SRK: “Jihad…a small little word”
Came across this quote by SRK in a recent rediff interview (emphasis mine):
” If some person is using the name of Islam and confusing it with jihad, I think one needs to understand the meaning of jihad. And jihad means overcoming your own frailties, your own streak of violence, and I wanted to understand all that. I’ve read the Quran, I’ve read the Bhagwat Gita, I’ve read the Mahabharata. But I’ve understood the essence that jihad is not about killing other people, jihad is about killing the badness in you. It’s an emotional war, and when people use it for a physical or material war then it’s a wrong use of term. The earlier the world understands that, the better.
I mean, there’s already enough problems from global warming to tsunami to economic breakdown to be bothered about a small little word which you are misinterpreting�.”
*****
I have recently begun to see a lot of quotes along similar lines where commentators and “experts” stress that Jihad is not really about killing other people; that it is being mis-interpreted etc…
So I did a bit of research and here is what I found:
From “The Age of Sacred Terror” by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, Random House, 2002 (p. 55):
“In recent times (since the last two centuries, to be precise), some Islamic scholars have tried to argue that jihad has been misinterpreted as war against the infidels while in reality, the greater jihad is the spiritual one.
In part, this expression has been a result of a sense of beleaguer-ment and an attempt at reconciling the decline in Islamic power since the late 17th century (after the defeat of Ottomans at the gates of Vienna in 1683)
However, this modern day distinction between the “greater jihad” (the spiritual struggle) and the “lesser jihad” (against the infidels and Islam’s enemies) is not sustained by a careful examination of the Islamic scriptures.
The interpretation and the terminology “comes from a hadith of disputed reliability in which Muhammad is reported to have said, upon returning from battle, that he has now returned from the lesser jihad to the greater, spiritual, jihad. Until recently however, Muslim scholars were unanimous in insisting on the priority jihad had as warfare against the unbeliever. Bernard Lewis made this case most famously�.It is worth noting that all of the 199 references to Jihad in the most authoritative hadith collection speak of jihad only as warfare” [cf. Douglas Streusand, “What does Jihad mean?”, Middle East Quarterly, September 1997]
*****
So who is right and who is wrong?
Comments supporting or disproving the interpretation are welcome.
Image courtesy: BollywoodHungama.com sourced via Wikipedia stub on SRK
They are wrong, if they are not reading between the lines or they are right as in present they are not in a position to declare Jihads against disbelievers(Infidel). That means book itself is confusing for them and others. Make sense. If some one is really interested in right or wrong they can read the ongoing debate between Ali Sina (ex-muslim) and Islamic scholars (moderate muslims) Dr. Javed and Ghamidi at faithfreedom.org site. Not all will be interested in what is going on there but if someone really want to see the truth they can atleast find some thread.
You will not find a single muslim in muslim minority countries saying anything else than what this SRK has said above !
When someone tells me that Islam or jehad means ‘peace’ , I almost die of laughing…
we did not need to fight with each other . all have just a lots of peace.
no war.
What is wrong with people like you ? What makes you think everyone is ‘fighting’ ? What makes you generalise things to such an extent that we, people who never raised arms except when on brink of ethnic extinction always feel trampled by our own people (like you); and the mankind’s deadliest foes, openly brandishing their long beards and AK47s with clear intentions of erasing our least prints on history, feel invigorated !
What do you think after listening to ‘peace-maniacs’ like you uncle Osama will feel too sorry to fight ?
And your home state, Rajasthan, incidentally, will probably be the first place to come under fire !
Your peace talk won’t be any more impressive with a barrel of gun on one ear and the choice to embrace islam on the other ! Nor will they be dumb enough to be impressed by your
http://www.rajasmand.in...
this hindu dharma thing really sucks. if t5here’s dharma, it is for anyone and everyone in the world. anything else is mere fanaticism and i dont think that hindu fanatics are in anyway better thatn muslim fanatics. as far as FORCED conversion and terrorism are concerned it deepnds on the respect for human life and choices which both religions are fast losing.
Shruti,
If you can be a little more specific, perhaps we can have a reasoned discussion.
What exactly do you mean by “this hindu dharma thing” really sucks – do you mean this particular post? other articles? the website? other content?
I suspect you made the comment in a rush.
I would welcome your thoughts – this blog is not meant to impose my ideas on anyone but to promote debate and discussion.
Comments are always welcome but please be specific so that I can respond appropriately.
Dhanyawaad,
Shantanu
To Shruti
Yes Hindus are fanatic, but fanatic for peace and truth. Hindus are busy enjoying their weddings, festivals, rituals, and other cultural activities with utmost enthusiasm. We don’t have time
to force others to convert or for terrorism. This shows Hinduism is not loosing at any front.
