i)                    Do Muslims believe that the Koran contains the immutable words of God?

Yes

ii)                  Are Muslims obligated to follow the teachings of the Koran?

Yes

iii)                If answer to (i) is yes, shouldn't the Koranic words of God be taken as absolute and literally? 

No, nothing can be understood literally alone.

iv)                Who is authorised to interpret / contextualise Allah's words? Where is this authorization provided? 

U/ Read the Book.

v)  Aren't the later verses of the Koran given higher importance than the earlier ones? 

             No. All are equal

v)                  The Koran contains several later verses (notably Sura 9) that talk of violence. Since these are the words of Allah as well, why shouldn't they too be taken on par with the words of peace?

Violence in self-defense is permitted. Have no misgivings on this score.

vi)                If answer to (ii) is yes, then how can anyone blame a Muslim for following the later violent verses?

Should not be blamed for violence in self-defense.

My response is not to this posting in particular. But I wanted to make a general comment under the main heading of ‘Islam and Terrorism’ etc. I think this is a suitable thread, for being current, and for having some relevance with the subject matter in my hand.

 Ali Sina is a name I have heard for the first time in Muslim circles. My ignorance may be! But sorry to say, that his ideas do not vibe with Muslims’ thoughts. He can still be a Muslim, but will be of little relevance to someone like me. I would rather like to exchange views with a straight Hindu or Christian who can give me a clearly different perspective.

 Defining terrorism cannot be the prerogative of the West only. So Dr. Naik has given his own definition. I think Mr. Sina has lived far too long in some lawless land to know that a private person also has the right to arrest anybody in order to prevent cognizable offence or even a right to fight and kill in defence, not only of himself,  but of others too! Of course such ‘jiyalas’ can only be produced by an ideology, of the order of Islam.

 I am glad to see that at least there is one person who has such great faith in the police. I have had the privilege of knowing police from close quarters. I would not place my bet on them.

 Now I come to my point.

 After reading the various postings under this head, it seems to me that some educated Muslims have become unduly perturbed by terrorism. But terrorism and state terrorism belong to the same genre. There is absolutely no difference in their moral make-up. Just as state terrorism is not sanctioned by state but it happens by the deeds of individual operators (why do you think so many innocent accused are set free by the courts after years of evidence-taking and the consequential harassment),  terrorism also happens by the deeds of individual operators and it doesn’t have social or communal sanction.

 There are many non-Muslims (Hindus and Christians) who are willing to take state–terrorism head on. So be not afraid! There is no need to be unduly fearful.  Some writers under this general heading, want the war Suras of Quran to be sidelined. But these are war Suras, and these give Muslims strength to fight the enemies and aggressors in a war. Can anyone guarantee that there will be no aggression against Muslims in future? Somebody has gone to great length to explain the Quranic phrase of ‘smiting the neck’, the meaning of which has been obvious to all of us Muslims since ages (haven’t you heard about ‘sar ko kalam karna’?). It simply means a four-lettered word, ‘kill’ - in whatever way you can. Obviously kill or destroy your opponents in a war, since admittedly these are war Surahs. In any case much of Quran has used symbolic language only. Therefore there is no need to abrogate the war Suras of Quran till a world government (which can only afford to come into being, with substantial moral inputs from Islamic ideology) takes over and wars are abrogated!!

 Finally a high discussion on terrorism cannot be completed without asking this low question. Who is fingering whom?

 Manzurul Haque

respected friends

Ali Sena has dealt with half of his arguments. As he further quotes that he is a fundamentalist follower of Islam, and goes to extreme pains i explaining the meaning of fundamentalist by quoting the dictionary meaning of it to prove that a fundamentalist can be good at the same time bad. No arguments on that, but then suffers from temporary amnesia when it come to find the meaning of terror visa-vise fear. Wrote to him that he should consult his area police man if he can terrorize a anti social element had that been the case then the crime rate would have been near 0. Even the worst anti social element against whom an arrest warrant has been issued by the court of law. If seen by arresting group of policeman in the market place with his family, will feel fear that the police can arrest him at worst kill him in encounter, but will not be terrorized as he know that his wife, and children will not be killed. On the contrary he may use them as a shield to get away. The terror comes when we learn that a bus full of children/a plane full of innocent people has been hi-jacked by someone to get their demands met, or a bomb has taken the like of few innocent people by a misguided suicide bomber.

  His 2nd justification is laughable. He says mahatma Gandhi was a freedom fighter to us, but to British govt. he was a terrorist. Same act two opinions like two faces of same coin. When I pointed out that Gandhiji believed in ahimsa, he changed the stand to the degree that he quoted violent freedom fighters of India. I again pointed that there are few violent freedom fighters of India starting from s.c.bose, shahnawaz khan. dillon of INA, then shaheed bhagat singh, rajguru, ram prasad bismil, and the most violent individual freedom fighter was dhingra who killed lord Curzon balle that too in England, and none of them was tried by British govt. as terrorist. Do u mean to say the britishers did not know the meaning of word terrorist? So again no coin ne two faces. U also added the case of Dr nelson Mandela of RSA. According to ur version the apartheid govt of SA considered him a terrorist, and kept him behind the bars for 25 years. Same Dr Mandela was awarded noble prize for peace when SA  became RSA. same man same act 2 sides. it was again pointed out by me that apartheid govt of SA never never considered Dr Mandela as terrorist as they knew that if , and when he came to power he will not kill the innocent white children/women even as a revenge so no coin no two sides.

May be Dr Z. Naik's comments have been quoted of context by Ali Sina, even then a human being, right or wrong, has no right to terrorize another human being. This is the job of law enforcement agencies as per the law of the land. If one person terrorizes another then there will remain no distinction between him and an anti-social element.