FOLLOW US:

Books and Documents
Islam,Terrorism and Jihad (18 Jul 2012 NewAgeIslam.Com)
Terrorism: How to Deal with Militant Islam

 By Aiman Reyaz, New Age Islam

While we must accept political Islamism, radical Islamism must be defeated. There should be no naive optimism and hope that somehow the radicalisation in the Muslim world will end. While dialogue is necessary with political Islam, whose influence is important in certain parts of the world, there can be no negotiating with activist Islamism. The best way to overcome terrorism is to confront it. The next step is to prevent it from recurring. Thus, Muslims must be ensured a future that is free from poverty, illiteracy, and corruption—always fertile breeding grounds for terrorist groups… This is the last article of a two-part series.

“Islam is ideology and faith, homeland and nationality, creed and state, spirit and action, book and sword.”

– Hassan al Banna, 1934

The connection between religion and terrorism is not new. More than 2,000 years ago the first acts of what we now call “terrorism” were perpetrated by religious fanatics. The word “zealot”, which to us means an “immoderate partisan” or a “fanatic”, can be traced back to a millenarian Jewish sect of the same name that fought in A.D. 66-73 against the Roman Empire’s occupation of what is now Israel. The word “assassin” – “one who undertakes to put another to death by deceitful violence” – was the name of a radical offshoot of the Muslim Shia Ismaili Sect, which between A.D. 1090 and 1272 fought to repel the Christian crusaders attempting to conquer present-day Syria and Iran.

Religious and Secular Terrorism

Terrorism motivated either in whole or in part by a religious imperative, where violence is regarded by its practitioners as a divine duty or sacramental act, embraces markedly different means of legitimation and justification than that committed by secular terrorists, and these distinguishing features lead, in turn, to greater bloodshed and destruction.

Until the 19th century, religion provided the only justification for terrorism. Many of the political developments of this era account for the shift in motivation and emphasis that then took place and the growing popularity of various schools of radical political thought, embracing Marxist ideology, anarchism and nihilism, completed the transformation of terrorism from a mostly religious to a mostly secular phenomenon.

The re-emergence of modern religious terrorism was initially closely associated with the Islamic Revolution of Iran. It is not surprising that religion should become a far more popular motivation for terrorism in the post-Cold War era as old ideologies lie discredited by the collapse of the Soviet Union and communist ideology, while the promise of magnanimous benefits from the liberal-democratic, capitalist state fails to materialise in many countries throughout the world.

The reasons that terrorist incidents perpetrated for Islamic motives result in so many more deaths can be found in the starkly different value systems, mechanisms of legitimation and justification, concepts of morality and worldviews embraced by the militant Islamist and his secular counterpart.

For the militant Islamist, violence is first and foremost a sacramental act or divine duty executed in direct response to some theological demand or imperative. This type or terrorism thus takes a transcendental dimension and its perpetrators therefore often disregard the political, moral, or practical constraints that may affect other terrorists.

Different Perceptions

Militant Islamists and secular terrorists have also starkly different perceptions of themselves and their violent acts. Whereas secular terrorists regard violence either as a way of instigating the correction of a flow in a system that is basically good or as a means to foment the creation of a new system, militant Islamists see themselves not as components of a system worth preserving but as “outsiders” seeking fundamental changes in the existing order.

Having this sense of alienation enables the militant Islamists to contemplate far more destructive and deadly types of terrorist operations than secular terrorists, indeed to include a far more open-ended category of “enemies” for attack– that is, anyone who is not a member of Islam or its particular sect. This explains the rhetoric common to “holy terror” manifestos describing those outside of the fold of Islam in denigrating and dehumanising terms as, for example, “infidel”, “dogs”, “pigs”, “monkeys” and “children of Satan”. The deliberate use of such terminology to condone and justify terrorism is very important, for it further erodes constraints on violence and bloodshed by portraying the militant Islamists’ victims as either subhuman or unworthy of living.