Let live and let others live is the ” Hindu Dharma”. Somneone likes it or not is not of hindu’ s concern.
Too much of Hindu wealth has been robbed by bollywood khans who are now too powerful. Boycotting movies and their business is most urgent. Savage serial mass murders are rife and rampant too.
Talking about bollywood goondas causes friction. They made movies bad mouthing Gujarat. I think this is instigating tension
when ppl are putting behind old issues
and moving fwd.. What was the prez
doing waiting many days in sending the
army? Remember babri cost 1788 lives
by official count, as if 1 bldg = 1788
lives. Is that fair?
H.E. Mr Modi-ji is the iconic hero of
Indian citizens. He needs our
appreciation for countering jihadi
violence though feebly during
post-Godhra days! Kudos and sabaash to
him!
Generally speaking:
The islamic savage migrants hate everything about the West and yet want to settle in USA, UK…etc. Esp-ly the pakki fascists. They are treated well because of their skin color while darker Indians get treated worse than Blacks and Hispanics. That is blatant and brazen racism.
The reason Indians grin and bear it is that back home it is far worse. The criminals among the minority communal fascists – i.e x’tian crooks and islamic savages, have made India a pig sty, stinking beyond belief, stone age tribal fiefdoms. Conversion mafia is the least of India’s problems, worse being mob- and bomb-terror and targeted assassinations of Hindu leaders is increasingly frequent these days. ]
Too much of Hindu wealth has been creepily robbed by bollywood khans who are now too powerful. Boycotting movies and their business is most urgent.
(In spite of this, from sheer Hindu genius and diligence, Indian is inching along..)
SRK is a vile viper,a two tongued snake.Why should he defend “jihad” which we all know is another name for terrorism and barbarism.
The venomous vermin who dances with hindu heroines,and has a hindu wife wants to rile awakened hindus.We are so impotent to raise our voice against the heckles of this vulgar,criminal,devious mind.
Pl. do not delete this post.
Opinionated man, thank you for your comment but please refrain from personal insults – it does not help anyone.
Dhanyawaad,
Shantanu
It is a matter of shame. A few decades ago they were dying to keep a foot in film industry. ‘Yusuf Khan’ had to change his name to ‘Daleep Kumar’ ! Now a days it has become EXACTLY opposite ! Today a Daleep Kumar had change his name to ‘A. R. Rahman’ to get a foothold in the industry ! This is because now the things move according to wishes of his excellency Mian Dawood Ibrahim and his other bhai-log from the wonderful world of Islamic terror. No wonder today to become a hero you have to be a Khan.
Although the various hadiths may not interpret jihad as a spiritual war, and many muslims living in non-Islamic countries might even feel the need to portray jihad as an internal war in a purely defensive way, this doesn’t mean that religous leaders cannot reform the religion to give new meaning to an old term. It might serve religous leaders of Islam to reinterpret what jihad means–first for their own followers and then perhaps for the rest of us.
Religious reform has happened in all religions. Sometimes it comes from within the tradition, and sometimes it is forced on one. In the case of Hinduism, one of the reforms “forced” on us by the British was the abolition of Sati which I, a Hindu woman, can only welcome. This is not to say that Hinduism would not have changed eventually anyway to abolish such a practice; but the fact that we were forced to give it up earlier than we might done so on our own, need not cause us any sorrow–it was a bad practice which needed to go.
I wonder if any of the Islamic religous leaders are courageous enough to say that “yes, the Koran was the words of Mohammed as he heard Allah say (sruthi as opposed to the word of god) and perhaps he misinterpreted what was said to him. In light of modern society, we as members of a global community which contain multiple religous ideas can reinterpret the Koran without losing our identity”.
Subadra: Thats a great comment and I agree entirely with your thoughts re. Sati, reform within Hinduism and the need for it in Islam.
You may find these two posts interesting and thought-provoking:
Is a reformation within Islam finally under way? and
Is this too much to ask?
Dear Sir,
That is the beauty of the Indian Sanatana Dharma, it “converts” individuals, slowly but steadily.
Please bear with me as I expand upon this thought. SRK is a Muslim with a Hindu wife and today he is talking about “Jihad” in the true sanatana dharma sense. Yes Sir, he has succumbed to the pressure of understanding that true living comes from within oneself and unless you reach the higher level of things you will view “Jihad’ as murder and pillaging.
He is forced, with his association with the true spirit of India, which is based on Sanatana Dharma, to admit that “Jihad’ means overcoming ones hatred, jealousy,and mean objectives of a human being, which is afterall what this great way of life, which our ancients accentuated.
I am sure that even the other “heathens” , will slowly convert to the thinking of our ancients as we Indians proceed with continue with this battering ram, Sanatana Dharma, a really mighty weapon!
