Are all terrorists really Muslims?By Aakar Patel

[doppelganger]

the primary motivations for many remain the same; Fighting in the way of god, to receive the rewards for it. That , without any iota of a doubt and regardless of apologists remains an integral part of Islamic belief and hence.. Islamism.

@Oscar

The crux, and one that is largely understood by most non Muslims as the overpowering tenet of Islam.

To fight.

And by extension, to fight you need someone to fight.

Islam today, as it has in much of its history, has been fighting. And not selective about it. It has fought insiders with equal vigor as it has outsiders, oftentimes more so.

How then does Islam equate to the oft quoted Religion of Peace?

Sorry to say, that's a stupid question to ask after 70 years of Independence.

@scorpionx

Why not simply ask them the same here on PDF openly and see for yourself?

I asked Jamahir the same not lng ago, and he deflected with his trite socialism spiel.

Others would have their own pet subterfuges.

This motely group includes women, the educated, professionals, the so-called intelligentsia, the liberal cream of Indian Muslims. Probably your best chance.

If you find a Muslim saying India first over Islam, know that you are being lied to. There is not such thing for a Muslim. Yes, a Muslim-born who is not really a Muslim by "the book" might well answer differently.

Fact of the matter is, you cannot be a Muslim and hold your people and your nation at a level higher than Islam. You cannot hold ANYTHING higher than Islam, which is the limited point I make here. There is no place for soil, even less for blood.

Ask. Should be interesting .....

You could not answer his point, a point famously made in public by your demi-god himself. After nearly 70 years, how do you have the temerity and gall to ask this question? How, for that matter, do you evade your shameful position by asking the other person what world he lives in? What world do you live in, where you do not see the reality of a huge mass of people supportive of the common objectives and policies and ways of the country?

@Joe Shearer

Jeez! Why the prickly umbrage?

Its a simple question sir. I think we are well within our Constitutional rights of free speech and expression to ask them this question?

The answer, or lack of one, or the verbal calisthenics, should be illuminating.

Surely you would not deny an Indian the right to ask another Indian a simple plain unambiguous question?

Which do you hold higher - India or Islam?

I would settle for same same as well, but to tell you the truth, you are not going to get that either. And you know it, which I guess is part of the entire elaborate verbal fanning of the famed porcupine quills. Well sir, quills can scare, quills can poke, quills dipped in poison can kill, and quills dipped in ink can also write.

 

[SQ8]

@Oscar

The crux, and one that is largely understood by most non Muslims as the overpowering tenet of Islam.

To fight.

And by extension, to fight you need someone to fight.

Islam today, as it has in much of its history, has been fighting. And not selective about it. It has fought insiders with equal vigor as it has outsiders, oftentimes more so.

How then does Islam equate to the oft quoted Religion of Peace?

And that is the problem with non-Muslims selective amnesia. Islam like many ideaologies has grown and like all other entities before it(including Christianity, Buddhism,Judaism all other religions with their political arms) has fought for space as it grew.

It is funny that the very non-Muslims who pooh poohed the effects of the disastrous Ghazni Invasion also conventionality forget that prior to Islam much worse wars were fought in the Islam land. That has more to do with the general xenophobic mindset that prevails among the dwellers of the sub-continent(which I will be discussing in an article later) as well. The non-muslims elsewhere forget the atrocities committed under the cross, or earlier on those committed under fire by Persians. But , that is selective amnesia.. the world needs a boogeyman to be fed to the uneducated(not illiterate, just not educated).. it was Nazism, Communism.. and now its Islam's turn again.
The same non-muslims also ignore unprecedented human advancement in terms of rights and scientific progress that was NEVER recorded in the history of those regions on that scale. It was never perfect, but relative to what else was available in the times.. it was still better.. yet.. selective amnesia is a by product of irrational fear brought upon by the upbringing society gives.


On the other hand, Islam the religion and Islam the political force have very different derivations even though they all supposedly rise from the same origin. Today what is happening is Yemen.. in Pakistan... even in the US to an extent. It is the same Allah o Akbar that is clashing with Allah o Akbar.