Role of Clerics and No Compromise

The role of clerical authority in sanctioning terrorist operations has always been critical to both Shia and Sunni organizations. The fatwa by Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini imposing the death sentence on writer Salman Rushdie is a case in point. Similarly, the Sunni extremists who bombed New York City’s World Trade Centre in 1993 specifically obtained a fatwa from Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman before planning their attack.

Militant Islamic fundamentalist organisations portray their struggle in simply uncompromising terms. According to Antar Zouabri, a leader of a 1990s movement to establish an Islamic republic in Algeria, there can never be either dialogue or truce in his organisation’s struggle against the illegitimate, secular government. The word of God, he argued, is immutable: God does not negotiate or engage in discussion.

Driving home the point that Hamas’s war is not only against Israel, but against all Jews, Imam Sheikh Ahmad Ibrahim Yassin reportedly declared, “Six million descendants of monkeys [i.e., Jews] now rule in all the nations of the world, but their day, too, will come. Allah! Kill them all, do not leave even one.”

Conclusion: Don’t Talk, Act

I have written in one of my previous articles that “wrong or weak ideas can be destroyed only by a correct or a superior idea”. But how can we share the correct ideology with someone who is too blind to seeing new things? How can we talk to someone who does not want to negotiate?

While we must accept political Islamism, radical Islamism must be defeated. There should be no naive optimism and hope that somehow the radicalisation in the Muslim world will end. While dialogue is necessary with political Islam, whose influence is important in certain parts of the world, there can be no negotiating with activist Islamism. The best way to overcome terrorism is to confront it. The next step is to prevent it from recurring. Thus, Muslims must be ensured a future that is free from poverty, illiteracy, and corruption—always fertile breeding grounds for terrorist groups.

URL: http://newageislam.com/islam,terrorism-and-jihad/by-aiman-reyaz,-new-age-islam/terrorism--how-to-deal-with-militant-islam/d/7963

 



TOTAL COMMENTS:-   38
  • Dear Mr. Ahmad Esmail Sir. A very Happy Ramzan to you. To be honest, however, I didn't like your response. I hope you will appreciate that I said this plainly and I hope you will not take pleasure in knowing this. Saying this was needed to take out whatever grudge I felt and now I am with none for you. We can agree to disagree on the "The Muslim World needs all shades of Islam and All forms of activism" and that "the Great Game (is) being played out". Also, I disagree with your justification for terrorism which you have done by saying "Like Bombs and Bullets; terrorism as a Military Tactic has its place in a theatre of War" and finally I disagree with your usage of the phrase "defensive action" for aggression, "in all its shapes and forms" which to me amounts to take recourse even in un Islamic ways. Among the personal remarks I also didn’t like your “last response” thing. Ramzan doesn’t stop you from writing one more time saying sorry for hurting even though I am not asking for it as I am with no grudge just after putting in the third and fourth sentence as mentioned above. Ramzan also doesn’t stop to agree to disagree. As for Dear Mr. Aiman Riyaz Sir, he doesn’t need my mentorship. He has already understood the gist of Islam. Islam is after all not a Great Game being played out in the name of terrorism. It is rather the other way round. Islam means ‘peace’ and military action against terrorists is some concession from peace for larger good for all. So I believe and you have all rights to disagree with this.

    Whoever caused the terrorist to be terrorists is important to prevent new recruits, but those who are into it and are not fighting against their revenge taking tendency, are certainly inviting a defensive action from us civilians. Ex-terrorists who have given up arms may be given amnesty depending on how much reformed the person is and how is he/she going to compensate for his/her actions. Peace.

     


    By sadaf - 7/21/2012 3:00:46 AM
  • Bhai Sadaf, you are too kind, but I don’t deserve your complements. Let’s reserve these complements and more for your good self, a man of great expression if not expectations and a Phd in thinly veiled sarcasm to boot. And I really hope that my response to Aiman Reyaz was not the cause of your indigestion, for I pray that you being a man of letters may like to consider taking Aiman Reyaz under your wings and mentor him into a credible figure from being a Ventriloquist’s Dummy.