Regards,
v.c.krishnan
…@shruti:-good comment shruti ..
@jagmohan:- y its a matter of shame to change names???….ages go and come wth different fashions in names and clothes…y to worry so much about names and fames….
@subadra:-reformation in islam will never be accepted by its followers….its almost next to impossible….
Shantanu, this is your blog and you live in a free country therefore you are free to agree or disagree with what some one says. I don’t necessarily agree with the language of the opinionated man, however I do believe that what he is saying is not entirely untrue. Muslims do look at things this way. I know several educated Muslims who make such comments like saying that “Our Khans are f*****g these infidel Hindu girls”. It gives certain Muslims a strange sense of satisfaction. The problem is that India is the only civilization that Muslims could not subdue in its entirety. India is unfinished business. Hence any offense directed towards the infidel Hindu gives a strange Hedonistic pleasure to the Muslim mind. Now, I am not saying that all Muslims are like that, however they are not in a minority either. Mind you education is not a barrier when it comes to vilifying Hindus and Hinduism. However I don’t blame Muslims entirely for these state of affairs. Hindus too have to share the blame of being apathetic towards their own culture and identity. Most Hindu youth have are Apathetic to their own culture and origins. There is no sense of pride amongst the Hindus for the contributions of their ancestors. So when you yourself are the biggest enemy of your being, how far can you blame others. I will give you some examples. Whenever there is attack on India by Jihadis Hindu youth will quickly come out and say that religion does not preach hatred. I really don’t know where these ideas come from , out of ignorance or out of gullibility. However when a Hindu is caught doing something every one will say, this is the job of the Saffron brigade, including Hindu reporters and even Hindus in general. Its good to be critical of your shortcomings but not to the level that you start hating yourself. Today there is a reassurance amongst the youth in Europe to return to the roots. This voice is growing silently but at a very fast pace. However it is the opposite in India, Hindus are becoming apathetic tho themselves increasingly by the day. Most of Hindu friends keep on cribbing about their religion while at the same time they will appreciate Islam and cultures they have no idea about. Perhaps these are questions that you as Hindus will have to answer for yourself. I as an outsider can just give my opinions on the reflection of Hindu society. I might be wrong……….
@Ibrahim Lone
Very well said and helpful for understanding our own mind. Yesterday night only I thought about it. Why do pakistanis are engaged in such activities? what they want? What pleasure are they getting from this?
My conclusion was same as yours “India is unfinished business” for them. Thay couldnot get away with the idea that Hindu and Hinduism win. That is the only reason they take this far terrorism. Very strong animosity, taking them to that brutal extent. Otherwise nothing can make them do what they did in Mumbai. But than there are also question in mind Why are they engaged in terrorism in other part of the world? U.S, Canada, Afgahanistan,list can go on and on…. What is there problem there.? May be cannot defeat the world.
Jai Hind!
@ Ibrahim: Thanks for continuing the discussion here…and for your thought-provoking comment.
I will respond tomorrow.
As to why Muslims are doing Jihad around the world does not take rocket science. Muhammad had made it clear to the Muslims that he had been willed by Allah till to wage Jihad till every one either did Salah and paid Zakat. Now waht does this mean. It means that Jihad is Fard on every Muslims till the time that Islam is the only religion in this world and Allah is the only deity that is worshiped. Therefore came the concept of Dar -Al-Harb (abode of Islam) and Dar-Al-harb (abode of War). Therefore what the apologetics of Islam claim that Muslims are launching these attacks for in retaliation to Palestine, Gaza, Bosnia and what not is a total sham and lie. By doing so the Islamists are able to gain victory and at the same get the sympathies of the very people they wish to target. Muhammad has once said, what is war but deceit. This is what the Muslims believe in and this is what they have been doing since the begining of Islam. Deceiving the people they want to subdue while they are weak.
Slightly out of context but I would like to mention one thing.
A couple of days after 9/11 when Tony Blair appealed for calm and said that all Muslims are not bad, the Archbishop of Canterbury decided to visit the Regent’s Park Mosque in London to express solidarity with Muslims.
During the live telecast of the visit, I noticed that the Imam of the Mosque gifted the Archbishop a copy of the Holy Quran which was respectfully accepted.
However when the Archbishop offered a copy of the Holy Bible to the Imam, as a reciprocal gesture, he declined to accept it, suggesting it was blasphemous.
All this was live on television.
Unfortunately I do not have any link but this website also mentions this incident: http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2005/07/quote_of_the_da.html
See also:
Muslim M&S worker refused to sell ‘unclean’ Bible book to grandmother, customer claims
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-508263/Muslim-M-S-worker-refused-sell-unclean-Bible-book-grandmother-customer-claims.html
http://www.globalpolitician.com/23105-islam
The following account is of a good-will visit to a Mosque by a German Bishop …..it speaks volumes about reciprocity ….or lack thereof.
