Echoing a similarly hollow condemnation from this past summer, which also argued that while "terrorism" is destructive, "jihad" is constructive. As such, this declaration does nothing toward stopping jihadist violence. Rather, it dodges any responsibility for that violence on the part of Islamic texts and teachings, and aims to reinforce the notion among the uninformed public that jihad is only waged for intentions that would be universally construed as benevolent. Ergo, if any person or group commits an act of violence or aggression in the name of Islam that gets bad press... voilà! It's not jihad!
"Indian Muslims endorse anti-terrorism edict," from Agence France-Presse, November 10:
HYDERABAD, India (AFP) — Thousands of Indian Muslims have united to endorse a religious edict condemning terrorism as un-Islamic, a scholar said Monday.
Reporting from within India (thanks to KV) confirms that this was, as in previous stories, a Deobandi gathering.
The two-day weekend meeting in the southern city of Hyderabad drew around 6,000 Muslim clerics and scholars, and came after India was hit by a wave of bombings by suspected Islamist militants across the Hindu-majority nation.
Indian Muslim leaders have since complained that members of their community were being subjected to harassment by police.
The endorsed fatwa, or ruling, holds that the term jihad -- 'holy war' -- cannot be applied to terrorist acts.
"Jihad is basically a constructive phenomenon. Terrorism is based on destruction alone. Jihad is permitted only for restoring peace and is a fundamental right of a human being," the edict reads.
"It's a very good and important step which draws the distinction that jihad and terrorism have nothing in common," said Khalid Rasheed, a senior cleric from northern India who attended the meeting.
At the closing session on Sunday, K. Rahman Khan, deputy speaker of India's upper house of parliament, urged the scholars to help end "all forms of terrorism."
"It is only some misguided youth who are caught in the trap of those perpetrating terrorist acts. The clerics should bring them back on to the right track by explaining what jihad exactly stands for," he said.
See the following brilliant piece 'Islamic Dictionary for Infidels', by European essayist 'Wolfgang Bruno', posted on jihadwatch in July 2006.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012406.php
Read it, then - slowly and careful - reread the reported statements of those Deobandi Muslim scholars in India,. You might like to have a shot at running their reported statements through the decoder to see what comes out.
Bear in mind, in particular, the definition of 'peace':
'Peace: "Peace" in Islam equals submission to the will of Allah through his divine and eternal law, sharia, and the extension of the Dar al-Islam – or 'House of Islam' – to cover the entire world. The absence of sharia is the absence of peace.'
From the article, event A:
"India was hit by a wave of bombings by suspected Islamist militants across the Hindu-majority nation."
Then, event B - when Infidels respond by attempting to catch Muslim jihadists:
"Indian Muslim leaders have since complained that members of their community were being subjected to harassment by police."
Action by Muslims: bombings.
Defensive reaction by non-Muslims:police 'harassment' (presumably, arrests and questioning) of Muslims.
In the light of the Bruno essay I referenced in my first posting, the first action - the bombings - is (from a Muslim POV) completely legit. - Muslims doing good: waging jihad in order to establish the 'peace' of sharia. "Jihad is permitted only for restoring peace". Note the odd use of 'restoring' - India was once ruled by Muslims, it is currently not ruled by Muslims, Muslim jihadists intend to 'restore' sharia, Muslim dominion, over India.
The second action, from a Muslim POV, *is* "terrorism". Because any resistance put up by non-Muslims to the Muslim agenda of imposing sharia, is TERRORISM.
Hence:" jihad {tr: Muslim efforts to impose sharia on non-Muslims} and terrorism {tr: non-Muslim attempts to defend themselves against, or to stop, such Muslim efforts} have nothing in common".
Of course they don't.
And of course the 'misguided Muslim youths' aren't smart enough to wage jihad properly ...so they get caught in the traps of the terrorist Infidel police...
You've got it nailed, Dumbledore.
explaining what jihad exactly stands for," he said. so then, i would guess it stands for "change". seems i heard all that befor. God help us all
condemning terrorism as un-Islamic
"un-Islamic" has no value. I'll listen as soon as they say that terrorism is bad, Full Stop.
"Jihad is permitted only for restoring peace and is a fundamental right of a human being"
Peace on whose terms?
One man's terrorist is another man's jihadist.
Since "Jihad" means "Islamic Holy War" against the Infidel, how can they condemn it? A central tenet of the Koran, commanded by Allah.
Nope, it'll never happen.
"Jihad is permitted only for restoring peace and is a fundamental right of a human being," the edict reads."
Restoring peace through warfare and subjugation, got it.
"It is only some misguided youth who are caught in the trap of those perpetrating terrorist acts. The clerics should bring them back on to the right track by explaining what jihad exactly stands for," he said.
Unfortunately it's not just a matter of some (a million or more is "some"!) misguided youth.
There are also all the elders in all those thousands of madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere who are doing the "misguiding", and all the Saudi oil billionaires that are financing them, and all the Islamic governments that are supporting and protecting them. Yet we're supposed to believe that the jihadists are just a bunch of juvenile delinquents!