What that tells us is that regardless of what the puppet masters choose to do with it, Islam in its essence has to a large extent come pre-equipped to master Human dedication and devotion to the point of the ultimate sacrifice. The CIA spent millions on MK-ULTRA and could not achieve what those using Islam as the tool for their means are able to. That tells you something , that the fear then is not misplaced.. of all the ideas of super soldiers the most crucial have always focused on making individuals completely dedicated and focused to an idea that they see no reason. When it was used for good it made men seek out knowledge and compile history to the ends of the earth.. it fuelled charity networks that no other has matched in terms of constant donations and volunteers....

And when it gets used for bad, it can motivate people to commit unspeakable acts with complete abandon.. under the impression that they are doing good.

So the fear will stay, as despite their efforts; non-muslims have not been able to successfully replicate the combination of motivation and dedication that Islam presents. When was the last time you heard of a Muslim convert being given money to do so as regular practice?

 

[doppelganger]

And that is the problem with non-Muslims selective amnesia. Islam like many ideaologies has grown and like all other entities before it(including Christianity, Buddhism,Judaism all other religions with their political arms) has fought for space as it grew.

The debate here, the way I see it, is not Islam having its turn in the sun to frolic and blood-let because other faiths did it in the past.

Its whether all (or most) of those blood letting today are really Muslims. I posit they are. Do you disagree?

It is funny that the very non-Muslims who pooh poohed the effects of the disastrous Ghazni Invasion also conventionality forget that prior to Islam much worse wars were fought in the Islam land. That has more to do with the general xenophobic mindset that prevails among the dwellers of the sub-continent(which I will be discussing in an article later) as well. The non-muslims elsewhere forget the atrocities committed under the cross, or earlier on those committed under fire by Persians. But , that is selective amnesia.. the world needs a boogeyman to be fed to the uneducated(not illiterate, just not educated).. it was Nazism, Communism.. and now its Islam's turn again.

It was never perfect, but relative to what else was available in the times.. it was still better

Highly debateable.

Either way, you first argue that Islam is no different in its blood lust to faiths older than it. If not bloodier, at least as bloody.

Then you say it was better?

I find that contradictory.

The regional accomplishments were a product of the people and the resident cultures, an evolving tapestry. If you ascribe impact of Islam to those, one could very well equally ascribe the same to the resident culture and populace, whose time had come.

On the other hand, Islam the religion and Islam the political force have very different derivations even though they all supposedly rise from the same origin.

There are many who do not see a distinction. Who see Islam in its earliest days as a political force. Only a political force. A movement that grew from political aims. And took on divinity as an afterthought or those it commanded. The line blurring with time.

Today what is happening is Yemen.. in Pakistan... even in the US to an extent. It is the same Allah o Akbar that is clashing with Allah o Akbar.

That is an old clash. As old as Islam itself.

What that tells us is that regardless of what the puppet masters choose to do with it, Islam in its essence has to a large extent come pre-equipped to master Human dedication and devotion to the point of the ultimate sacrifice.

A dedication to fight. To blood let. Even one's own.

That is what we see as the common thread.

Where then does the Religion of Peace bit come from? At which point in Islam's history was Islam peaceful and not at war? 1300 odd years? Surely you can point out a hundred here or there? Some corner of the earth?

That tells you something , that the fear then is not misplaced.. of all the ideas of super soldiers the most crucial have always focused on making individuals completely dedicated and focused to an idea that they see no reason.

The Islamic super soldier has met more than his match by the non Islamic ones. Around the world. To the oint that its now largely Islamic super soldier versus Islamic super soldier.

So the fear will stay, as despite their efforts; non-muslims have not been able to successfully replicate the combination of motivation and dedication that Islam presents. When was the last time you heard of a Muslim convert being given money to do so as regular practice?

Non-muslims of older faiths are doing a lot better than Muslims around the world today. Look around you. What has the motivation and dedication of Islam given its followers?

Part of being a Muslim, a very important part, is the fear you refer to more than once. As a Muslim, you get it. As a non Muslim, we understand it too. A vengeful God. Its part of the value system that Islam comes with.