    Regarding mutual bombing of Mosques, call it a trend, call it a Pakistani ‘speciality’, people are in such a hurry to achieve martyrdom. This is the same unique quality of ‘Impatience’, as that displayed during boarding of the local bus. 

    You forgot to mention the Assassins (Hired Killers), American Capitalism has finally come to Pakistan. And it’s been such a success that in Karachi the numbers of these self-employed entrepreneurs has jumped from  01 few years ago to more than 600 now. If this is not a demand and supply economics, then I don’t know what is.

    Yes I agree with you, Saudis, Iranians and others are players on Chess Board. I will leave it up to you to analyse the ‘moves’ and draw ‘mind bending’ strategic conclusions. 

    As for “Don’t you think that terrorism by America is designed by Almighty to test the combat skills of His obedient slaves?” Well I wouldn't know and I wouldn't like to hazard a guess. This level of spiritualism is beyond me, but maybe it’s your forte, what do you think? 

    Bhai Sadaf, this is my first and my last response to your invitation. Ramadhan Mubarak has started, so be at peace. O Allah! Protect your Deen and save us from the Fires of Hell, Ameen.


    By Ahmed Esmail - 7/20/2012 8:59:46 PM
  • @Asif Merchant. I fully endorse your view and share your agony. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, my co-author and I had jointly published a booklet in Toronto, titled, TERRORISM IN THE NAME OF ISLAM -UNDERLYING ISSUES, GENESIS, AND SOUL SEARCHING. Its opening paragraph read as follows: While there could be different ways to define terrorism, any rational human being cannot deny that killing of absolutely harmless civilians going about their normal lives in the most unsuspecting manner, is an act of terrorism, and deserving of an unqualified condemnation. Thus, there can be no justification of the September 11 terrorist attack, and those who committed it merit no sympathy from any quarter. Even those Muslims who may perceive America as an enemy country, have no justification for killing even a single innocent American civilian. The Qur’an clearly forbids the killing of innocent souls even at the time of war (9:6) - let alone the most horrendous terrorist attack that took its toll in thousands.”

    -------
    The saddest part is, having managed to publish it in the initial sensitive months post 9/11, we displayed the booklets in several mosques (in Toronto) pricing it at a mere one dollar. Not many Muslims bought them. So we gave them for free. The Muslims simply do not want to know what is there in the Qur’an for them. So don’t get shocked at the Qur’an ignorance of fellow Muslims. Haven’t you heard Allama Iqbal’s poetic outburst:

    'phul ki patti se kat sakta hai heere ka jigar

    - marde nadan par kalame narm o nazuk be asar'

    [“The petal of flower may pierce the heart of the diamond

    – but the Noble Words have no effect on the ignorant.”]


    By muhammad yunus (1) - 7/20/2012 8:41:51 PM
  • After reading all the comments (33 total now), some supportive, some neutral, some critical and some very critical, I have come to the conclusion- no there can be no conclusion to this because as rightly pointed by one of the commentators terrorism will continue as long as we live. It does not necessarily mean that their tactics will remain the same and the response will also be the same, it will and must change accordingly. Now, I along with some others, say that terrorism should be militarily confronted, but we have never ever talked aboud indiscriminate killings which the US and its allies have done and are doing, we are, against such types of military confrontation. Some others say that violence is no good to deal with terrorism; one should negotiate with them and give them a helping hand.

    I don't seem to understand, seriously, if you give a helping hand to a terrorist, he will probably chop it off. Can one make the blind see, can one make the deaf hear, can one make the dumb speak? No, unless a miraculous operation cures them. Similarly one cannot make the terrorist see one's side of the picture, they are blinded by that. They want to harm others, that's it and on top of it they think they are doing a great service, and people want to talk to them, or help them. I am no prophet.

    In fact even the Quran says “If anyone kills any human being, unless it be for murder or for creating mischief in the land, it is as though he has killed the whole of humanity.”

    Jesus Christ (pbuh) in the Gospels of Matthew, Ch 10 Verse 34: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace, but a sword.”


