04-25-2008, 01:17 AM
<b>A battle of ideologies</b>
Prafull Goradia
<i>
Those who place the ummah above all are bound to be at war with the world
</i>
In 1979, a Pakistani journalist in Tehran interviewed Ayatollah Khomeini. The occasion was the forthcoming anniversary of Pakistan Day namely, March 23. Understandably, Mohammed Ali Jinnah was a significant focus of the occasion. The Ayatollah was all praise for the Qaid-e-Azam. He was brilliant at arguments; he knew the British mind like the back of his palm; he inspired faith in people and so on.
<b>To give a balance to his report, the journalist asked the Ayatollah whether Jinnah had any shortcomings as a leader? Khomeini said yes; he should have had more vision. Had it been so, he would not have sought partition. He would have waited until the whole of India had acquired a Muslim majority. It was already well over a quarter Muslim and in the course of decades, crossing 50 per cent would not have been difficult.</b>
The great man of Iran was not a terrorist. Why then blame Safdar Nagori or any other member of SIMI for dreaming to convert India to Islam through jihad and making it part of the Muslim ummah? Reportedly, Nagori has claimed Mullah Mohammed Omar, the reclusive head of the Taliban, as his role model. The fountain of SIMI's drive is ideological; only its weapon is terrorism in the garb of jihad.
In the words of Prof Bernard Lewis (The Crisis of Islam), for most of the 14 centuries of recorded Muslim history, jihad was most commonly interpreted to mean armed struggle for the defence or advancement of Muslim power. In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: The House of Islam (Dar-ul Islam), in which Muslim Governments rule and Muslim law prevails and the House of War (Dar-ul Harb), the rest of the world, still inhabited and, more important, ruled by infidels. According to Islamic law, it is lawful to wage war against four types of enemies: Infidels, apostates, rebels, and bandits. Although all four types of wars are legitimate, only the first two count as jihad.
Jihad is thus a religious obligation. The root of the ideology lies in the central belief that there is no God other than Allah. There can be no second God. Christianity also believes in a single God. The Ten Commandments include an open exhortation that 'you shall have no other god before My face'. You shall not bow down to any idol for I am the Lord or God and God should brook no rival. The followers of Jesus have not, however, been quite so fanatical against infidels or non-believers; although considerable cruelty including burning at the stakes of heretics was reported.
The comparative liberality could also be attributed to the deep influence of the Greek civilisation upon Europe. The essence of ancient Greek commitment was captured by Protagorus who said that man is the measure of all things. Things that are and things that are not. It was a humanistic ethos which stressed on the pursuit of happiness rather than on god or religion. But for this humanistic background, the 16th century Reformation might not have been tolerated, nor would Christianity have split into so many denominations.
In contrast, Islam has remained pristine; it has been ruthless with apostates. When it comes to conversion, both Islam and Christianity are equally keen. From their point of view, their intentions are altruistic. The logic of a single God is that non-believers cannot qualify for a place in heaven. It is out of this ultimate goodwill to enable all human beings to have the chance to reach heaven that a kafir or infidel is attempted to be converted. This goodwill at the individual level, when transferred to the collective, turns into jihad. It is for either Islamising humanity or for defending the Muslim ummah against a kafir threat.
In strategic terms, Islamising humanity is the aggressive face of jihad. Prophet Mohammed had exhorted his followers to "marry women who will love their husbands and be very prolific, for I wish you to be more numerous than any other people". The exhortation has been obeyed scrupulously to the extent that it is now recognised that the demographic offensive succeeded almost beyond belief.
Muslims today comprise 21 per cent of the world population, a jump of 110 per cent over the last century. <b>From the 25 per cent of the Indian sub-continent in 1947, they now comprise 40 per cent. </b>Russia appears likely to become an Islamic country before very long. Moscow is already 25 per cent Muslim.
France, Belgium and Holland are also under threat of going Islamic. The immigrant Muslims are multiplying on the lines inspired in the scriptures, whereas the indigenous Whites are declining in number. Hardly a quarter of the young people get officially married; they, in turn, produce few children. The phenomenon of the single parent child does not help the required birth rate. Apart from Holland, Sweden and Denmark have become openly anti-immigration. Britain and France realise that multiculturalism has failed but political correctness makes them reluctant to go out against Muslims openly.
In sharp contrast to this correctness, the mullahs who lead the immigrants are open and candid about their intention to create Islamic polities within the European states. The ulema of Britain have already demanded a separate Muslim Parliament. Europe has been threatened by Islam repeatedly through history. The Turks began by overrunning Anatolia which was an extension of Greece. The Ottomans virtually took over the Balkans and also knocked at the gates of Vienna twice, the last time was in 1683. Spain had its spell of Moorish rule for seven centuries beginning with 711 AD. Several parts of France were overrun by the Moors until they were stopped by Charles Martell at the historic Battle of Potiers. But all this while the enemy was at the gate. The new avatar of the same enemy, however, is now a cancer within European society having reached and residing in the city centres.
<b>This reality is a clash of civilisations as distinct from a war between nations. </b>Safdar Nagori's SIMI belongs to the same faithful ideology although with one great advantage. <b>Unlike the Europeans, the Indian polity is welcoming them as 'Muslim first', in the words of the Prime Minister.</b> Which war is easier to fight than when the enemy happens to be an ally? This is the good fortune of Safdar Nagori and his cohorts in the SIMI.
Uncannily, BR Ambedkar had, while analysing the demand for Pakistan in 1940, sponsored an exchange of populations and supported partition on the plea that it was safer to have Muslims outside the borders of India than within.