Its the fear that keep a Muslim ..... Muslim. Faiths which do not ingrain fear, have faithful more willing and open to look around and question.

 

[Dragon Ball]

https://twitter.com/x/status/586256356199559168

 

[scorpionx]

Fact of the matter is, you cannot be a Muslim and hold your people and your nation at a level higher than Islam. You cannot hold ANYTHING higher than Islam, which is the limited point I make here. There is no place for soil, even less for blood.

|Doppelganger

If, by Islam you are referring to Pan-Islamic loyalty (and not Islamic theology) worldwide, your argument is preconceived by the flawed notion that the idea of Pan-Islamism is inconsistent and contradictory with the secular concept of Indian territorial nationalism. This supposition of fear and insecurity about Indian Muslims have haunted right wing nationalists for that last odd 100 years and often been cleverly manipulated by the radical faction, from both inside and outside Congress, especially during Khilafat and non-co-operation movements in the 20’s.

While the world wide emancipation of the Muslims from the British yoke was the primary aspiration of Indian Muslims during Khilafat movement, the national question was prominently stressed upon on various platforms. It may seem striking, but the emblem of the Khilafat delegation consisted of two circles, with the word khilafat at one end and India on the other. Often ignored in the above notion of incompatibility between Indian nationalist spirit and loyalty to a foreign Khalif, is the peculiar character of the Khilafat movement itself. The clergy and fundamentalist participants of the movements like Jamiyat al Ulema and the deobandi ulema, outrageous for the British exploitation of the Turkish state saw it as a necessary step to take in order to secure their own India centric socio-logical and religious interests within India. The British was seen as the common enemy of both Hindus and Muslims, and the fundamentalist parties saw it inevitable to merge their struggle with the secular nationalist movement led by Congress. The khilafat committees and the Kisan Sabhas often assimilated together, organizing anti-colonial conventions and seminars together.

The socio-economic interests of the artisan class and of the peasantry, the religious outburst of the fundamentalist clergy and secular nationalist ideologies often intermingled together in the past without contradicting the territorial solidarity of India and the fact that Indian Muslims are deeply integrated with India, both religiously and culturally has been repeatedly acknowledged by standard bearer of the Khilafat movement, which was wrongfully recognized by the Hindu Mahasabha and other radical Hindu organizations as a necessary defiance of Indianism. As you are repeatedly asking to ask other Muslim members the question of their primary allegiance, I would recall a famous quote from a protagonist of khilafat, Mohammed Ali, who did not believe that being a Muslim made him no less Indian. He said, “Where India is concerned, where India’s freedom is concerned, I am an Indian first, an Indian second and nothing but an Indian.” Now, what else do you need them to prove, as enough has already been proved when it was utmost necessary?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

[1] Our Constitution is indeed clear. Article 25 clearly states the position. Every legislation brought in against conversion is a state legislation, and they are controversial themselves, as they contradict Article 25, a fundamental part of the constitution, in some aspects. You are wrong in claiming that our constitution is clear on this, that if monetary or other incentives are involved, it is a case of fraud. It is the local laws that stipulate this.

What you may be referring to is the Supreme Court judgement that forced conversions did not enjoy the protection of Article 25. This is quite different from monetary and other incentives being barred, and conversions under those inducements amounting to fraud. It is also quite different from claiming that either under the Constitution or under some interpretation, conversion has been ruled out.

[2] You could not answer his point, a point famously made in public by your demi-god himself. After nearly 70 years, how do you have the temerity and gall to ask this question? How, for that matter, do you evade your shameful position by asking the other person what world he lives in? What world do you live in, where you do not see the reality of a huge mass of people supportive of the common objectives and policies and ways of the country?

[1] Actually the Article 25 is not a carte blanche to religious salesmen indulging in conversion using dubious means. It comes with a number of conditions. Converting people by bribes, burning plastic Krishna lockets in the fire and etc are examples of fraud under the IPC, not of using the ideals enshrined in Article 25.
'
Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus Explanation I The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion Explanation II In sub clause (b) of clause reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly'

[2.1] @scorpionx dada and I share a more personal virtual relationship. I did not intend to sound harsh and if my tone was so, I am sorry and apologize for that. No ifs and buts.