“The bishop of Hildesheim in Germany paid an imam a courtesy visit in his mosque. The imam handed the Catholic prelate a Koran, which he joyfully accepted. But when the bishop tried to present the imam with a Bible, the Muslim cleric just stared at him in horror and refused to even touch Christianity’s holy book.â€
“The bishop was irritated because he perceived this behaviour as a gross discourtesy,” writes Tibi , “but the imam had only acted according to his faith. For if an imam gives a bishop a Koran, he considers this a Da’Wa, or a call to Islam.”
This, explained Tibi, must be borne in mind when one engages in a dialogue with Muslim “scholars,” for it corresponds to a verse in the Koran:
“And say … to those who are unlearned: (of Islam)….. “Do ye submit yourselves??” (Surah 3:20).
Slightly out of context, yet I need your help guys so I had to turn up here. Actually I need you guys to help me find a nice Vedic name. Off late I have been getting a lot of hate mail from irate Muslims with some of them claiming that I have links with Bajrang Dal. I hope that you guys can suggest so new name so that I could use it as my pseudonym instead of Ibrahim!!!
@Ibrahim,
Lalitaditya is nice Vedic name I would suggest, given your Kashmiri roots.
What a better way to honour your Kashmiri forefathers than to name yourself after the greatest son of Kashmir.
More about the brave and valiant Emperor Lalitaditya here: http://www.kashmir-information.com/ConvertedKashmir/index.html
*** COMMENT EDITED ***
people who bashes Hinduism here also read Dr.Subramanian swamy’s article here. and decide for yourself.. Hey the Muslims in India are all converted. they never came from saudi or they never came from sky as muslims.
Part 1 of 3 of Dr S Swamy’s article..more to come later
http://www.sanghparivar.org/virat-brihad-hindutva
*** NOTE by MODERATOR ***
@ Sakthi: Pl. be careful with your words, otherwise I will be forced to delete your comment(s). No blanket abuse, no calls for violence on this blog please. Remember, harsh, carelessly used words will NOT change anything…
My comment moderation policy is here:
@Ibrahim
You can keep Lalit also if you like, as it is short and easy to remember.
Sakthi, I found your comment really funny. I don’t know why Shantanu got so angry. However using abusive words do show a lack of vocabulary and understanding. Hence even if you want to take out your angst at an issue, its preferable that you maintain a level of decorum. By abusing and using filthy language you are basically taking your self to the same level which you accuse Muslims of belonging to.Its true, that most Muslims in India and Pakistan, with the exception of Kahsmiris, Pashtoons and Baloch people have this misconception that they are descendants of Mir Qasim. This is not very different from Christian converts who want to believe that they are descendants of Europeans. This has more to do with the cultural rather than the religious aspect of Muslims in the subcontinent. Believing in these fairy tales gives converts a strange satisfaction of belonging to the ruling class or shall I say the former ruling class. This is a psychological subject and has nothing to do with Islam, as such.
Extract from Which Muslims Share Nidal Hasan’s Vision of Islam? by Andrew Bostom:
The seat of Sunni orthodoxy Al Azhar University—which functions as a de facto Vatican of Sunni Islam, repeats in “Reliance of the Traveller†its widely distributed manual of Islamic Law, which “conforms to the practice and faith of the Sunni orthodoxy,†circa 1991,
“ Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and, is etymologically derived from the word, mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion [of Islam]…The scriptural basis for jihad is such Koranic verses as ‘Fighting is prescribed for you’ (Koran 2:216); ‘Slay them wherever you find them’ (Koran 4:89); ‘Fight the idolators utterly’ (Koran 9:36); and such hadiths as the one related by (Sahih) Bukhari and (Sahih) Muslim [NOTE: cited in slide 43 of Hasan’s 6/7/07 presentation] that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: ‘I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And the final reckoning is with Allah’; and the hadith by (Sahih) Muslim, ‘To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.’ â€
Shantanu,
SRK is partly correct. Jihad can also mean killing the badness in you and it can also mean my trying to get into an IIM.
The real difference is what is the greatest Jihad which gets you the best rewards and I quote a fatwa by Deobandis here http://www.darulifta-deoband.org/viewfatwa.jsp?ID=5877
The answer is :
The highest type of Jihad which is known is to wage war against the enemies of Islam in order to raise the words of Allah in which a Mujahid scarifies his life and wealth. It is also Jihad to keep the self suppressed, controlled and going against its will on the path of Shariah. According to the Sufis, it is Jihad-e-Akbar is to struggle for reforming the self and enlightening the heart.
