Those who claim that there is no terrorism in Islam are fools
-The Islamists who are preaching that there is no terrorism in Islam and that there are no laws in Islam which permit the act of invading a non-Muslim country, are doing good aren’t they. Why do you oppose what they are saying? If you claim that militancy exists in Islam, militants will be encouraged by that- right?
– Alright let me ask you a question first, have you ever heard of anyone who has turned into a militant after reading the work of an atheist? Did Osama Bin Laden become a militant after reading Ali Sina’s writings? The name of Bin Laden’s guru is Shaikh Abdullah Azzam. IS chief Baghdadi completed his studies from the Al-Azhar University. The renowned Islamic pundits down there were his spiritual gurus. Meanwhile the spiritual guru of Ansarullah Bangla Team’s chief is Jashimuddin Rahmania. Who is a Mufti. So apparently it seems that Jihadi networks are being established all over the world thanks to the guidance of spiritual Islamic scholars. Now let us find out who guides the spiritual gurus? If you have read the textbooks of these spiritual gurus, you will notice that nothing they have said is of their own making. They have mimicked those who described and analysed Islam for the first three generations, including exactly how the prophet himself established it. And the documented proof lies within all the Tafsir, Hadith, Sirat, compiled by Islamic pundits starting from Islam’s first till right up to its 3rd generation, over the course of the Quran’s 1400 year old Islam. Now you tell me, setting aside all these documents, publishing millions of copies of them every day, teaching them in madrasas, and after all that isn’t it laughable that alongside earning a doctorate degree in Jihad, one tries to openly preach the so-called fabled Islam? Have you come across a single Islamist who has called for conventional Hadith and Tafsir to be banned? Have you seen him make attempts to ban the Bukhari Sharif, Muslim Sharif, Ibne Kathir’s Tafsir or Al Tarabi’s Tafsir? They spend days and nights moaning that ‘wrongful descriptions of Islam’ are what is pushing young people towards trouble- and yet have they even for once identified which of the aforementioned descriptions are wrongful, or who has written them like that? Did even one of them make any request to disobey the Bukhari Hadith? Did they tell Sirat Ibne Hisham that his written biography of the prophet is inaccurate? No they did not. Because if you deny these Islamic sources once, from then on whatever you will preach will not be counted as Islam anymore. At best it can be another religion-but not Islam. Have you now guessed the unscrupulousness of the pacifists?
-What is that like?
-Today Maulana Farid Uddin Masud is the noblest of Alems to you -right? There are a lot who even call him a “free-thinking spirit” enthusiastically! Nevertheless, this gentleman has taken a rough stance towards militancy and claimed that Islam is not related to it. But did he ever say for once that there is nothing like Jihad in Islam? No he didn’t. He didn’t because there is no way to deny the existence of Jihad. So when Muslims will carry out Jihad in non-Muslim countries, what will the non-Muslims call it? Surely terrorism or militancy. Makkah’s idolaters used to call Muhammad the ‘dacoit of Madina’! And what would Muhammad say to that? He would say that the ‘gonimot items’ (spoils of war) had been made halal for him. Pacifist Islamists including Masud never completely dismissed the importance of Jihad. They claim that in order to announce Jihad an Imam is required. And those who are conducting militant activities today in the name of Jihad, are not qualified enough for it. So according to the words of Farid Uddin Masud, we can assume that once a qualified Imam has been found, he would have no further objections to initiate Jihad? When there were proposals made to introduce refinements into Bangladesh’s school syllabuses by taking communal interests into consideration, a lot of Islamic groups including Farid Uddin Masud warned that any “Hindu” conspiracies will not be tolerated here. In fact when ‘radical’ Islamists were conducting protests in order to have the Greek sculpture residing in front of the Supreme Court removed, the ‘pacifists’ also demanded in chorus that in a country were 90% are Muslims, statues or sculptures will not be tolerated…. Now you tell me what difference is there between moderate and fundamentalists? I can clearly understand what the Babu Nagoris want- but I cannot understand what the Farid Uddins want…
-Listen, you have to understand one thing Wahabi Salafibad is what is fuelling the destruction caused by militancy in the world today.
-Listening to you it seems like ‘Salafi’ is another religion altogether and has no relations to Islam! Or Abdul Wahab has established a new radical mode of thinking within Islam called ’Salafibad’. That is absolutely not the case. Throughout the history of this world, whatever we have come to know as ‘religious reforms’ are not new reforms by any means. The religious movement initiated by Sree Coitonnodeb to abolish the caste system is considered to be a reform in Hindu religion. That does not mean he abolished the Hindu caste system as according to his on wishes. Instead there were was no caste system in place in ancient Sonaton religion, Brahmans would rake in wealth in the name of sacrifice, they would ensure their entertainment needs are catered for in the name of prayers and offering rituals, and the practice of holding people captive in the name of religion is a few centuries old according to history. Choitonnodeb had actually proposed that Hindus return to the centuries old Sonaton religion mentioned above. Just like Martin Luther King proposed that the current system of Catholic popes be revoked and Christians return to the old Christian customs of a religion without any popes. Which again is considered to be a new Christian reform. But neither Luther nor his collaborators had actually suggested any reforms to be made in Christianity. And that is how there have been no changes in the fundamental beliefs of any given religion in the world. That is not possible. Any sort of reform would mean giving birth to a completely different religion. Just like Goutam Buddha gave birth to a new religion having been inspired by the atheistic ideals of the Vedas. And also just like the new religion which was conceived by disagreeing against the beliefs of ‘Brahmannabad’, and was consequently titled ‘Brahmmo religion’. The same happened in Islam as well. The way Islam was established during the of prophet Muhammad’s reign and subsequently that of the four Caliphs, after which the next three generations of Islamic rule that followed, through traditional Islamic values and Jihad that, the likes of Abdul Wahab had only requested Muslims that they return to practicing those ancient ideals again. Because by that time since many variations of Islam had cropped up such as Sufism, Baghdad’s Mutazila, the Babhbadi Pirer Dorga, Fikiri Islam borne out of the ministrations of vagabonds within the Indian sub-continent. Thus Al Soud Abdul Wahab’s only intention was to unite the then divided Islam under one large landscape, by Muslims them to return to old ideals. He did not preach a separate brand of Islam altogether. And as proof there are all those ancient sources of Islam which Abdul Wahab used, bearing all the ingredients for him to incite a Jihadi way of thinking. And that is why it can be clearly said that ‘Salafibad’ is not a spate brand of Islam.
