certifired_img

Books and Documents

Radical Islamism and Jihad

19 - COMMENTS

  • "Politicians and the media know exactly what they are doing. They know that hating Muslims sells...They know that there is a sweet spot where prejudice against Muslims and anti-immigration sentiment intersect," writes @NesrineMalik"
    Such statements are being widely made on social media.
    Do you agree? By Kaniz Fatma - 3/18/2019 1:53:47 AM



  • The problem is that some Muslims are not able to accept this truth that JeM is brainwashing the Kashmiri youth By Urooj Fatma - 3/3/2019 2:48:06 AM



  • This is very good and eye opening article. 
    It is our responsibility to fight them on ideological basis, as they are misusing our Religion.
    By Kaniz Fatma - 2/25/2019 10:18:52 PM



  • GGS,T Thisis what the article says:

    “O clerics of JeM! Come out of the intoxication of Mr. Maududi’s narratives of ‘Jihad’ and try to understand Islam in its spirit. Your Maulana Maududi’s writings are full of blasphemous writings and you should do more home work to understand Islam. So come out of such blasphemous writings and seek tauba for what you have been so far, and stop brainwashing the Kashmiri or any other Indian Muslims.

    Is it not better and more effective If you replace it with:

    O clerics of JeM! Heed your own Maulana Maududi who refused to issue the fatwa of Jihad for the wars your country fought over Kashmir in 1947-48 and 1965 and called these unIslamic and deceptive because these were not preceded by talks, giving a time bound ultimatum and then declaring war. He also went to jail for his principled stand on the charge of “sedition” and did not budge even when the death sentence was pronounced on him. He also said that it is not for Maulanas to declare Jihad but only for the ruler. Do not trap idealistic youth into your dirty agenda of carrying out treacherous, cowardly and deceptive acts of terrorism and falsely describing them as Jihad. You do not have Islam’s mandate to declare Jihad. You are a criminal who is  defaming Islam by your cowardly and dastardly acts and punishable as per verse 5:33 

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/22/2019 6:42:54 AM



  • This are the Mouhmmad Yunus words I am not bothering to go see my and his comment back but just from memory Islamic Allah "bring  Surah Toubha as Mission of Mohmmad paigamber was going to fail" what weak God and than at last like any common human beings he orders to kill.

    Is this like TV show wher someone disagree you start from verbal fight can be even physical which happen recently or kings of past  when someone or group does not agree with King he kill them.

    Is Islamic Allah had no other way after all he/she/? Is most powerful and has no peacful way. 

    Muslims practice hypocracy and wanted to belive their relgion is of peace, but never agree that Quran is base of violence against non-muslim(((a negative approach to other faith people))).

    Islamic Allah was not even able to have good word for the people who are not Muslims but civilised and peaceful, so cheap is god that even he/she? Cannot even have good words.

    Let see the Shameless Islamic Allah followers and their Allah how since binging of Mohmmad called people who do not agree with their belife 1)Kafir 2) Disbeliver 3) Non-Muslim as if they are not having 3) Dhimmi and so on soo.

    Challenges is for so called great scholars on NAI that find single word of Quran that has good word who has not believed in Quran but was peaceful and non-violent.

    It Mohummad made up Allah not real God, otherwise God would have punished So called Muslims first the way they have behave with Naive tribes, only I can say Muslims did less damage to naive tribe than Christians who even took their natural resources and their belife too.
    By Aayina - 2/21/2019 9:33:54 PM



  • Maududi's staunch supporters are so clever enough that they will play other tricks.  By Abdullah - 2/21/2019 10:57:50 AM



  • Maududi sb insisted that “Islam wants the whole earth and does not content itself with only a part thereof. It wants and requires the entire inhabited world” (Quoted in Malise, 71)

    By GGS - 2/21/2019 12:39:08 AM



  • Maududi insisted that “the objective of the Islamic Jihad is to eliminate the rule of a non-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution” (Quoted in Laqueur, 398)

    By GGS - 2/21/2019 12:38:17 AM



  • Mr Zaid Raza,
    I have written several articles on the subject and also brought to NAI articles of others after editing them.
    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/20/2019 10:58:52 PM



  • Maududi argued that jihad should not denote "a crazed faith ... blood-shot eyes, shouting Allahu akbar, decapitating an unbeliever wherever they see one, cutting off heads while invoking La ilaha illa-llah [there is no god but God]". During a cease-fire with India (in 1948), he opposed the waging of jihad in Kashmir, stating that Jihad could be proclaimed only by Muslim governments, not by religious leaders.