Of course there are more intresting fatwas on other topics
I will send another reference which is translation of an arabic article written by former chief justice of Supreme court of SAUDI ARABIA, which explains everything perfectly
Allah (Subhana Wa Ta’ala) Knows Best
Darul Ifta, Darul Uloom Deoband
***
The above fatwa was in response to Question no. 5877, dated 24 Jul, 2008
Fatwa: 1295/1101=B/1429
Thanks SKS…Will await the links/references
“…. look at the question: what is the real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war? Let’s turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the jihad references are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes—97%. Is jihad inner struggle? Yes—3%. So if you are writing an article, you can make a case for either. But in truth, almost every argument about Islam can be answered by: all of the above. Both sides of the duality are right.”
Source: http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=297
From a scholar from Center for the Study of Political Islam
http://www.cspipublishing.com/
What is Jihad: The Arabic word Jihad is derived from the root word Jahada (struggle). Jihad has come to mean an offensive war to be waged by Muslims against all non-Muslims to convert them to Islam on the pain of death. Jihad is enjoined on all Muslims by the Quran.
Source: http://historyofjihad.com/
@Ibrahim. Candid and honest – your comments. Lot to learn from what you say.
@Ibrahim,
I agree with you that Hindus are lot to blame for the current state of Hindu religion. I think we hindus are pseudo seculars (esp the educated ones) , I mean that when something happens to minority we all come out and speak against it. Media will come out and bash all things hindu. At the same time if something happens to a Hindu nobody even dares to notice it, no media coverage nothing. One very clear example every one remembers what happened in Gujarat what happened in Best Bakery,Gulbarg society but nobody will say anything about what happened in Godhra. People were burned alive in Godhra too. Recently I watched a program on NDTV “we the people” and these guys were bashing Narendra Modi as usual. They were all saying Gujarat incident was a black spot and Narendra Modi should apologize for that. Democracy is for everyone irrespective of the religion so why can’t we respect the verdict by the people of Gujarat for selecting Modi as we do for the people of India for selecting Congress ( which is responsible for 1984 and many other riots). Everything in India from media to politics is now pro minority you through a stone at someone they will hunt you down. On the other hand Kashmiri pandits have been thrown out of their homes in their own country and no body cares even though the ruling family of this country comes from that region. God is same for every religion. If Muslims are touchy about prophet Mohd and they have proved it time and time again. Why a hindu is branded a fanatic when their goddesses are painted naked and he opposes it. Why does this become a breach of freedom of expression. I love my country as everyone else in this forum does, but It is sad that it is going on a path of self destruction. People like Teesta Setlawad, Barkha dutt should be banned from appearing on television, but then India is a democratic country and they also have a right to exercise their freedom but “YOUR FREEDOM ENDS WHERE MY NOSE STARTS”
Jai Hind
frankly i thougth jihad was a offensive word. Thanks for highlighting the true meaning
@Ibrahim, the blatant lack of awareness about own religion and culture and denigration of Indian tradition is a fad of our time. But this is not new fad. Same thing was happening in 19th Century Bengal, the influence of Brahmism was spreading far and wide in response to decadent Hindu practices and educated youth were either becoming Christian or Brahma, out of contempt for Hinduism. However then emerged the towering figure of Ramakrishna and his many disciples, among them Vivekananda, who pointed out to everybody the hidden treasures in Indian soul. Ramakrishna was a unifying force, accepting all religions as path of god and Vivekananda actually propagated the message of harmony and unity throughout the world, therefore he gained so much fame. This message of harmony and unity and instillation of pride in one’s own culture and tradition and boosting of self confidence led to so much awakening that ultimately it contributed to rejuvenation of India and its independence. So many stellar figures came up simply inspired by Vivekananda – Subhas Bose, Aurobindo, even Mahatma Gandhi, all were influenced by his clarion call.
The point which I am trying to make here, whether it makes sense or not, is we Indians are once again at a cross road. We stand the risk of losing our confidence, our culture and our soul to decadent Western thoughts. Fabric of secularism is ingrained and inbuilt in India which even fanatic rulers could not uproot. What will a few misguided persons do?
The message of universal tolerance and harmony will be spread again far and wide, dispelling all false beliefs and propaganda, and my conviction, like that of Vivekananda and Aurobindo is, that message will come from India. India will hold the beacon of hope as it had done before in the hour when the entire world is immersed in darkness.
Islam is very clear about the meaning of jihad and Hindus deluded about what is mean of religion in the real sense.