-Alright I understood that. Built do you people not want Islam to be generously reformed?
-That is not possible. Not only in the case of Islam but every religion that exists. Because as long as prior documents bearing religious guidance exists, it won’t be possible to ignore them and introduce reforms.
-You said that it is not possible to make changes to religion, and yet you said that things like Sufism, Mutazila and other models of religion had been conceived- so how was that possible?
-Mutazila was basically movement incited by free thinking skeptics. They had many disagreements with a lot of the teachings of the Quran. Their ideas and concepts about the Lord were absolutely opposite to the ‘Allah’ concept. Imam Gazzali called Mutazilas atheists. When these ‘atheists’ incorporated themselves with Baghdad’s rulers, they managed to turn the city of Baghdad into a central hub for knowledge, science and technology. Imam Gazzali meanwhile started a movement inviting everyone to return to Islam’s main ‘Akida’, meaning to the brand of Islam practiced by the first three generations. When Gazali’s movement succeeded the city of Baghdad was plunged into eternal darkness. All religions are influenced by belief of the majority and their cultures as well. And that is why continental differences between the practices of Islam is clearly noticeable. These days followers of ‘Salifibad’ are actively inviting Muslims all over the world to follow a completely different brand of Islam. That is not a reform which was introduced by them. That is ancient Islam.
-But moderates say, is that those you try and convince of this, wouldn’t their selfless and open-hearted words inspire people to be religiously tolerant?
-This can be compared in the following way, you are claiming that Nazism has no relation with extermination plans Hitler had for Jews. Nazism does not instruct to kill Jews. To kill Jews there must be a few specific reason. And to understand those reasons it is important to seek the help of a Nazi expert who might be able to shed light on the conundrum of whether the time has come to punish bad Jews or not…Now you tell me do you want to leave Nazism at that? What I am trying to say is these pacifist reformists have to take a united stance against Jihad, clearly state that Jihad has no place in Islam. They will have to remove each and every verse in the Quran related to Jihad. And that is when it can be classified as a true reform in Islam. But is that possible? You may say that militancy has no relationship with Islam- whi9ch may garner you a handful of followers but what will happen to the scores of ancient Islamic sources strewn across the world?
-Great I understand now. But wouldn’t your writings also inspire Jihadists? They will notice that even atheists are portraying Islam by referring to Jihad and murder. And as such will they not be assured that these writings are credible sources for Islam?
-I talked about this right at the beginning. And I am going to repeat it now, goldfishes in a glass fish bowl, see the world in the exact same way one can see world from a glass fish jar. And similarly when a child studying in madrasa is exposed to Jihad, Caliphate, murder, gonimot (spoils of war) etc before he had reached an appropriate age, he wouldn’t consider them to be morally questionable acts. And yet when an atheist writes about them, using the same exact source, a different truth tends to come out. Let me give you an example. Consider ‘gonimot’. This means the spoils of war. In other words the belongings of Kafirs defeated by Muslims, would belong to the Muslims. That is a universal rule. For instance imagine America and France are in fighting inside a battlefield. In said battle if French soldiers are defeated, their weapons, bombs, gunpowder and ammo, transportation used in battle, helicopters everything will belong to America from then on. What is wrong with that right? Similarly whoever Muslims defeat in battle their possessions will belong to Muslims from then on. And that is known as ‘gonimot’ items. From the viewpoint of a goldfish, perhaps claiming the spoils of war would not look so bad. But think carefully, can you give me the name of a single battle in the history of Islam were Kafirs brought their wealth, their daughters and wives on top of camels, into a battle against Muslims! Did they bring their crops, their camels and sheep to the battlefield? And their daughters? Islam has made it halal to treat, consume and enjoy women as spoils of war. As such is it possible to determine now that in Islam not a single battle was organized against Jews? That each of them were unprovoked attacks. They transformed the possessions of Jews as gonimot items, by carrying out such attacks. When considering this from a humane perspective will any pious Muslim be able to support gonimot anymore? And that is how atheists will force the Jihad enthusiasts reading their work, to think again. Not encourage them.
-But still what?
-Why do you need to write about religion!
-Alright my friend, the next time we go out in hunt of a safe place down Jessore road, and if we are still alive by then that is, while we are on our way I will explain the logic behind writing about religion to you…Ok?