Prafull Goradia
<i>
Those who place the ummah above all are bound to be at war with the world
</i>
In 1979, a Pakistani journalist in Tehran interviewed Ayatollah Khomeini. The occasion was the forthcoming anniversary of Pakistan Day namely, March 23. Understandably, Mohammed Ali Jinnah was a significant focus of the occasion. The Ayatollah was all praise for the Qaid-e-Azam. He was brilliant at arguments; he knew the British mind like the back of his palm; he inspired faith in people and so on.
<b>To give a balance to his report, the journalist asked the Ayatollah whether Jinnah had any shortcomings as a leader? Khomeini said yes; he should have had more vision. Had it been so, he would not have sought partition. He would have waited until the whole of India had acquired a Muslim majority. It was already well over a quarter Muslim and in the course of decades, crossing 50 per cent would not have been difficult.</b>
The great man of Iran was not a terrorist. Why then blame Safdar Nagori or any other member of SIMI for dreaming to convert India to Islam through jihad and making it part of the Muslim ummah? Reportedly, Nagori has claimed Mullah Mohammed Omar, the reclusive head of the Taliban, as his role model. The fountain of SIMI's drive is ideological; only its weapon is terrorism in the garb of jihad.
In the words of Prof Bernard Lewis (The Crisis of Islam), for most of the 14 centuries of recorded Muslim history, jihad was most commonly interpreted to mean armed struggle for the defence or advancement of Muslim power. In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: The House of Islam (Dar-ul Islam), in which Muslim Governments rule and Muslim law prevails and the House of War (Dar-ul Harb), the rest of the world, still inhabited and, more important, ruled by infidels. According to Islamic law, it is lawful to wage war against four types of enemies: Infidels, apostates, rebels, and bandits. Although all four types of wars are legitimate, only the first two count as jihad.
Jihad is thus a religious obligation. The root of the ideology lies in the central belief that there is no God other than Allah. There can be no second God. Christianity also believes in a single God. The Ten Commandments include an open exhortation that 'you shall have no other god before My face'. You shall not bow down to any idol for I am the Lord or God and God should brook no rival. The followers of Jesus have not, however, been quite so fanatical against infidels or non-believers; although considerable cruelty including burning at the stakes of heretics was reported.
The comparative liberality could also be attributed to the deep influence of the Greek civilisation upon Europe. The essence of ancient Greek commitment was captured by Protagorus who said that man is the measure of all things. Things that are and things that are not. It was a humanistic ethos which stressed on the pursuit of happiness rather than on god or religion. But for this humanistic background, the 16th century Reformation might not have been tolerated, nor would Christianity have split into so many denominations.
In contrast, Islam has remained pristine; it has been ruthless with apostates. When it comes to conversion, both Islam and Christianity are equally keen. From their point of view, their intentions are altruistic. The logic of a single God is that non-believers cannot qualify for a place in heaven. It is out of this ultimate goodwill to enable all human beings to have the chance to reach heaven that a kafir or infidel is attempted to be converted. This goodwill at the individual level, when transferred to the collective, turns into jihad. It is for either Islamising humanity or for defending the Muslim ummah against a kafir threat.
In strategic terms, Islamising humanity is the aggressive face of jihad. Prophet Mohammed had exhorted his followers to "marry women who will love their husbands and be very prolific, for I wish you to be more numerous than any other people". The exhortation has been obeyed scrupulously to the extent that it is now recognised that the demographic offensive succeeded almost beyond belief.
Muslims today comprise 21 per cent of the world population, a jump of 110 per cent over the last century. <b>From the 25 per cent of the Indian sub-continent in 1947, they now comprise 40 per cent. </b>Russia appears likely to become an Islamic country before very long. Moscow is already 25 per cent Muslim.
France, Belgium and Holland are also under threat of going Islamic. The immigrant Muslims are multiplying on the lines inspired in the scriptures, whereas the indigenous Whites are declining in number. Hardly a quarter of the young people get officially married; they, in turn, produce few children. The phenomenon of the single parent child does not help the required birth rate. Apart from Holland, Sweden and Denmark have become openly anti-immigration. Britain and France realise that multiculturalism has failed but political correctness makes them reluctant to go out against Muslims openly.
In sharp contrast to this correctness, the mullahs who lead the immigrants are open and candid about their intention to create Islamic polities within the European states. The ulema of Britain have already demanded a separate Muslim Parliament. Europe has been threatened by Islam repeatedly through history. The Turks began by overrunning Anatolia which was an extension of Greece. The Ottomans virtually took over the Balkans and also knocked at the gates of Vienna twice, the last time was in 1683. Spain had its spell of Moorish rule for seven centuries beginning with 711 AD. Several parts of France were overrun by the Moors until they were stopped by Charles Martell at the historic Battle of Potiers. But all this while the enemy was at the gate. The new avatar of the same enemy, however, is now a cancer within European society having reached and residing in the city centres.
<b>This reality is a clash of civilisations as distinct from a war between nations. </b>Safdar Nagori's SIMI belongs to the same faithful ideology although with one great advantage. <b>Unlike the Europeans, the Indian polity is welcoming them as 'Muslim first', in the words of the Prime Minister.</b> Which war is easier to fight than when the enemy happens to be an ally? This is the good fortune of Safdar Nagori and his cohorts in the SIMI.
Uncannily, BR Ambedkar had, while analysing the demand for Pakistan in 1940, sponsored an exchange of populations and supported partition on the plea that it was safer to have Muslims outside the borders of India than within.