There is little doubt that religion was first manifested to meet man’s need to meet the challenges of the natural world which was mystery to him. The invoking by Hindus of idols/deities is the crudest manifestation of it because it did not imply a god in the manner of the monotheistic religions. Lets be clear what the first monotheistic religion, Judaism meant by the after life – there was none except to make earth the heaven that God had always intended. Islam even though it pays lip service to some heavenly paradise very well understands that it is on earth that they expect to establish heaven. That is why it is even more uncompromising on it conversion agenda. Whether it is Judaism, Christianity or Islam the very fact of perfecting their rule on earth is manifest in the comprehensive of the political and legal states that they have defined for the conduct of their lives.
Hinduism which has failed to provide the same comprehensive state solution is floundering because on the one fact on which it should be uncompromising, it has not awoken to the reality of the power that is manifested in the world. Dharma cannot answer the needs of the Hindus as it probably stands in the way as almost everything else to making the leap that is necessary if it is break out of the cycle of ignorance and delusion in which it is steeped.
I see no contradiction in the interpretations that has been given to jihad. The greater jihad that is concerned with meditating on the greater cause of Islam is in perfect fit with the jihad that instructs Muslims to kill non-Muslims. The killing cannot take place on just the words of their book: what the greater jihad achieves is the mental state in preparation for the killing. Islam is no different to any other state which has to carry out state sanctioned violence. I am afraid India has been totally de-fanged of any capacity to do so because of Gandhi’s legacy to India.
It should be clear that India in its present form is an obstacle to it becoming the great power status to which it aspires. An Islamic or Christian India is better able to articulate it than Hinduism in its present form. Since I have seen no work has to date has been put in to deal with the deficiency, perhaps a short time for reflection is appropriate.
Shantanu, if your point is to somehow portray islamic tenets as violent irrespective of what most scholars have said about Jihad, do you really need someone to remind you about Mahabharata or Ramayana, which are inherently violent texts. In fact, the Bhagwat Gita is all about letting violence take its course, of course, for the “larger good” and sparing no one (in spite of the numerous justifications you can make for Krishna’s discourse, some of which may even be valid, and can be made by all other religions as well). Bhima drinking Dushyasan’s blood is considered a moment of glory.
Similar examples abound, including Hanuman setting Lanka on fire, and Shiva’s third eye. The last bit is certainly interesting, because Shiva’s third eye is usually invoked by most Hindu funamentalists after every bout of particularly violent rioting that involved mass murder and rape (Thackeray used this metaphor in Mumbai 1992 and Acharya Giriraj Kishore, after Gujarat 2002).
Thanks
@Sameer
I agree with Shantanu that jihad carried out in Islam for exturpating all non-Muslims by that very fact is essentially evil. Where Judaism and Christianity differs is that others are allowed to live and prosper as unbelievers.
Dharma as bequeathed by Krishna is a personal code of conduct not violence sanctioned by God which would then be capable of translating into state sanctioned violence for the pursuit of war as more than the sport it has been for Hindu rulers.
This is why Bharat as a country has floundered against the smallest of aggressors because the rest of Bharat’s population has been silent bystanders even going as far as aiding her enemies. Is that not the case with officials the length and breadth of Bharat are open to bribes that has permitted the terrorists to operate.
It is when everyone is counted and those against dealt with ruthlessly will see Bharat arrive as a state.
@ Sameer: Pl check what you are writing…irrespective of what most scholars say..? That is precisely the point…Most scholars appear to agree that “Jihad” is not a small, little word, right?
Read in particular, comments #30 & 31 and also this brief extract from the main post: Until recently however, Muslim scholars were unanimous in insisting on the priority jihad had as warfare against the unbeliever. Bernard Lewis made this case most famously
P.S. In mentioning about the violence in MahaBharat, I hope you are not drawing a moral equivalence with “Jihad”. The MahaBharat war was a “secular” war – triggered by Duryodhan’s refusal to honour his promise to the Pandavas (i.e. to return the kingdom after 12 years of exile and one year of “Agyaatvaas” – living incognito, without being recognised). It had nothing to do with Hinduism – nor was it directed against “Kaffirs”, infidels or unbelievers.
Note to myself: Read “Jihad in the way of Allah” from The Long March of Islam” by R K Ohri.
@Sameer,
Before I begin, I should tell you that I am assuming that you know a basic outline of Ramayana/Mahabharata.
1.”if your point is to somehow portray islamic tenets as violent irrespective of what most scholars have said about Jihad,” – “irrespective of” ? There are scholars including muslim ones who said so. You do not trust them? I am inclined to know what aspect of the meaning of “Jihad” resembles teachings of Buddha or Gandhi?
2. “do you really need someone to remind you about Mahabharata or Ramayana, which are inherently violent texts.” – Do “you really need someone to remind you” that there is a difference between violence for the sake of robbing other’s rights and struggle for keeping your rights? Jihad not only inspires you to engage in violence for robbing others of their rights, it legitimizes violence in the name of God. However, Pandavas in Mahabharata did not go to rob others, they were standing up for their own rights/property, a property they built by cleaning out inhabitable land. Lord Rama in Ramayana, went to invade Lanka to search for the wife who was taken away forcefully. What would you do if your wife is forcefully taken away?