    By Aiman Reyaz - 7/20/2012 8:40:04 PM
  • Birth of the Afghan Mujahideen

     In a previous post I have described how the US led the Soviet Union into the Afghan trap by aiding the Islamic fundamentalist Moujahedeen six months before the Russians made their move, knowing that "this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention".
     Brzezinski was asked whether he regretted this decision
    “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire”.
     The Afghan Mujahidin, therefore served the purpose of the US in helping break the might of the Soviet Union, leaving it the only superpower after which the US pre occupation with the communist world ended, allowing it to focus on the strategic and oil rich Middle East.
     Saddam obliged by occupying Kuwait giving Bush the opportunity to enter the ME. When Saddam looked ready to withdraw from Kuwait, Bush unleashed a volley of abuses, making it impossible for Saddam to withdraw and save face, forcing a war. This was in 1991.
     The Afghan Mujahideen had offered to liberate Kuwait but the Saudi monarch was afraid of the growing influence of Osama and felt insecure. He therefore invited the US to help liberate Kuwait. This was the beginning of the rift between the US and the Afghan Mujahideen.
     Unlike soldiers who return as veterans of war and are put through excessive counselling to help them resume normal life, the Afghan Mujahideen after the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, continued to function with the warrior mindset and were misused by Pakistan to fight a proxy war against India. After the first Gulf war in 1991, these Mujahideens found a new cause for their jehad  against their former ally and friend the US  as the US was now firmly entrenched in the ME, much to the dislike of the Mujahideen. The first terrorist attack against the US took place in 1993 when 6 people were killed in the attack on WTC. The US also found a new enemy after the end of cold war and a good reason to keep it's Military Industrial complex in business. The Mujahideen have thus played into the hands of the US and are causing immense harm to the entire Muslim community by their foolishness. Defeating the Soviet Union made the Afgahn Mujahideen feel invincible and on par with the legendary Islamic warriors. Osama had delusions of achieving greatness similar to the warriors of yore, little realising that without the help of the US, they could not have driven out the Soviets from Afghanistan and on their own, they were no match for the US.
     Saudi Arabia is the ally of the US. The Saudi monarchy is unpopular and needs US troops to ensure its protection and survival.  Although Saudi monarchy is both unpopular and repressive, and Saudi Arabia is the epicentre of fundamentalist and militant ideology, it is serving the purpose of the US admirably. The US has a very consistent record in Central America and Indonesia and indeed the rest of the World, of not thinking twice before destabilizing popular governments, by arming and training counter revolutionaries, and installing dictatorships which are friendly to the US and the business interests of its Corporations.
    The US can easily end "Islamic terrorism". The question is do they want to? The Military Industrial complex of the US needs wars without which it will collapse and hurt the US economy and interests of it's big business.
    The Saudi Government approves every qutba or sermon before it is delivered on a Friday in the mosques - at least in the biggest mosques. There are fatwas which have declared indiscriminate killing of innocents as unislamic. The government can easily introduce standard text to be delivered in every qutba declaring terrorist acts to be unislamic and perpetrators destined for hell as per Islam. They can have mosques displaying large hoardings declaring terrorism as unislamic. This will not happen however, since the US needs low intensity terrorism to exist to justify whatever it does in the region.
