@graphican
What I wrote was from myself. The links that I provided was what I felt would be a better attempt to exaplain what I was trying to say about Jihad from a Islamic scholars perspective. His book which was the second link is also a must read but I don't know if that is availble in Pakistan. Now boht the book and the article on the blog were published in Urdu. Yoginder Sikand is not interpreting anything but just translating that Urdu article. And I suggest you do a littel google search on him as well, he may be a non-muslim but he has spent a lot of years researching and reporting on hindu-muslim issues and is well versed in Urdu and traditional Islamic teachings as well. This is just a translation of the Maulana's article in a Urdu magazine.
What I have said is not my own opinion although I admit I have paraphrased it in my own words. Many ulema hold this view including the conservative ulema such as those associated with the Tablighi Jamaat elders and ulema for example. It would be helpful if you actually read through what I say as I have mentioned that taking up arms require important conditionalities to be fulfilled and that is not the case here.
Ofcourse there are blots like the Gujarat and Babri riots, but constitutionally and at the government level there is still freedom of religion. After Babri masjid incident, the BJP never formed the government in UP and it never won the consitituency of Ayodhya. The sants and sadhus themselves went to the district collector to ban VHP BD e.t.c. entry because of what they had done.
Similarly after the Gujarat riots, it was a muslim female who was elected as mayor of Ahmedabad in 2003.
Of course muslims are at a disadvantage in their socio-economic level, but again that does not fulfill the requirement either. Let me be blunt and say that even if India declares itself a Hindu Rashtra but still guarantees freedom to practice and preach religion, Jihad will not be applicable. Do you see my point now?
Like I mentioned earlier, Indian is probably the only non-muslim majority country in the world that provides the use of personal laws based on your faith for its religious minorities. This is a source of intrinsic strength of the Indian society IMO. For example, a muslim in India can LEGALLY marry more than one wife if he wanted (although very few are brave enough to take on that extra headache
). Is there any other country that does that? Do you see what I mean by freedom of religion now?
Brother, its not the "zionists" or "kuffar" that are the main problem, its muslims themselves. Our Iman has become so weak that instead of believing that God is all powerful and rely on ourselves, we consider the "zionists" all powerful who can orchrestrate elaborate conspiracies with the finesse of a puppeteer on the world stage.
Anyways, we are getting off-topic. I was simply saying that as the situation stands today, there is no possible to say Jihad in Kashmir is valid. Pakistan has all rights to settle the Kashmir dispute. If they wish to do so diplomatically and peacefully as GoP has agreed to based on numerous treaties it can do so. Otherwise, if it feels the need, it can go ahead and revoke the treaties and then attack with its army or militias. But still this would be a war to "protect its interests" so to speak, not a Jihad. Wether it uses "Jihadi" groups or not this is the fact of the matter. Not every war fought by muslims automatically becomes Jihad.
Yes, may Allah guide us all to the right path, we are certainly in need for his guidance these days. Amen
What I wrote was from myself. The links that I provided was what I felt would be a better attempt to exaplain what I was trying to say about Jihad from a Islamic scholars perspective. His book which was the second link is also a must read but I don't know if that is availble in Pakistan. Now boht the book and the article on the blog were published in Urdu. Yoginder Sikand is not interpreting anything but just translating that Urdu article. And I suggest you do a littel google search on him as well, he may be a non-muslim but he has spent a lot of years researching and reporting on hindu-muslim issues and is well versed in Urdu and traditional Islamic teachings as well. This is just a translation of the Maulana's article in a Urdu magazine.
What I have said is not my own opinion although I admit I have paraphrased it in my own words. Many ulema hold this view including the conservative ulema such as those associated with the Tablighi Jamaat elders and ulema for example. It would be helpful if you actually read through what I say as I have mentioned that taking up arms require important conditionalities to be fulfilled and that is not the case here.
Ofcourse there are blots like the Gujarat and Babri riots, but constitutionally and at the government level there is still freedom of religion. After Babri masjid incident, the BJP never formed the government in UP and it never won the consitituency of Ayodhya. The sants and sadhus themselves went to the district collector to ban VHP BD e.t.c. entry because of what they had done.
Similarly after the Gujarat riots, it was a muslim female who was elected as mayor of Ahmedabad in 2003.
Of course muslims are at a disadvantage in their socio-economic level, but again that does not fulfill the requirement either. Let me be blunt and say that even if India declares itself a Hindu Rashtra but still guarantees freedom to practice and preach religion, Jihad will not be applicable. Do you see my point now?
Like I mentioned earlier, Indian is probably the only non-muslim majority country in the world that provides the use of personal laws based on your faith for its religious minorities. This is a source of intrinsic strength of the Indian society IMO. For example, a muslim in India can LEGALLY marry more than one wife if he wanted (although very few are brave enough to take on that extra headache
). Is there any other country that does that? Do you see what I mean by freedom of religion now?Brother, its not the "zionists" or "kuffar" that are the main problem, its muslims themselves. Our Iman has become so weak that instead of believing that God is all powerful and rely on ourselves, we consider the "zionists" all powerful who can orchrestrate elaborate conspiracies with the finesse of a puppeteer on the world stage.
Anyways, we are getting off-topic. I was simply saying that as the situation stands today, there is no possible to say Jihad in Kashmir is valid. Pakistan has all rights to settle the Kashmir dispute. If they wish to do so diplomatically and peacefully as GoP has agreed to based on numerous treaties it can do so. Otherwise, if it feels the need, it can go ahead and revoke the treaties and then attack with its army or militias. But still this would be a war to "protect its interests" so to speak, not a Jihad. Wether it uses "Jihadi" groups or not this is the fact of the matter. Not every war fought by muslims automatically becomes Jihad.
Yes, may Allah guide us all to the right path, we are certainly in need for his guidance these days. Amen
