Jihad should replace democracy to overcome challenges: Munawar Hasan

[deepak.chauhan2312]

woah cool down soldier dudes not even a friggin minister or in the govt how can he introduce anything than again u dont know the meaning of jihad

yeah terrorism as we can learn what we see and we see only terrorism in name of jihad so we will only think that and dont try to tell us good thing in jihad as we don't want to learn it as we are not interested as we are more interested in removing every jihdaist from this planet sooner or later

 

[SQ8]

yeah terrorism as we can learn what we see and we see only terrorism in name of jihad so we will only think that and dont try to tell us good thing in jihad as we don't want to learn it as we are not interested as we are more interested in removing every jihdaist from this planet sooner or later

You are one of the few people who has identified the term terrorism as separate from "Jihad". Perhaps you should go a step further, what is "jihad" in its various meanings? What is its basic etymology?

 

[rockstar08]

we should give them free Air tickets to Go t o iraq and join the Khalifa ..
we dont need their version of islam ..

 

[Jungibaaz]

To hell with JI. This guy, who only bound by forum rules I won't insult, should be tried for treason.

 

[Old Navigator]

Well, I would suggest to not take these things lightly, as they have huge following and believe me enough to, when and if such times come, which is not that far, drag the entire country in civil war. Well, for sectarian clashes or religious matters no country is as dangerous as our country.
All I see is turbulent times ahead for Pakistan and political are/will be sleeping as usual.

 

[Sine Nomine]

@Old Navigator well said.

All I see is turbulent times ahead for Pakistan and political are/will be sleeping as usual.

They think money and sleeping is good for health.

 

[PakGuns]

LAHORE: Former Ameer Jamat-e-Islami (JI) Munawwar Hassan on Saturday ruled out the resolution of issues through democratic disposition and instead called for promoting the culture of ‘Jihad’ to overcome the present challenges.

“It is beyond the system based on elections to overcome the challenges being faced by the country,” he maintained while addressing a public meeting here at Minar-e-Pakistan.

He said he would not mince his words in declaring that ‘the problems of the the society in which we live can only be resolved through adopting and promoting the culture of Jihad’.

It is pertinent to mention here that the former JI Ameer had sparked a widespread controversy last year by declaring Hakimullah Mehsud of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and his associates killed in the drone strike as martyrs.

Jihad should replace democracy to overcome challenges: Munawar Hasan - thenews.com.pk

kill this mullah with fire before it lay eggs

 

[WAJsal]

yeah terrorism as we can learn what we see and we see only terrorism in name of jihad so we will only think that and dont try to tell us good thing in jihad as we don't want to learn it as we are not interested as we are more interested in removing every jihdaist from this planet sooner or later

so called jihadist they are an insult to the name only advice for u would be learn jihads meaning

 

[WAJsal]

Hon Sir,

From your flippant comment I understand that other Muslims should not criticize a bigot who is inciting JI members to go out and start killing in the name of Islam. Not being entirely stupid the bigot Munawwar Hassan does not specify who should be killed, but the innuendo surely refers to the minorities. Would you agree with LeJ killing Hazras of Quetta because they are Shias or burning alive of the Christian couple without any trial in a court of law?

With due respect, this is not an Islam bashing thread. Far from it, it is the ex-Amir of JI that is bashing Islam. Being an intelligent and rational person that you obviously are; you should instead be asking Munawwar Hassan to stop mis-interpreting Qur’anic verses and turning the peaceful religion preached by our holy Prophet (PBUH) into a savage blood thirsty creed.

I am simply amazed as to how questioning even vitriolic speech by a bigot can be interpreted as bashing Islam by a section of the society.

agreed with bold,im in no support of these so called mullahs i said ISLAM BASHING THREAD because some indian members were misunderstanding it if only i could i would get rid of our beloved country

 

[Not Sure]

You are one of the few people who has identified the term terrorism as separate from "Jihad". Perhaps you should go a step further, what is "jihad" in its various meanings? What is its basic etymology?

You know, even if Munawwar Hassan meant that very Jihad that you mentioned in the first page (Jihad e Akbar you call it I suppose), a great number of Muslims will take his Jihad (esp when specifically contrasted with democracy) as the Jihad to convert or kill non-Muslims.

Yes, a great number of Muslims will do that in Pakistan, just as they are doing it in other parts of the world. Yet, you want that guy ( @deepak.chauhan2312 ), who is not even a Muslim, to spend his time and energy to study Jihad because the speaker made a dubious comment. Is that what you really expect of all the non-Muslims of the world to do? As if they have nothing else but reading about Jihad as their priority. Leave alone asking that person to study about it, how can you even expect it? You have no right to expect of others to do a study on your religion.

No matter how much you try, ultimately, they all will think of Jihad not as what you are trying to tell, but as what they have been seeing all around, and naturally so - because they are aware that even you too can not be 100% sure what Munawwar Hassan means by Jihad vs Democracy.


No matter how true or pious, if your words do more harm than good, then treat those words as poison. Munawwar Hassan is fully aware how people are going to perceive his Jihad, and that is precisely why he said it.

 

[SQ8]

You know, even if Munawwar Hassan meant that very Jihad that you mentioned in the first page (Jihad e Akbar you call it I suppose), a great number of Muslims will take his Jihad (esp when specifically contrasted with democracy) as the Jihad to convert or kill non-Muslims.

Yes, a great number of Muslims will do that in Pakistan, just as they are doing it in other parts of the world. Yet, you want that guy ( @deepak.chauhan2312 ), who is not even a Muslim, to spend his time and energy to study Jihad because the speaker made a dubious comment. Is that what you really expect of all the non-Muslims of the world to do? As if they have nothing else but reading about Jihad as their priority. Leave alone asking that person to study about it, how can you even expect it? You have no right to expect of others to do a study on your religion.