Why should one belive this line?
"Jihad is basically a constructive phenomenon. Terrorism is based on destruction alone. Jihad is permitted only for restoring peace and is a fundamental right of a human being,"
There was nothing to indicate that there are recognized forms of Islam that are not governed by Islamic law. The national constitutions of most Muslim countries,and all Arab countries surveyed, formally reflect this subordination. All the Islamic authorities identified jihad as a duty incumbent on all Muslims at the communal and
individual levels. When the authorities spoke to Islamic law of jihad, its meaning was limited to that of warfare against non-Muslims to establish the religion. Because this finding is in line with Quranic verses from surahs from the later periods of revelation, it reflects abrogation’s doctrinal influence on Islamic law. Because jihad’s legal status reflects scholarly consensus, it means that the rules of jihad as stated in Islamic law are absolute and hence cannot be contravened or annulled.
Jihad is permitted only for restoring peace and is a fundamental right of a human being," the edict reads.
Sooo...This can only mean two things...Either Mohammadans are the only 'human beings', as kufrs are not human...
Or if jihad is a fundamental right of any human being to restore peace/ order, then President Obama is on the right track with his 'Civilian Security Force', staffed by Mohammdans, that would wage it's own jihad on disruptor's.
That is those who would bring 'corruption', and 'mischief' to the land' 5:33, and threaten peace in 'your' city.
The jihad will be 'constructive', as it will restore order, bring peace, and protect you from the bad guys... Of course there will be lots of people hopping around on one foot, but that's proof that Obama's CSF jihad is working...
"Jihad is basically a constructive phenomenon. Terrorism is based on destruction alone. Jihad is permitted only for restoring peace and is a fundamental right of a human being," the edict reads.
...................
Curse you Swami--once again you beat me to it! (this last was tongue-in-cheek, please note)
I was going to note the same thing--if Jihad is "a fundamental right of a human being", but Jihad is purely a Muslim phenomenon, then, ergo--only Muslims are human beings. Indeed, there are Muslims who specifically use the term "human beings" when referring to Muslims, rather than the "filthy kuffr".
Also, good points, Dumbledore's Army. Jihadists *do not* use language in the same way we do. But part of the ploy is that we will take their words at face value, as a condemnation of "terrorism", and an endorsement of "peace".
gravenimage...'Once again'??? I knew I was fast, but I didn't know I was 'that' fast.
Some people have accused me of being half fast, which is why I speed up.
I should probably lay off so much coffee and exotic Turkish tobacco...
Jihad...The inner struggle...
I was once told that the purpose of religion is to remind you of your sin.
The human manifestation of 'sin' is selfishness.
The human condition that is sinless is 'selflessness'.
The real purpose of religion is to remove layers of selfishness, so that selflessness shines through. Selfisness says...'I need all I can get'...Selflessness says, 'I can get all I need'...That's gross materialism, the opposite of purity...
Jihad the inner struggle for purity, is an attempt to remove layers of sinful selfishness.
Intense prayer and meditation, as well as yoga systems are designed to do exactly the same thing.
There are lots of props and aids, but the goal is the same. Spiritual purity or as close as one can get to it...
But the results will only be as good as what you start out with...When the aspirant starts out with Christianity, we often see saints, when they start out with Hinduism, or Buddhism we see saints, guru's, swami's, avatars, and other very lofty individuals.
When the convert to Islam, or birth Mohammadan starts out, they can only 'get' what Allah is willing to give them, and it is never a saint or an avatar, it is always a blood thirsty Imam
pushing for human sacrifices.
The point being, that if an individual Mohammadan wants spiritual purity, you won't get it in Islam.
Inner jihad will not work...
Jihad as an inner struggle will remain an inner struggle till you die, because you are struggling with the wrong god...'Change' is what you need...
Muslim clerics condemn "terrorism"...
Headline of article
Weak as this is, at least it's an acknowledgment from within Islam that terrorism is being committed in its name, which is an improvement over blanket denial that has been the norm up to now. One step at a time...
Weak as this is, at least it's an acknowledgment from within Islam that terrorism is being committed in its name, which is an improvement over blanket denial that has been the norm up to now. One step at a time...
Posted by: Eastview
That's not how I saw it. It's the same thing they've always said, for the simple reason that they don't view jihadist acts as terrorism. The word is in quotes. They don't see what is being done by Muslims as terrorism. For them, it's jihad. Jihad is a "human right".
The endorsed fatwa, or ruling, holds that the term jihad -- 'holy war' -- cannot be applied to terrorist acts.
But can we apply the term "terrorist acts" to jihad? They would say no.
"Jihad is basically a constructive phenomenon. Terrorism is based on destruction alone. Jihad is permitted only for restoring peace and is a fundamental right of a human being," the edict reads.
Ergo, nothing they do is terrorism. It's not meant for the sole purpose of destruction. It's all for Allah. Jihad is an act of worship. It's not terrorism. So what if innocent people die? That's not the purpose of it and so it's not terrorism. Everything they do has a justification (like the Danish cartoons) and so it is not terrorism.