3. “in spite of the numerous justifications you can make for Krishna’s discourse, some of which may even be valid,” – So some arguments are valid to your “sickular” eye? But, still the justification is not acceptable to you? But then again, “sickularism” comes from cowardice and confusion. Since when does a confused mind has the guts to admit a logical conclusion.
4. “and can be made by all other religions as well” – Let us hear them. I am interested to know how Mahammad’s genocide of Eastern Orthodox Christians are explained and justified.
5. “Bhima drinking Dushyasan’s blood is considered a moment of glory. ” – Would you explain who glorified it, when and how? Bhima made this as a promise to his humiliated wife and kept this promise. Keeping promise is an act of Dharma, the same war has number of incidents where people gave up their lives because they could not fulfill their promise. He did not present this as an offer to God and I do not know a single scholar or a epic character who glorified it.
6. “… including Hanuman setting Lanka on fire, ..” – It was an enemy town whose king acted as an enemy and tried to kill him. It was an exit strategy for him. Did he go to Lankan residents, then threatened with profound thoughts such as “we love death more than you love life” unless they agree to his demands?
7. “Shiva’s third eye” – You invoked something very deep in our religion. It is not same as AK-47 or Canon or RDX. It re-presents the power that can ultimately destroy everything. I can go on and on about it’s philosophical and spiritual meanings but instead I will ask you a simple question: Where in Ramayana/Mahabharata, Siva invoked his third eye to bring violence? According to Puranas, he faced his share of adversaries but did not use his third eye.
8. “..because Shiva’s third eye is usually invoked by most Hindu funamentalists after every bout of particularly violent rioting that involved mass murder and rape (Thackeray used this metaphor in Mumbai 1992 and Acharya Giriraj Kishore, after Gujarat 2002).” – How did they invoke it? I thought the third eye can only be invoked by Shiva himself. I could not find a single place in Dharmic books where it is said that Shiva’s third eye represents riot, rape and mass murder. Robert Openheimer, head of Los Alamos scientist group that developed atom bomb, read aloud a stotra from Upanishad when he observed the destructive power of an atomic bomb (incidentally that refers to Shiva and his destructive power). This, however, does not mean that Upanishad ordered him to make the bomb, Roosevelt did. He only used the stotra because he found the description of the stotra is very similar to what he observed through his protective glasses.
Now-a-days, I often find pseudo-intellectuals who read one or two pages from articles of N Ram/Arundhati Roy/Wendy Doniger who love to introduce ‘sub-altern voices’ (according to western critics) to everything that is associated with Hindus, take a few things out of context and pitch arguments that does not stand infront of those who are well read and well-versed in our own dharma and culture. Given a suitable reply, they run without bothering to respond or defend. I am not expecting you to post a response either. As I said before, a culture of shared ignorance, cowardice and confusion, helped shape secularism into what it is today: Sickularism .
Hi Shantanu
To engage decently with the proponents of Bhagvad Geeta same as Koran, Dharam-Yuddha same as Jihad and similar nonsense, we need to see, who are these people. Imo, three categories:
1. Ignorant: Large number of innocent non-muslims and perhaps a larger no. of innocent muslims (yes!), who honestly consider themselves to be seculars fighting against hate, including our ‘secular’ but clueless Journalists, activists.
2. ‘Scholars’ : In Indian context the ‘Left wing/Secular/progressive’ :less said the better
3. The True Believers
‘The Reliance of the Traveler’ that you referred to above in comment no 30 does a great service, by taking away all those ‘quoting out of context’, ‘wrong translation’, ‘Arabic not translatable to any other languages’ kind of excuses. The book is available at http://www.islamicbulletin.com/free_downloads/resources/reliance_complete.pdf). While there is a lot that can be said about its authenticity, I will quote just two:
‘From a purely academic point of view, this TRANSLATION is SUPERIOR to anything produced by orientalists in the way of translations of major Islamic works’ : President of the International Institute of Islamic Thought, Member of Islamic Fiqh Academy at Jedda, President of the Fiqh Council of North America’ and;
‘we certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community’ by Islamic Research Academy, AL-AZHAR (who have also stamped every page of the book with the seal of the department)’
Interestingly, the sentence, explaining Jihad as a war against non-Muslims, is followed by an oddly placed sentence, beginning with ‘AND’: ‘And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad. “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.”’ Curiously, there is a ‘Best Jihad’ also: – ‘The best jihad is speaking the truth to an unjust ruler’.