     How can then the Muslims fight this menace? They can make it known to every Muslim that acts of terrorism are only helping the US and no one else. The US and the Great Britain are not at all worried about "islamic terrorism" since the incidence of Islamic terrorism results in less number of deaths than number of people dying falling from the stairs or less than 0.1% of deaths due to road accidents.  So all of their efforts do not amount to much. Moreover, such acts are unislamic and the perpetrators are destined for hell. If they eschew terrorism, the US will be left without a reason for waging the war on Islam and they would achieve their objective without a fight. Unknown to themselves, while they believe that they are waging jehad, they are actually working for the enemy. They should not therefore fall into the snare of Satan.
    All armies, before a battle, are fed with intense hate propaganda against "the enemy ".  The men are driven to frenzy and therefore all armies end up raping and sodomising the population. The American army is no exception. . Therefore, the revelation of Abu Gharib prison was merely an embarrassment to the US but not a surprise and it did not result in any convictions. For the same reason, the US will not allow Sergeant Richard Bales to be convicted and hanged for killing 16 sleeping Afghan civilians in cold blood. They would attribute his actions to stress and temporary insanity.  However, if the enemy behaves similarly, it is because they belong to a depraved race or religion.
    There may not be a single Iraqi family which has not lost a loved one. The same holds good for Afghanistan. The horror of cluster bombs and depleted uranium bombs which have been used can only be imagined. Most of the population suffer from PTSD (Post traumatic stress disorder) which can be seen on the faces of the children in the affected zones.  The ratio of innocents killed to a targeted person killed in Drone attacks is 50:1. To make this ratio look better, the US has simply changed the definition of target to any person of military age in target zone! There is no international law which supports these extra judicial killings.
     People join the army mostly because it is a means of earning a respectable livelihood. Mercenaries are those who fight for money and for them money is the only motivator. Mujahideen outfits are not the State which can provide both livelihood and respectability to the recruit nor do they have the means to pay mercenary salaries? They misuse religion and the promises of heaven. Like any other army preparing the soldiers for battle, they drive their recruits to frenzy. Do not therefore quote what these recruits say to define Islam just as you would not quote the songs that the American soldiers sang before invasion  or the behaviour of Richard Bales or the warders of Abu Gharib to define Americans.
    Aren't Al Qaeda and the US working together on the same side once again in Syria? Do not their leaders roam about freely in GB and the US and maintain contacts with the CIA and MI6? While the terrorists can be rightly considered as the enemies of the common people, the US cannot be treated as a well wisher either.
    By all means, we should fight the menace of terrorism using all legal means including shooting at sight anyone indulging in any act of deliberate armed violence but indiscriminate killings and suspension of legal processes can be avoided. The lunatic fringe exists in every society and has existed in Islamic societies as well. This fringe may have taken centre stage because of developments that have made its ideology of hate attractive to those who have suffered. Leaving the diehard ideologues, the rest of the people are reclaimable and must be reclaimed.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/20/2012 8:02:42 PM
  • Ok, Dear Mr. Athar Azimabadi, whatever you are saying, has been said by Gutama Buddha 2,500 years ago. Violence will not end violence. Agreed. But since these terrorist do not belive in the words of Budhha perhaps, therefore they think, they will end the violence against them by violence. Now if you say the onus of non-violence is on us, because terrorsit by definition will terrorize by using violence, it is we who have a task to disarm them by using non-violent ways. Good; looks like homeopathic treatment where you have leisure time to address your ailment. I seriously wish, such an idea was possible to implement by common men; those common men who aren’t Saints and Prophets.

