Indian Muslim scholars accuse LeT of conspiring against Islam
- Thread starter Bombay
- Start date
rockstarIN
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2010
- Messages
- 6,168
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Abandoned threads....abandoned ideas..!!
So bilalhaider
thanks for posting articles by Vinay Katiyar and Praful Goradia on how much of a "threat" Deoband. Atleast now I know that you are an ideological brother of the VHP, Bajrang Dal and Jan Sangh, the successor to the Hindu Mahasabha. Both the authors have been associated closely with these organizations . I think the fact that you quoted articles from SUCH people to prove your point should be enough to under cut the point your making.
This thread was simply about a simple point on weather different schools of thoughts support Terrorism. And the answer is that no matter what the school of thought, there is no direct support for acts like suicide bombings, or killing civilians because these are explicitly prohibited in the Quran. Some people might ignorantly claim that Salafi/Wahabbi or Ahle-Hadees (the sect that LeT claims to belong) support terrorism, but here is an unequivocal condemnation of LeTs tactics.
So what does result in support for terrorism? Ofcourse there is a religious aspect to it. To deny it is wrong. Putting it simply, a political religious ideology is a fertile ground that can LEAD to extremism and the more extremist and radicalized it gets, the more chances are that fringe groups out of that will indulge in terrorist activities. The problem in Pakistan is that groups like LeT e.t.c. have been given state backing and support by so-called mullas giving fatwas of Guzwat-ul-Hind, saying suicide bombing is allowed (till now no Pakistani scholars have come up with sustained anti-suicide bombing campaign) and encouraging the idea of waging Jihad in Kashmir and Afghanistan which is incorrect.
Let me clarify this once again because its very simple to understand. It doesn't matter what a religious sect claims or endorses. There could be a new school of thought which emphasizes on living in the desert and riding on camels or some other form of extreme conservatism. It is a problem as a social point of view, but from a terrorism perspective, they are not a threat.
What matters is the views on
(1) Suicide Bombing - Every school of thought including the much maligned Wahabbi/Salafi ulemas have declared it haram. Not just against Muslims but Non-Muslims too. Bin Baaz - the leading Salafi sheikh from Saudi Arabia gave a fatwa prohibiting suicide bombing back in the 80s and this was prohibited even against the Israelis because simply, suicide is explicitly prohibited in the Quran.
(2) Killing of civilians- Again this is also explicity prohibited. Political religious extremists and terrorists kill people just for not following their viewpoint. No school of thought endorses this killing of civilians and such mayhem is explicitly prohibited in the Quran as well. But for example in Kashmir, political workers, voters, local police e.t.c. are routinely killed just because they did not follow the diktat of the militant groups. Similarly, in Pakistan the TTP considers the current elected government, political leaders, army e.t.c. as worthy of being killed because they don't agree with their politico-religious viewpoint.
Keeping in mind that both these points (1) and (2) are explicitly mentioned in the Quran, its very difficult for a school of though that honestly tries to follow the Quran to endorse them. However, for political religious movements and extremist groups whose end game is achieving political power; it is easy for them to justify the means to achieve the ends. And hence you have political justifications for suicide bombings or killing civilians by the likes of Bin Laden, LeT or TTP e.t.c. These justifications are not based on the Quran or Shariah but on political grievances.
For more info, do go through the thread http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...wered-questions-case-pakistan.html#post543498
thanks for posting articles by Vinay Katiyar and Praful Goradia on how much of a "threat" Deoband. Atleast now I know that you are an ideological brother of the VHP, Bajrang Dal and Jan Sangh, the successor to the Hindu Mahasabha. Both the authors have been associated closely with these organizations . I think the fact that you quoted articles from SUCH people to prove your point should be enough to under cut the point your making.
This thread was simply about a simple point on weather different schools of thoughts support Terrorism. And the answer is that no matter what the school of thought, there is no direct support for acts like suicide bombings, or killing civilians because these are explicitly prohibited in the Quran. Some people might ignorantly claim that Salafi/Wahabbi or Ahle-Hadees (the sect that LeT claims to belong) support terrorism, but here is an unequivocal condemnation of LeTs tactics.
So what does result in support for terrorism? Ofcourse there is a religious aspect to it. To deny it is wrong. Putting it simply, a political religious ideology is a fertile ground that can LEAD to extremism and the more extremist and radicalized it gets, the more chances are that fringe groups out of that will indulge in terrorist activities. The problem in Pakistan is that groups like LeT e.t.c. have been given state backing and support by so-called mullas giving fatwas of Guzwat-ul-Hind, saying suicide bombing is allowed (till now no Pakistani scholars have come up with sustained anti-suicide bombing campaign) and encouraging the idea of waging Jihad in Kashmir and Afghanistan which is incorrect.
Let me clarify this once again because its very simple to understand. It doesn't matter what a religious sect claims or endorses. There could be a new school of thought which emphasizes on living in the desert and riding on camels or some other form of extreme conservatism. It is a problem as a social point of view, but from a terrorism perspective, they are not a threat.
What matters is the views on
(1) Suicide Bombing - Every school of thought including the much maligned Wahabbi/Salafi ulemas have declared it haram. Not just against Muslims but Non-Muslims too. Bin Baaz - the leading Salafi sheikh from Saudi Arabia gave a fatwa prohibiting suicide bombing back in the 80s and this was prohibited even against the Israelis because simply, suicide is explicitly prohibited in the Quran.
(2) Killing of civilians- Again this is also explicity prohibited. Political religious extremists and terrorists kill people just for not following their viewpoint. No school of thought endorses this killing of civilians and such mayhem is explicitly prohibited in the Quran as well. But for example in Kashmir, political workers, voters, local police e.t.c. are routinely killed just because they did not follow the diktat of the militant groups. Similarly, in Pakistan the TTP considers the current elected government, political leaders, army e.t.c. as worthy of being killed because they don't agree with their politico-religious viewpoint.
Keeping in mind that both these points (1) and (2) are explicitly mentioned in the Quran, its very difficult for a school of though that honestly tries to follow the Quran to endorse them. However, for political religious movements and extremist groups whose end game is achieving political power; it is easy for them to justify the means to achieve the ends. And hence you have political justifications for suicide bombings or killing civilians by the likes of Bin Laden, LeT or TTP e.t.c. These justifications are not based on the Quran or Shariah but on political grievances.
For more info, do go through the thread http://www.defence.pk/forums/curren...wered-questions-case-pakistan.html#post543498