The Best Jihad gets all of ONE sentence, the greater one, THREE; and the supposedly lesser Jihad, about 100. Some have claimed that, greater Jihad was a very late addition into the book; given its placement and no mention of any scriptural basis (and references),unlike most of the other topics for which a Koranic or Hadith reference is given. In any case, when the Book talks of Jihad it means the so called ‘Lesser Jihad’ except for those 4 odd sentences.
Similarly, when you look at ‘Objectives of Jihad’ it is: ‘The caliph (025) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the nonMuslim poll tax (jizya) which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (0: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax’. [Hanafis give the Jizya option to even idol worshippers, not under other schools]
[So the ‘Oppression’, ‘Injustice’, alienation etc. etc. are only a part of the bigger picture. The picture is complete only after you have become a Muslim or have agreed to pay Jizya, and its gets clearer as you go further in the book.]
The book also explains the circumstances when Jihad is a communal obligation and when it is a personal obligation. As for the ‘out of context’ nonsense, the book asserts simply:
‘In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: 09.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year’.
[Note ‘for subsequent times’ and the ‘each year’!]. [The second state is of course the defensive one, in which case it is a personal obligation.]
It defines ‘permissible lying’ and ‘misleading impression’: (page 744 – 747) rather transparently:- In plain and simple words, when the objective is ‘praiseworthy’, lying is permitted and when the objective is ‘obligatory’, lying is obligatory.
[Even better] in such cases, religiously it is more precautionary to give a ‘misleading impression’ i. e. ‘to utter an expression that ostensibly implies one meaning, while intending a different meaning the expression may also have, one that contradicts the ‘ostensive’ purport’.
[Is it possible that some of the Anti-Terror Fatwas are driven by these principles?]
Similarly, Truce guidelines are also luminous:
· ‘there must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo’.
· ‘Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or material, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim.
If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years.
I think these 3-4 concepts when understood well, answer most of the questions that are raised by the well meaning people on Jihad. We can only hope that they read a bit before unleashing their profoundly ‘Secular’ wisdom on all and sundry.
Hi Shantanu
I am slightly confused, tried posting a comment 4-5 times but failed. I had been using SKS Mumbai, but tried changing when my comments were not showing up.
Anything special that I should know?
Saurabh: Your comments were stuck in the spam queue…just a glitch. Hopefully sorted now.
http://users.tpg.com.au/dezhen/jihad_and_the_modern_world.html
Pankaj
I’m not sure if by citing that link you were questioning the conclusion reached in Shantanu’s post and subsequent comments.
If you were then I’d be happy to explain why that article (in particular and many more in general) is simply another, (not unexpected) attempt at shifting the goal post. Do let me know.
From WHO SAYS ISLAM IS TOTALITARIAN? by Andrew C. McCarthy, a brief excerpt:
…First, as Robert Spencer explains,[4] “Jihad . . . is a key element of the Islamic faith according to every single Islamic authority on the planet.” To deny that it is the “essence of Islam” — which is how the prophet Mohammed regarded it — is to deny a basic fact. And though, as Spencer acknowledges, jihad is subject to varying interpretations, Lewis is clear on the preponderant construction.
As he has recounted several times, most recently in The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years,[5] “The overwhelming majority of early authorities . . . citing relevant passages in the Qur’an and in the tradition, discuss jihad in military terms.” This jibes, to quote Ibn Warraq, with “the celebrated Dictionary of Islam,” which describes jihad as an “incumbent religious duty,” and defines it as “a religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad.”
Spencer echoes Lewis when he elaborates that “all the mainstream sects and schools of Islamic jurisprudence teach as a matter of faith that Islam is intrinsically political and that Muslims must wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law.” The fact that most Muslims do not engage in violent jihad, whether out of practicality, indifference, or what have you, does not change what Islamic doctrine says. Nor does it mean these Muslims are “rejecting” that mandate. They are ignoring it.
Moreover, as I’ve noted on several occasions, the point of jihad is to spread sharia, the Islamic legal system whose installation is the necessary precondition to creating an Islamic society. That need not be done by violent means. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential Islamist organization, maintains that America and Europe will be “conquered” not by violence but by dawa — the proselytism of Islam by non-violent (or, more accurate, pre-violent) means, such as infiltration of our institutions. Spencer calls this phenomenon “stealth jihad.”
Consequently, one can be an Islamist without engaging in violent jihad, which is precisely the case with the vast majority of Islamists. The fact that they are not terrorists does not mean — as we wish it would mean — that they are not extremists. While they abstain from the use of force (particularly against other Muslims), staggering majorities of Muslims throughout the world favor the implementation and strict application of sharia. Andrew Bostom’s essay demonstrates this, citing polling[6] done in 2009 by World Public Opinion in conjunction with the University of Maryland.