    The blame on US is OK and even when we consider lapses of Muslim, the larger geopolitical reality is there, but why do we complain of that larger geopolitical reality when we know it is clearly up against Islam and Muslims. They are sworn enemies. But to be honest, not all of them are our enemies. Let us give some homeopathic dosage to our thoughts as well. When we do not want to quarrel with them or anyone, no power on earth can make us fight against them.

    But to fight back is a religious duty as well, as we are told by those who claim to know more than some of us. Those who fight are branded terrorsits. America is considered terrorist by Dr. Zakir Naik, some Jehadi consider America as terrorist. It all boils down to the basic question; which side you are with? America or with Jehadis? Then people like me will have to humbly say that Islam gives us right to Jehad and our fight is against Jehadists. They are the ones who bomb our market places indiscriminately and have cost us our near and dear ones apart from damaging the reputation of the good religion that we practice.

    And therefore enemy’s enemy, America is our friend for the time being. This Jehad could be like homeopathic treatment or be like surgery depending on the suitability of situation, but ruling out the methodology of surgery is like being asked to follow Buddha and Christ (Peace be upon them) and not making use of higher version of anti-virus which permits to wage Jihad against aggressors.

    Islam does actually permit to fight back in defense and even use a means which some may call violent. Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) fought in defence and terrorists who have conspired against us civilians or have actually been aggressor needs to be fought back as an urgent requirement of the circumstance we are in and also as per the footsteps of Prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him). Nauzobillah, why didn’t he be considered the one who chose violence over peaceful solution for defence purpose. But in a career of 23 years if he indulged in half a day battle twice, then by and large it was all a demonstration of peaceful means to arrive at a solution for all kinds of violence he was subjected to.


    By sadaf - 7/20/2012 3:48:58 PM
  • Dear Mr. Ahmed Esmail Sir, of what use your coaxing is for  when ‘every Muslim Man, Woman and Child’ who ‘must be prepared to take defensive action, in all its shapes and forms’, do not need it really as they have already turned their mosques into war zones? When Shias bomb Sunni Mosques and Sunnis bomb Shia Mosques, as Muslim don’t you feel the need to blame bomb and the inventors of it? Don’t you realize that playing up American drone attacks and Palestine issue silence the loud conspiracy against Iran by Saudis and writes off the feeble protest against Saudis by the Arabs from Eastern ‘Saudi’ Arabia. Don’t you think that terrorism by America is designed by Almighty to test the combat skills of His obedient slaves? 

     Since you write too well, I hope you will reply in the choicest words befitting your merit and say that all the happenings that we find as breaking news is basically old memoir of your activism. You are ahead of us and the time in which we are. You perhaps know the futility of words and whether writing it in sober way or in hilarious way is no way to sufficiently count your achievements.   


    By sadaf - 7/20/2012 1:35:31 PM
  • Terrorism is not a military tactic. It is indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians. It has hurt Muslims far more than it has hurt anyone else.

    We must of course condemn the civilian casualties ("collateral damage") of American air attacks, but when terrorists make civilians  their primary targets it should be highly offensive to our Islamic ethos. Attempts to justify such tactics ring hollow. Trying to negotiate with a suicide bomber is suicidal.


    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 7/20/2012 12:54:58 PM
  • Aiman Reyaz, reading this stuff of yours is both exasperating and laughable at the same time, are you taking something that you shouldn't? 

    The Muslim World needs all shades of Islam and All forms of activism. With your way of looking at things; the American Drone Attacks and the Jewish Occupation of Palestine can very easily be resolved through the Corrupt Political Governments of Pakistan. 

    Aiman Reyaz, you are writing with your 'Blinkers' on and Your Head in the Sand, and have little idea of the Great Game being played out. Like Bombs and Bullets; terrorism as a Military Tactic has its place in a theatre of War.

    Contrary to your advice Aiman Reyaz, every Muslim Man, Woman and Child must be prepared to take defensive action, in all its shapes and forms, and Delusional Word-Smiths like you should restrict yourself to armchair debates of no consequence. 


    By Ahmed Esmail - 7/20/2012 10:21:57 AM
  • The whole purpose of a religion is to enable people to live at peace with one another. I am surprised that most of our esteemed commentators are advocating violent means to combat terrorism.
    The main reason for what is known as 'Islamic terrorism' is the hijacking of Islam by the 'Petro-dollar people'. Our people are being taught that the main purpose of life is to go to 'heaven', for which the so-called 'pillars of Islam' are to be adhered to. None of these deal with contributing to a peaceful world. Apart from that, apparently our Prophet has made a deal with God, by which all Muslims will go to Heaven. "Ummat baksh di".
    All this should be corrected, as 'New Age Islam' is trying to do, so that Islam can once make a positive contribution to world peace.
    Terrorism cannot be combated by terrorism. In fact in the first 'Surah' it says "...Show us the Right Path  . . . not of those who have gone astray".
    We cannot have our actions guided by those who have gone astray.