"Jihad is permitted only for restoring peace and is a fundamental right of a human being"
Are not the victims of Jihad inspired warfare not human beings as well sir? Sir?
"condemning terrorism as un-Islamic" (from the article)
- "un-Islamic" has no value. I'll listen as soon as they say that terrorism is bad, Full Stop.
Posted by: FreeSpeech at November 11, 2008 5:35 AM
FreeSpeech - you got it.
Because in Islam, there is no 'good' and 'bad', not as non-Muslims understand those things.
Mr Spencer points out, in 'The Truth About Muhammad', and also in 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades' that in Islam 'good' has come to mean only 'that which benefits Muslims', while 'bad' is whatever harms them.
On pp 5-7 of the PIG to Islam and the Crusades, Mr Spencer discusses the Nakhla Raid and Qur'an 2:214, and observes:
"This [2:214] was a momentous revelation, for it led to an Islamic principle that has had repercussions throughout the ages.
"Good became identified with anything that redounded to the benefit of Muslims, *regardless of whether it violated moral or other laws* {my emphasis added - dda}.
"The moral absolutes enshrined in the Ten Commandments and other teachings of the great religions that preceded Islam, were swept aside in favor of an overarching principle of expediency".
Mr Spencer covers the same ground in 'Truth About Muhammad', pp. 97-99.
I will add that the great Scottish free thinker and philosopher, David Hume, saw the fundamental amorality of Islam very clearly, and summed it up in one devastating paragraph - unearthed, and shared here at this website by a diligent poster, four years ago (thanks mate!):
"But would we know, whether the pretended prophet {Mohammed} had really attained a just sentiment of morals?
"Let us attend to his narration; and we shall soon find, that he bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society.
"No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to;{NOTA BENE - dda}
"and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers."
David Hume (1711-1776) - "Of the Standard of Taste: Paragraph 4" (1757)
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20of%20art/hume%20on%20taste.htm#p4
- Posted by: Rublev at September 4, 2004 1:17 PM
Many of the bombings in India are committed by Hindu Extremists and these Hindu Extremists are more and more frequently getting caught in the act.
Active duty Hindu military personnel are even now under arrest and on trial for some of them.
The administration there is taking advantage of the current political climate with all the smear work going on and participating in "false flag" operations.
Truth
Abdullah Mikail
P.S. Robert,
"India: Muslim clerics condemn "terrorism," but not jihad"
Just more evidence against yourself that what God said about you was true: "They will never be happy until you believe as they believe."
You will never be happy.
“After a study of some forty years and more of the great religions of the world, I find none so perfect, none so scientific, none so philosophic, and none so spiritual as the great religion known by the name of Hinduism. The more you know it, the more you will love it; the more you try to understand it, the more deeply you will value it. Make no mistake; without Hinduism, India has no future. Hinduism is the soil into which India's roots are struck, and torn of that she will inevitably wither, as a tree torn out from its place. Many are the religions and many are the races flourishing in India, but none of them stretches back into the far dawn of her past, nor are they necessary for her endurance as a nation. Everyone might pass away as they came and India would still remain. But let Hinduism vanish and what is she? A geographical expression of the past, a dim memory of a perished glory, her literature, her art, her monuments, all have Hindudom written across them. And if Hindus do not maintain Hinduism, who shall save it? If India's own children do not cling to her faith, who shall guard it? India alone can save India, and India and Hinduism are one." --Annie Besant
...from 'google search' of Annie Besant !
How little Hindus know of her today..?
Dhimmies and Islamists are responsible for this.
The same fate waits for others too if they act not
in time.
...see also !
www.stephen-knapp.com
This is how 'stealth jihad' works. How can any culture / so called civilization BE LIKE THIS ?.
...And of course the 'misguided Muslim youths' aren't smart enough to wage jihad properly ...so they get caught in the traps of the terrorist Infidel police...
dumbledoresarmy
A perfect description of the mindset of our enemy. Every military commander and Homeland Security official should have a copy of Dumbledore's post.
A Hindu lawyer needs help with his book that has been banned. Here is an article that I read at Islam watch.
http://www.islam-watch.org/Etc/India-Supreme-Court-Lawyer-Needs-Help-to-Lift-Ban-on-Book-on-Islam.htm
Those crazy Mohammedans want to silence everyone who writes about the atrocities committed to humanity by these barbarians of Islam.
As I was doing some reading , I came across an article with the following passage...
"It is significant to note that while denouncing terrorism done by Muslim groups (and simultaneously condemning terrorism engaged in by states and by non-Muslim forces), these meetings have not explicitly critiqued any Muslim group engaged in terrorism by name. Nor have these meetings sought to critique the interpretations of Islam articulated by these groups in any detailed manner, beyond simply announcing that Islam has no relation with terrorism. This perhaps emanates from a fear of being attacked, even physically, if such groups were to be named. It could also indicate a reluctance to admit that some Muslims, like some others, too might actually engage in terrorism. Whatever the reason, this silence surely reduces the impact that these meetings might have otherwise had in countering terrorism in the name of Islam engaged in by some fringe groups."