[2.2]
i. Who is the 'demi-god' you refer to in your post?
ii. Posting in a forum does not require much audacity. Besides, I have lived and grown up in the proverbial jungle, so I am conditioned to thrive in much harsher conditions.
iii. I do find the world that you speak of as ideal, beautiful but fantastic. That said, please state without ambiguity what this reality is - 'the reality of a huge mass of people supportive of the common objectives and policies and ways of the country' is. I will be able to respond after this clarification.

That said, I just messed up my dinner. The mango juice was great though.

@scorpionx - After giving up the hope on puti mach, I was treated to bhatki paturi. The best fish dish ever. Here in Bangalore, it was exquisite.

And that is the problem with non-Muslims selective amnesia. Islam like many ideaologies has grown and like all other entities before it(including Christianity, Buddhism,Judaism all other religions with their political arms) has fought for space as it grew.

It is funny that the very non-Muslims who pooh poohed the effects of the disastrous Ghazni Invasion also conventionality forget that prior to Islam much worse wars were fought in the Islam land. That has more to do with the general xenophobic mindset that prevails among the dwellers of the sub-continent(which I will be discussing in an article later) as well. The non-muslims elsewhere forget the atrocities committed under the cross, or earlier on those committed under fire by Persians. But , that is selective amnesia.. the world needs a boogeyman to be fed to the uneducated(not illiterate, just not educated).. it was Nazism, Communism.. and now its Islam's turn again.
The same non-muslims also ignore unprecedented human advancement in terms of rights and scientific progress that was NEVER recorded in the history of those regions on that scale. It was never perfect, but relative to what else was available in the times.. it was still better.. yet.. selective amnesia is a by product of irrational fear brought upon by the upbringing society gives.


On the other hand, Islam the religion and Islam the political force have very different derivations even though they all supposedly rise from the same origin. Today what is happening is Yemen.. in Pakistan... even in the US to an extent. It is the same Allah o Akbar that is clashing with Allah o Akbar.

What that tells us is that regardless of what the puppet masters choose to do with it, Islam in its essence has to a large extent come pre-equipped to master Human dedication and devotion to the point of the ultimate sacrifice. The CIA spent millions on MK-ULTRA and could not achieve what those using Islam as the tool for their means are able to. That tells you something , that the fear then is not misplaced.. of all the ideas of super soldiers the most crucial have always focused on making individuals completely dedicated and focused to an idea that they see no reason. When it was used for good it made men seek out knowledge and compile history to the ends of the earth.. it fuelled charity networks that no other has matched in terms of constant donations and volunteers....

And when it gets used for bad, it can motivate people to commit unspeakable acts with complete abandon.. under the impression that they are doing good.

So the fear will stay, as despite their efforts; non-muslims have not been able to successfully replicate the combination of motivation and dedication that Islam presents. When was the last time you heard of a Muslim convert being given money to do so as regular practice?

Oscar, you are making Islam sound more and more scary.

https://twitter.com/x/status/586256356199559168

I completely fail to understand the logic behind this.

I would recall a famous quote from a protagonist of khilafat, Mohammed Ali, who did not believe that being a Muslim made him no less Indian. He said, “Where India is concerned, where India’s freedom is concerned, I am an Indian first, an Indian second and nothing but an Indian.” Now, what else do you need them to prove, as enough has already been proved when it was utmost necessary?

You do remember the other not so palatable quotes of the same gentleman?

 

[SQ8]

Oscar, you are making Islam sound more and more scary.

I've given up trying to convince those whose minds are closed to the idea of the alternative.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

I've given up trying to convince those whose minds are closed to the idea of the alternative.

There has been a rather popular sufi strain before radicalization hit Kashmir. I assure you, it was nice. What changed, I wonder. I mean this was before Ram Mandir/Babri, even before anything of that sort - except the Afghan intifada.

Also how do you reconcile to this on a personal level? The pros and cons that you list are often contradictory yet valid and at the same time worrying. How do you adjust with this reality?