    By Asif Merchant - 7/20/2012 8:53:43 AM
  • @Shaista Khan Patna. There is a general misconception that Islam spread by sword. This has been fully clarified by one of the most distinguished and learned scholars/historians of British India, Thomas W. Arnold (1864-1930). He carried out an extensive research lasting almost two decades to dig into the reasons of the phenomenal spread of Islam in its early centuries, which appeared in his landmark publication, ‘Preaching of Islam’. The following remark in its conclusive chapter speaks for itself [1]:

    "In the preceding pages it has been shown that the theory of the Muslim faith enjoins toleration and freedom of religious life for all those followers of other faiths who pay tribute in return for protection …, The very existence of so many Christian sects and communities in countries that have been for centuries under Mohammadan rule is an abiding testimony to the toleration they have enjoyed, and shows that the persecutions, they have from time to time been called upon to endure at the hands of bigots and fanatics, have been excited by some special and local circumstances, rather than inspired by a settled principal of intolerance." He also notes: ‘(Caliph) Umar is recorded to have ordered an allowance of money and food to be made to some Christian lepers, apparently out of the public funds [2].

    You may read further details on the role of Islam in world history as captured by some of the greatest figures of history from the critical Western world, people whose names will shine for ever like a beacon in the galaxy of the great scholars of the world [3]

    Notes

    1.            1. Thomas W. Arnold, Preaching of Islam, 2nd revised edition, 1913, reprinted Delhi 1990, p. 419/420.

    2.            Ibid., p.57.

    3.            Article, ‘The Qur’an espouses harmonious inter-faith relations with the Christians and the Jews and all other faith communities.

    http://newageislam.com/islam-and-pluralism/muhammad-yunus,-new-age-islam/the-qur’an-espouses-harmonious-inter-faith-relations-with-christians-and-jews-and-all-other-faith-communities/d/7722


    By muhammad yunus (1) - 7/20/2012 8:08:33 AM
  • @Shaista Khan patna. I liked your synopsis of the comments posted below. As you know in a world where publishing one’s views needs no expense, or scholarship, people of any background or no background post their views as they think fit and speak in an authoritatively tone. So, rather than giving my views, I am quoting below from a work which is approved by al-Azhar al-Sharif and endorsed by a leading jurist of this era. It traces terrorism to orthodox Islam’s veneration of Islamic theological discourses (Hadith and Classical Sharia) in parallel to the Qur’anic revelation, and concludes that unless these sciences are treated in their historical perspective as contingent to their era of evolution, among other things, the following will happen:

    i)                    The Muslim theologians will continue to nurture and perpetuate the thought process, scholastic disposition, and paradigms that were normative in the early centuries of Islam and characterize the Hadith literature, that is revered and taught by them, and thus keep those Muslims under their direct influence, intellectually rooted in that era, with grave consequences.

    ii)                  The modern Kharijites and Qaramites of Islam – the violent extremists, active in many countries of the world, will reduce Islam, in the eyes of the non-Muslims exposed to a patently biased media, to a cult of terrorism and suicide bombing, creating enormous difficulties for the common peace loving and law abiding Muslims settled in predominantly secular and non-Muslim societies.     

    This point, which is pivotal to the occasional emergence of terrorist outfits under the banner of Islam, is apparently ignored in the article.
    By muhammad yunus (1) - 7/20/2012 7:44:01 AM
  • @Dear Manzoorul Haque Saheb. I am reassured to hear your appreciative words. As you will know, humans seek the easiest path. Ask any modernist educated Muslim youth to read a researched article on the message or contribution of Islam, he turns away. He doesn’t want to told to cultivate exemplary moral conduct and behavior, to excel in lawful pursuits, be respect womenfolk, to return evil with good, to forgive even his enemy, to share his substance with the poor and so on. The easiest thing for him is to mock at the mullas and quote some preposterous fatwas they issued based on ancient narratives and say Islam is no good. These stupid secularists – virtual nincompoops fail to understand that if their great grandmother warned her son to keep indoors after nightfall by scaring him of the devil lurking in the darkness, she never meant it literally. So the Muslim educated elite fails to see the Hadith that today appear preposterous in their historical perspective and they make this as an excuse for keeping away from any productive intellectual discussion. No wonder the world reviles them. I fail to understand why such youth do not leave Islam and why are they wasting their time on this website.

    Wish you an early recovery and count on your support to spreading the truth around and to bring sense among the Muslims, project Islam as a pluralistic and benevolent faith as it truly is and bridge civilazational gaps.