    We should go one step further and say  there is no place for Jihad in the religion of peace.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/20/2019 12:43:39 PM



  • Excellent work – tables a compelling refutation of JeM’s  fatwa on the strength of the Qur’an – and also cites relevant ahadith to support its arguments. It traces the progress of the Qur’anic revelation to demonstrate two vital points: The Qur’an authorized armed struggle (under jihad) only towards its concluding phase when all peaceful gestures, covenants and peace treaty failed to stop hostilities and 2. that any individual or group of individual, are not authorized to mount an armed struggle under the banner of jihad which can only be authorized by a head of state (such as through a declaration of war or an ultimatum to use force to defend against) .

     I fully endorse the author’s remark: “terror ideologues are using Islamic titles and appearances to misguide the youth in the name of the religion. As religious guides it becomes their regular primary duty to ideologically defeat the terror narratives. They should consistently engage in ideological struggle against terrorism through their sermons, lectures in Madrasas, mosques and all other religious gatherings.”

    Also agreed that “Indian Ulama should issue fatwas against terror narratives, refuting them point by point.”

    However, as the article is critical of “Mr. Maududi’s narratives of ‘Jihad’” – it should have put in a few words to elaborate his views – or else many readers who hold M. Moudidi in high esteem may feel offended. By mohammed yunus - 2/20/2019 5:08:49 AM



  • Na kitabon se Na Waahzon se Na zar se paida 
    deen hota hai buzurgon ki nazar se paida 
    (Sufi statement)
    Have you got suhbat of any buzurg?
    By learner - 2/20/2019 4:07:43 AM



  • Let this article be weak. 
    Can you write more powerful article in refutation of JeM?
    You should indeed write. 
    By Zaid Raza - 2/20/2019 3:55:52 AM



  • The article is weak because it has several serious errors such as:

     1. It says:“fighting even in self-defence was forbidden in Makkah and initially in Madina too”. There is no verse that says “do not fight” or “fighting is forbidden”. It is therefore factually incorrect to say that fighting was forbidden.

    2. It says: “The Quranic verses which directly or indirectly debarred Muslims, in the initial period, from waging Jihad by fighting even in self-defence are 23:96, 5:13, 73:10, 16:82, 88:21-22, 50:45.

    The question then arises ‘why didn’t the verses continue to debar Muslims from fighting later’? Were they abrogated? If they were abrogated, then they remain abrogated. If it is our choice to ignore those verses and heed the verses on war, then that is exactly what the extremists are doing. The correct position is that these verses continued to apply to the Muslims who remained in Mecca and did not migrate. It is the war verses that did not apply to them. These verses also were applicable to the Mushrikin with whom there was no war for example those in Medina. The command to fight was to fight those who fight you and not every Mushrik.

    3. The article says: “The objective for fighting was Muslims in Makkah were subjected to all sorts of indignities and persecutions ..........”

    The objective for fighting is clearly enunciated by the Quran as:

    a)   Those who fight you for no other reason except that you follow your religion

    b)   Those who have driven you out of your houses and the Sacred Mosque in defiance of right. The sacred mosque was a sanctuary for every worshiper and violence within its precincts was considered the greatest wrong by the Pagan Arabs themselves and yet they killed Muslims with its precincts.

    The justification in the Quran does not extend beyond the stated reasons. To extend the justification to every wrong and every indignity suffered, is to strengthen the argument of the extremists who also believe that such wrongs and indignities are suffered by the people at the hands of the security forces.

