"Islam without jihad is the product of colonialism and is in no way connected to the Islam of Muhammad. Without question, the greatest jihad is personal jihad, and therein lies the proof that the term jihad in Islam is not limited [solely] to waging war... [But] this does not mean that the term jihad does not include many other aspects, among them those which relate to the individual's responsibilities to society, and the relations of the [Muslim] society and ummah with societies and countries that declare war on a Muslim state.
"[However,] ever since the American [declaration of] war against what is called terrorism, there has emerged a group of Arab and Muslim authors and academics who try to limit jihad to one dimension, namely to personal jihad. This is exactly what happened in India during the period of British colonialism, when the Qadian sect, also known as Ahmadiyya, emerged and rejected the principle of fighting the colonialists. [They] abolished the duty of jihad in the sense of waging war, and were content with preaching merely personal jihad.
It seems that there is the problem with the Ahmadi congregation. They reject violence.
3 comments:
The nature of Islam is beyond question. So why does the west insist on meddling with them and trying to interfere and install people they think would do the west's bidding?
The west should totally disengage with Islam on all levels, even immigration policy.
I believe war is not the solution of any of the problems that Muslims are facing presently except if there is genocide against them. Ahmadiyya community did reject military struggle against British and suggested to follow peaceful means to achieve national goals, and it was the way adopted by Mr. Jinnah to achieve Pakistan, he never lead or supported any militant struggle against British, in fact he opposed mutiny on Royal Navy Ships in Bombay in 1940. So Ahmadiyya didn’t come up with something that was to harm Islam or Muslims, they gave an idea which was followed later by Muslim leaders and they succeeded in it. On the other hand those Muslims who humiliated Ahmadiyya because of prejudice against them got failed in keeping British India united despite of all “Jihad” that they tried to carry out. In fact there were great armed struggles by groups and also 1957 mutiny against British but none of it got succeeded in any way, and sensible Muslim leaders like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan opposed such Jihad, he was abused by religious leaders then for it, so if the author considers Ahmadiyyas of holding a false belief he is not the first religious extremist to say it. So if anybody objects to the belief of Ahmadiyya, he is actually running against the time and reality.
Bilal Ahmad is naive and puerile in his comments.
He should read history of Qaiani Movement with Bahai Movement. He should read the writings of Bab and Mr Nuri the friend and desciple of Bab.
Boths sects were instigated by occupying powers to creat a split among Muslims. They did axactly what I would have done, had I been in their shoes.
Qadiani are very much like Bahai albeit a little more aggressive.
Both are supported by the West, and why not?
If Muslims are stupid, ignorant, uneducated and downtrodden, it is their fault and not of the West.
Don't blame the West or Qadiani.
Post a Comment