    By muhammad yunus (1) - 7/20/2012 7:40:13 AM
  • I have very clearly stated the parameters by which Tamil Tigers can be judged to be the deadliest terrorists in all of history. I am afraid Aaiman, if I use your parameters, then Ghosts and Aliens from outer space will vie for a very respectable place in the list! As far as the fear factor is concerned, read about "The Culture of Fear". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_fear.
    As regards the discussion on the use of the terms Islamism and Islamist is concerned, I continue to have strong objection.
    If we did not have the word Islam to describe the religion of the Muslims, then the religion would have been called Muslimism. The word Islam therefore already has the sense of "ism" meaning an ideology and speaking from the point of English Grammar, Islamism is like mostest - a meaningless term. However, as somebody pointed out, the terms have to do with politics and not grammar.

     So what is the politics involved here? Those who talk of Islamism and Islamists are attributing to the religion of Islam and its followers, primary cause for acts of terrorism, whereas the primary causes are certain geopolitical factors and aggressive acts of the US and Israel. While we do not expect these actors to own responsibility and it is not surprising that they shift the blame on the victims, and categorize their reaction as due to Islamism, I certainly do not expect Muslims to legitimize their version of the story. I have, in a previous post, brought out very clearly, that Islam is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for acts of terrorism and so religion is not the primary cause and therefore the terms Islamism and Islamists are prejudicial.
    The US and the Al Qaeda were fighting on the same side against the Soviets. Are they not again on the same side in Syria? Also do not their important leaders roam about freely in GB and the US and are in touch with the MI6 and the CIA?
    Travel around and spend some time in Afghanistan and Iraq and learn firsthand what horrors their populations have suffered and you will wonder why there are so few terrorists. These people do not need to listen to sermons in mosques about  the Yahood and Nasara nor on Islam nor on history to hate the Americans and their partners.

     Very clearly it does not bother the US at all that there is so much hatred that their actions generate against the Americans. What have the terrorists achieved? Since 2001, the number of people killed in the US on account of acts defined as terrorism is 235 out of which only 33 or 6% are attributed to Muslims. Not a big price to pay for what they have done. The US kills more Muslim civilians in a single day than the Muslims have killed over the last 11 years. If you count the over 100,000 non-combatant civilians killed in Iraq alone, it works out to 30 per day over the last 9 years. What solution would you suggest for dealing with the rogue state which is the  US for what they have done?
    As far as Islamic terrorism is concerned, spread the word among Muslims that all their acts do not even add up to the equivalent of a mosquito bite. Their acts of terrorism however enable the US to justify its war on Islam. So while they think that they are waging Jehad, they are actually helping the enemy.  The best way that they can fight the enemy is by adopting non-violent means.


    By Naseer Ahmed - 7/20/2012 6:54:00 AM
  • @Sahani.Your dilemma whether ‘all converts start thinking should they remain Muslim or leave Islam’ if subjected to deductive logic, would at some point in time lead you to question whether you renounce your father or mother because they said such and such things that you find absurd now.

    To give you a more convincing example, in all likelihood, your great grandmother or an older ancestor may have warned her son to keep indoors after nightfall by scaring him of the devil lurking in the darkness or held notions and believes, some of which stand totally outlandish and bizarre today. If your logic is applied she was ignorant and irrational and deserving of condemnation.

    The problem with you and your type is, when your dad asks you to excel in exams, you point your finger at an uncle or an ancestor who never went to school. This website alos posts some highly researched articles on Islam – highlighting its positive side. You hardly make any comment. And here you come out of blues with your high sounding but utterly hollow and bizarre remark that only goes with those whose disorientation leads them to quote from the diary of an ancient ancestor to revile him.

    If your ancestor is really as worthless as you think, renounce him by an affidavit and find a new ancestor. I hope these examples do not go above your head and you revert with a totally unrelated response like one who loses a game tries to foil it by an unrowdy outburst or cheating.


    By muhammad yunus (1) - 7/20/2012 6:52:45 AM

Compose Your Comments here:

Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the below text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.
Content