses through antibiotics and antiviral drugs is essential to maintain a healthy life. If microbes are not killed, they will kill the very person who provides them the food for their sustenance.
Islam however does not accept that "all is fair in love and war". Even in war, all Islamic conditions must be followed in letter and spirit. As soon as the conditions are bright for an honourable settlement, fighting must be stopped without delay; for the ultimate objective is not the subjugation of the enemy but an end to mischief, anarchy, chaos and oppression. The powers that dominate do always try to take the right to fight away from others, so that they can continue to hold reins. They amass massive stocks of deadly weapons, but deny others the right to possess them. They do not hesitate a second to attack or invade the positions of their challengers, but make too much fuss of even the smallest acts of armed resistance. They kill innocents in big numbers and label it as ‘collateral damage’; and lambaste their opponents, through the weapons of words and war, if their actions cause the deaths of even a handful of innocents.
Lastly, Mr Lalwani, I agree with you that all religions are great. I am of the opinion that all religions, especially Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism and Islam must unite against the globalisation of evils, injustices and immorality. They can however keep competing with one another in a positive way. You and I both being Indians can start the process by bringing Hindus and Muslims together against the forces of globalisation.
I would also like to tell you that what I said above was only a response to your remarks. In personal capacity, I have great regards for Vedas, Gita and Ramyan and for Ram, Krishna and other Hindu greats.
If you are staying in or around New *Delhi, I would love to invite you to the releasing ceremony of my book, "Islam means Peace" scheduled in November.
Dr Javed Jamil
International Centre for Applied Islamics
Please report any
broken links to
Copyright © 1988-2012 irfi.org. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer