Confessions of Jihadis

Aniruddha

“Only then will the war on terror turn some corners and there might be the suffusion of the idea in the likes of Abdul Rahman and Khalid al-Farraj that practicing religion doesn`t go with the courtship of death.”

Despite the fact that the terrorism is the top-most burning issue of today it has not been possible so far to arrive at a commonly acceptable definition of this most heinous of the crimes. In my 0pinion terrorism is a cult in itself like the cult of ‘Kali Devi’, an Indian cult with both Muslim and Hindu devotees, which was prevalent in India even during the British Raj. The devotees of this killer cult were called ‘Thugs’. They had no regard for human life, which according to their belief was there only to be sacrificed at the altar of the Devi. An anti-thesis of it is the ‘Humanism’ according to which the best and the most sacred of the living beings is the Homo Sapiens. Even this belief however does not prevent its votaries from the sacrifice of other living beings like animals, etc., for the human beings, which license is justified on the assumption of the superiority of the humans (Ashrafulmakhlooqaat) or considered of no consequence. The only religion of consequence, which considers life, as such, sacred, is the great Buddhism.

As for the modern terrorism it can be considered just a revival of the cult of Kali Devi with the only difference that the modern terrorists do not consider even their own life of any consequence at the alter of their ‘Devi’. Though these terrorists are called by different names – freedom fighters, Maoists, Tigers, Khudkush Bombars, etc., etc., one thing is common among them – the utter disregard of the human life even of their own like a ‘pujari’ of Kali Devi.

By the way, who are Abdul Rahman and Khalid al-Farraj mentioned in the excerpt of the article given at the top above?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#7 by Urstruly

[I see hindus are peeing in their pants, as usual. ]

Peeing we are, but not in our pants.....yours.

I see hindus are peeing in their pants, as usual.

The silence from the Paki interactors on this Topic is also apalling!!!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Let us first get some things clear. The poorest Muslim countries are in Africa - the true sufferers of globalization, debt traps and Western control on capital flows and markets. A number of such countries may not have even a single proper hospital between them-that is how badly off those Muslims are.

The richest Muslim countries are in the Middle East who roll in petrodollars earned from the same Western globalized capitalist system. The rich Muslim countries mostly pay no attention to the poor Muslim countries except to set up mosques and facilities for proselytization. Jihadis, jihadi ideology and funding thereof arise out of rich and middle income Muslim countries, not the poor ones.

When a population is poor and rich people offer them good money for waging jihad, poor people are apt to take it up as the only economic opportunity available to them, just like inner city people taking to crime and peddling drugs for rich criminal dons and drug dealers.

That does not mean that the poor necessarily subscribe more strongly to the jihadi ideology which the rich and well-to-do are spending so much money and organisational power to propagate. To stop the indigent poor from joining the jihad, you have to first stop the rich from funding, organising for and propagating jihadi ideology, just like to clean up an inner city of poor drug pushers you have to first go after the rich drug dealers and their distribution network. You can not pretend that only poor jihadi fodder exists and the rich patrons of jihadi ideology do not.

Re democracy and equitable society as solution - good solution. But Arabs themselves most often refuse to practise it - on one hand do you expect Americans to insist on Saudi women(for instance) being given right to vote and right to stand for office, on the other hand would you also how the West is imposing its values on Muslims. An equitable just society can not be artificially constructed from outside alone, it must be supported by internal impulses in societies.

So how about the sin of supporting Muslim dictators. Well that is a sin indeed but there too there is the ` damned if you do and damned if you don`t` pitfall. A `wanting it both ways` leadership (including Pakistani) for example argues itself blue in the face that the Western concept of liberal market-based democracy is ill suited to their countries but at the same time demands that the West take responsibility for removing the inequity in their countries or suffer terrorism in return. That is like rich drug dealers in that inner city neighbourhood demanding a higher share of some other state`s budget as price for wiping out drug peddling and addiction.

As for tolerance, Wahabbis are people who can not tolerate the building of a Shia mosque in their main city. I very much doubt more wealth over their existing billions or democracy or trade or anything else can change their basic beliefs.

Western religious naivete has exacted a very heavy price. For too long english-speaking supporters of terrorism managed from within to keep most Western analyses of terrorism pegged at a childish level.

Looking back, historians will marvel at the extent of short-lived success these suited terrorists managed to enjoy almost unopposed.

Glad to see more substantive work emerging from different quarters.

//...Barber goes on to argue lucidly how a globalisation of civic and democratic institutions are likely to offer a way out. ...//

So this Barber guy argued you can defeat Jihad by ``globalisation of democracy``. I am sure he was very ``lucid`` when he said that - otherwise he would have been laughed out of the lecture hall :)

I don`t know what is worse - mullahs rants on Jihad, or these leftie loonies dis-joined rants on god-knows-what. I mean - this guy went from Jihad ... to MNC .... to ``new Democracy`` .... to ``Global Justice`` ... to ``secular market society`` .... and then even to Kyoto Protocol - all in the same paragraph :))). Read the following:

[....In a world where democratic institutions have just peripheral control over predatory MNCs Barber talks about the creation of a new democracy which would address aggressively the need for global capital to provide global justice, provide recognition and a place for faith in an aggressively secular market society (read banning of head scarves in France) and see merit in re-adjudicating north-south responsibilities (read Kyoto protocol)...]

Plz ask them to contemplate. Who promoted this culture just like the heroin flowing out from Helmand Asghanistan