No matter how much you try, ultimately, they all will think of Jihad not as what you are trying to tell, but as what they have been seeing all around, and naturally so - because they are aware that even you too can not be 100% sure what Munawwar Hassan means by Jihad vs Democracy.


No matter how true or pious, if your words do more harm than good, then treat those words as poison. Munawwar Hassan is fully aware how people are going to perceive his Jihad, and that is precisely why he said it.

So your argument rests on the idea that Jihad be banned as a term because today because it inspires with its interpretation of warfare rather than spiritual struggle? And more importantly, that the clarification of the term is not important specifically for people who by their own free will decide to take whatsover interest in the matter?

So instead of fighting to get these terms back, vociferously.. we need to simply abandon them in fear of being branded with the same fellows who used it for terror or otherwise? Next thing you know it might be suggested that we stop saying "Allah-o-Akbar" because it too has been signified with suicide bombers before they detonate?


If your suggestion were so, a large section of Hindus would not be going out and using the Swastika in their lives and still clarifying about why it was always a symbol of dharmic peace rather than that of oppression and superiority.

 

[he-man]

So your argument rests on the idea that Jihad be banned as a term because today because it inspires with its interpretation of warfare rather than spiritual struggle? And more importantly, that the clarification of the term is not important specifically for people who by their own free will decide to take whatsover interest in the matter?

So instead of fighting to get these terms back, vociferously.. we need to simply abandon them in fear of being branded with the same fellows who used it for terror or otherwise? Next thing you know it might be suggested that we stop saying "Allah-o-Akbar" because it too has been signified with suicide bombers before they detonate?


If your suggestion were so, a large section of Hindus would not be going out and using the Swastika in their lives and still clarifying about why it was always a symbol of dharmic peace rather than that of oppression and superiority.

He was not wrong.

 

[SQ8]

He was not wrong.

He wasn't right either. His contention is on the idea that the former party head could have meant it in any other manner but it will always be construed as that implies that we give up on the idea and simply let it be. I refuse to accept the totality in that argument.

 

[he-man]

He wasn't right either. His contention is on the idea that the former party head could have meant it in any other manner but it will always be construed as that implies that we give up on the idea and simply let it be. I refuse to accept the totality in that argument.

His contention about deleting or atleast restraining certain words is right.It cannot be done though,thats a totally different matter.
About the political side of things,,the gentleman in question giving this nara is clearly trying to erode the democracy by inciting people on religious line.

What he really meant can only be clarified by himself on the means to achieve that nefarious aim of his.

 

[Not Sure]

So your argument rests on the idea that Jihad be banned as a term because today because it inspires with its interpretation of warfare rather than spiritual struggle? And more importantly, that the clarification of the term is not important specifically for people who by their own free will decide to take whatsover interest in the matter?

So instead of fighting to get these terms back, vociferously.. we need to simply abandon them in fear of being branded with the same fellows who used it for terror or otherwise? Next thing you know it might be suggested that we stop saying "Allah-o-Akbar" because it too has been signified with suicide bombers before they detonate?


If your suggestion were so, a large section of Hindus would not be going out and using the Swastika in their lives and still clarifying about why it was always a symbol of dharmic peace rather than that of oppression and superiority.

Not once in my post I asked to ban the term Jihad. You are simply infering my words too acutely through the lens of your choice.

First I made a point. The point was that you have no right to expect others to be aware of the deep tenets of your religion. That was in reference to your asking that guy to learn more about Jihad. That guy learned what is Jihad by the way we all learn about this world. By seeing the examples. If you believe there is Jihad of another kind, show us by example. Others are blowing themselves up for their Jihad, what would you do for your kind of Jihad? (It is a rhetorical question, but I suppose you got the gist)

My argument was that when a man in the position of authority, who is followed by a mass, makes a highly dubious statement that can be interpreted different ways by different people, and could almost certainly cost lives, then that man shall be held as a criminal for inciting hatred to violent levels. To think that Munawwar Hassan is a kid who wouldn't know the repercussions of using the term "Jihad vs Democracy", would be dangerously naive. He specifically meant what we are interpreting.

About "Allah-o-Akbar" getting banned, well, if people do start shouting that term just before blowing themselves up on a major scale, then yes, that term too should be banned.

You shouldn't have dragged dharmic religions in here. Dharmic and Abrahmic religions are incomparable. There is no scale that could weigh them objectively. But I know what might be going through your mind - That I can easily say all of this because it is not my religion in question. No. If it were about Hinduism, and people were to use the term "Om" to destroy the society and make peoples' lives miserable, then I would support banning that too. If this way humanity were to lose all its religions, then that too won't be too big a cost, because if there is anything right in any specific religion, then it will come back to humans. We cannot keep our society shackled to some specific beliefs when they start doing more harm than good to the society - Now you know how a dharmic follower thinks.


P.S. My suggestion is precisely what you mentioned in the last line, and not opposite of it. That Hindus should explain it to anyone who asks on how Swastika means progress, and not Nazism. It is very contrary to what you did with Deepak Chauhan. You actually asked him to go learn about Jihad. Hindus are showing what Swastika is by example. They are not doing anything what a Nazi would have done, rather, they are explaining it to everyone. (Remember how a shopkeeper came under fire in Gujarat for using the Swastika sign like that of the Nazis?). The prosecutors too were Hindus. They left no stone unturned it closing that shop down, even while explaining how Swastika means progress for Hindus, and not Nazism. Everything is in congruence with my suggestion.