     4. When Maulana Maududi  enjoyed great popularity and was for all practical purposes the “Maulana of the State of Pakistan”, and when what he said can be used  against them, why spoil the argument by criticising him? Why not use what he said instead? Where we disagree with him is not the issue here. By attacking their most popular Maulana, the article unnecessarily becomes a sectarian attack and can be dismissed as such. Always avoid a strong argument turning into a sectarian argument. The fact is that even if you consider all the “Wahhabi” writings of Abdul Wahhab, Maulana Maududi, Dr Israr Ahmed etc., none of them support war by non-state actors. Where is the need then to turn this into a sectarian debate? The fact is that Maulana Maududi would never have approved Pakistan becoming a party to aiding the “Mujahideen” fighting against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, which marks the beginning of using non-state actors as a political tool. While he was vocal and went to jail on charges of “sedition” and even the death sentence was pronounced on him for refusing the fatwa of Jihad for the undeclared war that Pakistan fought with India in 1965, the rest of the Ulema in Pakistan chose to remain silent. In the fight against terrorism, what Maududi said is useful, and not the silence of the remaining Ulema of Pakistan.

    Where we differ with Maududi is on his position that Islam should become politically dominant and every person must either be a Muslim or come under Muslim rule. For them to achieve that, he advocates war, but only preceded by negotiations failing which declaring intent to wage war and time-frame of ultimatum, followed by declaration of war.  If they are foolish enough to try any such thing, it will give us the legal right to annex Pakistan and make it part of India.

    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/20/2019 2:41:29 AM



  • @Learner,

    Watanparasti means worship of country and watanmuhabbat means love to the country.

    There is huge difference between worship and love. In Islam you can love the Prophets, Aulia of Allah but you cannot worship them. Worship is alone for One God Almighty.

    To be honest to deal with your question, Islam, in many ways, demands its followers to love the country and if necessary die for the country but it does not allow them to worship the country.

    The term ittehad (unity) is misunderstood even among some modern scholars. If you go back just one or two hundred years ago, the situation of India was completely different. This term was used to create or mean ittehad or unity, sometimes in different fundamental beliefs and sometimes in different derivative religious issues.

    To understand this concept, please take an example. Halal (permitted acts) and haram (forbidden acts) of Islam can’t make unity as both are completely different from each other. As per the secular norms, the people of doing permitted acts and the people of doing forbidden acts can coexist with one another but these secular norms too can’t force anyone to make bort Halal and Haram acts as a single unit to render that both are permitted in Islam.

    Now the term ittehad is broadly required to be used at various levels; social, cultural, national, secular, etc.

    For example, in India people of different religions live peacefully, it does not mean they have unity (ittehad) in their religious beliefs. Christians are following their own doctrines. Muslims are with their own beliefs and doctrines. Hindus are with their own beliefs. Limited to their respective religions and beliefs, all these Indians live peacefully. Living peacefully falls within national interest and it is in this sense they all are and should be united and this sort of unity or ittehad is not forbidden in Islam.

    Hope you understand it now.      

    By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi غلام غوث الصديقي - 2/20/2019 2:07:01 AM



  • Why does Islam forbid Watanparasti and Ittehad? By learner - 2/20/2019 12:48:06 AM



  • This article is weak because it challenges Maududi's inspirations. By Zaid - 2/20/2019 12:40:42 AM



  • The article is no doubt well-meant but self-defeating, weak as it is on logic and reasoning. The author's genuine anguish is however commendable.

    Terrorism is not war but a crime punishable as per verse 5:33 "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;"

    The war against Allah and His Messenger which is the subject of the verse was not the war that the Meccans waged against the Prophet but war by non-state actors such as terrorists, highway robbers, criminals who kill, maim, torture and use threat of physical liquidation for carrying on their criminal activities. It applies to the JeM.

    The principles of just war are covered in my article:

    The Principles of War from the Quran

    The Pakistanis need not go beyond their own Maulana Maududi to seek the correct position as far as Islam's stance is on war. He refused to issue the fatwa of Jihad for the wars that Pakistan fought in Kashmir in 1947-48 and in 1965 because:

    1. These were not preceded by talks to find terms for peaceful settlement of issues.

    2. There was no warning given of intent to wage war. 

    3. Even wen Pakistan waged war, it was undeclared war.

    On all three counts, the wars were "deception" and therefore these could not be called "Jihad" is what he had ruled and imprisoned for "sedition".
    By Naseer Ahmed - 2/20/2019 12:14:28 AM



  • Good article! Indian ulama are either lethargic or cowardly.

    By Ghulam Mohiyuddin - 2/19/2019 11:48:46 PM