 

[SQ8]

There has been a rather popular sufi strain before radicalization hit Kashmir. I assure you, it was nice. What changed, I wonder. I mean this was before Ram Mandir/Babri, even before anything of that sort - except the Afghan intifada.

Also how do you reconcile to this on a personal level? The pros and cons that you list are often contradictory yet valid and at the same time worrying. How do you adjust with this reality?

The are only pros on my level. Perhaps you misconstrued my statement. In my mind Islam is beautiful, and everything about it is perfect. I have simply decided to not care about its detractors anymore, because their views are generally motivated by bias in the first place. Nothing in my mind is contradictory about Islam, but then my understanding of it differs much from say ISIS.. hence I do not consider them practising or preaching the true values of Islam..and so I do not associate my belief and religion with them.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

The are only pros on my level. Perhaps you misconstrued my statement. In my mind Islam is beautiful, and everything about it is perfect. I have simply decided to not care about its detractors anymore, because their views are generally motivated by bias in the first place. Nothing in my mind is contradictory about Islam, but then my understanding of it differs much from say ISIS.. hence I do not consider them practising or preaching the true values of Islam..and so I do not associate my belief and religion with them.

Ok. But on a similar note, there are similar people in my country who may take an ideology/faith/(whatever you may call)* to a level from where there is no return. Since you have seen people cross that line, how do you suggest we prevent it? There is a chance of hijacking - every movement has faced this existential threat. As a fellow traveller, what would you suggest we try or not try?

* Any ideology - secularism, liberalism, Hindutva, Islamism, Naxalism.

 

[SQ8]

what would you suggest we try or not try?

Try to keep it within the educated, prevent it from going into the hands of the uneducated. So far that is the only thing I can come up with. Where the definition of education is not a BSc Engineering or an MBA, but someone who has studied and has been exposed to a variety of subjects and ideas.

It sounds near difficult preventing the falling of an ideaology into the hands of the "uneducated", but if history has set examples there are always those who will be followed due to their intellect IF only they choose to strive and lead just as much as one without intellect. The sad reality of our times is that many that do have the ability to stem extremist ideals in any religion or ideology simply stick to talking at the dinner table or.. in online discussions.

 

[doppelganger]

@scorpionx

Let me put it to you in a way you would understand, shorn of any extraneous peripheral fluff, theological, sociological, intellectual, or emotional.

What happened in the past during the fight for Independence, or before that as a lead-up to it, is the past. History confined to books.

Today it is a different world. We are not fighting the British. We are in a mutual death grip for perpetuity with Pakistan

A Muslim Pakistan. An Islamic Pakistan. A once Indian Islamic Pakstan.

Same blood and same faith and same territorial history on one side. Versus the same on the other, minus their faith.

Us discussing this thing with posts to each other is fantastic and I learn a lot from you.

Wonder why you will not just ask them outright but? Poochne mein kya jaata hai? Aap pooch kar ke to dekho.

I see most of your arguments based on a time when we were all still one and the same people. Fighting a common enemy.

Well sir, today the people are not one and the enemy has changed. So you will agree that things have changed significantly and maybe we as a nation and a people need to know and understand where each of us stands.

Is it simply enough to say that they made their bed with us and have been sleeping in it for 70 years? Do you know the statistics of people who sleep in the same bed but still sleep with others from other beds? How about the statistics of those who sleep in the same bed but have not made love to each other for years, nor really talked to each other?

Am not saying our Muslims are the same. But I do question your assumption that because they are Indians today, and their forefathers either chose to remain Indian or could not or would not make the long perilious trek across all those years ago, their present generations automatically hold India first today.

I asked an Indian Muslim a very simple very basic question. We are at war with Pakistan. I am facing off to a Pakistani soldier. I am helpless on the ground, unarmed. He has his gun pointed at me. My gun is fallen at my Indian Muslim countryman's feet. What would he do?

You know his answer? He will lecture both of us about how stupid we are to hate each other. And to believe in two separate nations.

As I said, just ask. I have given you the names. Why will you not just ask ?

 

[Nike]

Terrorist in the past has caused WW I, shed the bloods of more than 8 million people just in five years of conflict and he is not a Muslim ............