And just to clarify JI-Hind's stand on SIMI because afterall SIMI was a child of JI-Hind's ideology, here is an interview by its head. Note again that Deoband has no ideological or any other linkages with SIMI because of their completely different thought processes. Just quoting the part about SIMI, the rest of the interview can be read at the link.
Jamaat-e-Islami Hind: Ameer-e-Jamaat on Terrorism, SIMI & politics in India
Q: What do you feel about the charges about the banned Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) being behind these blasts? After all, at one time, the SIMI was the youth wing of the Jamaat-e Islami.
A: It should be clear that SIMI was never a wing of the Jamaat. Jamaat has its own wing, the SIO (formed in 1982). In 1992, the Iqdam-e-Ummat conference was organized by SIMI in Mumbai. There the SIMI activists used intemperate language. Then the Jamaat-e Islami Hind decided that henceforth no Jamaat representative would attend any SIMI meetings. This was done to emphasize the Jamaat's stand that the language used by Muslims must be proper and balanced. Prior to this, we had tried to make the SIMI realize that their immature approach was wrong, and under the circumstances it was unrealistic and impractical as well and not in accordance with the Islamic temperament.
However the ground reality is that even before the ban on the SIMI, its influence was rather limited. It was not the hugely influential movement that the media makes it out to be. Moreover as journalists such as Ajit Sahi of Tehelka have shown, no case of SIMI activists being involved in any illegal or disruptive acts has ever been proved in any court. If SIMI was really wedded to terrorism, as is being alleged, then why is it that when it was not banned it did not engage in such activities, and that after the ban, when its wings were clipped, its offices sealed, many of its activists arrested and others who had been associated with it closely watched by intelligence agencies, it was allegedly able to mastermind all these deadly blasts across the country? This question must be asked, but, of course, the media is not asking it.
Q: But surely the SIMI's radical rhetoric was inflammatory and pernicious. Its call for armed jihad, its visceral hatred for and opposition to democracy, secularism and the concept of the nation-state and its appeal for establishing a Caliphate in India naturally made it seen by many Indians, including Muslims, as very dangerous. In this sense, it was akin to some extreme radical Islamist groups in the Arab world. What do you have to say about this sort of approach?
A: Any immature approach is of course wrong and completely impractical and, moreover, it is counter-productive. However, you must realize that much of the SIMI's rhetoric was limited to raising slogans. Islamic movements across the world have increasingly begun to avoid empty rhetoric. They know that any immature action leads to harsh suppression. Islamic movements in various countries are clearly realizing that the only practical avenue before them is through peaceful mass movements which could engage in democratic politics and in elections to present their agenda and win public support. Well-known Islamic parties such as the Jamaat-e Islami of Pakistan and Bangladesh, the Ikhwan ul-Muslimin in Egypt, the Refah Party in Turkey and so on are routinely taking part in elections and seeking peaceful means to come to power. They de facto recognize the existing secular and democratic Constitutions, even though they may not be Islamic Constitutions. Seeking to gain public acceptance and support by participating in elections and using peaceful means is their method.
Q: So, are you suggesting that the radical approach of extremist groups such as Hizb ut Tahrir in the Arab world and Central Asia or the SIMI, which aimed to capture political power through violence to establish what they call an Islamic state, is wrong?
A: To shun peaceful mass movement and adopt coercion is entirely impractical and counter-productive, as I earlier mentioned. As I said, only through peaceful means one may seek to bring about the desired change. However your perception that SIMI aimed to capture power through violence is entirely wrong. Participating in democratic elections is certainly one possibility before the Islamic parties. It is a different matter that when in some countries an Islamic party wins the elections the West (which otherwise keeps harping about democracy) makes sure that such a party does not actually come to power. The instances of Turkey and Algeria can be seen in this context. But even if this happens, there is no practical alternative to the peaceful movement method. After all, how long can the West succeed in denying Muslim masses the regimes that they democratically wish to elect?
Jamaat-e-Islami Hind: Ameer-e-Jamaat on Terrorism, SIMI & politics in India
Q: What do you feel about the charges about the banned Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) being behind these blasts? After all, at one time, the SIMI was the youth wing of the Jamaat-e Islami.
A: It should be clear that SIMI was never a wing of the Jamaat. Jamaat has its own wing, the SIO (formed in 1982). In 1992, the Iqdam-e-Ummat conference was organized by SIMI in Mumbai. There the SIMI activists used intemperate language. Then the Jamaat-e Islami Hind decided that henceforth no Jamaat representative would attend any SIMI meetings. This was done to emphasize the Jamaat's stand that the language used by Muslims must be proper and balanced. Prior to this, we had tried to make the SIMI realize that their immature approach was wrong, and under the circumstances it was unrealistic and impractical as well and not in accordance with the Islamic temperament.
However the ground reality is that even before the ban on the SIMI, its influence was rather limited. It was not the hugely influential movement that the media makes it out to be. Moreover as journalists such as Ajit Sahi of Tehelka have shown, no case of SIMI activists being involved in any illegal or disruptive acts has ever been proved in any court. If SIMI was really wedded to terrorism, as is being alleged, then why is it that when it was not banned it did not engage in such activities, and that after the ban, when its wings were clipped, its offices sealed, many of its activists arrested and others who had been associated with it closely watched by intelligence agencies, it was allegedly able to mastermind all these deadly blasts across the country? This question must be asked, but, of course, the media is not asking it.
Q: But surely the SIMI's radical rhetoric was inflammatory and pernicious. Its call for armed jihad, its visceral hatred for and opposition to democracy, secularism and the concept of the nation-state and its appeal for establishing a Caliphate in India naturally made it seen by many Indians, including Muslims, as very dangerous. In this sense, it was akin to some extreme radical Islamist groups in the Arab world. What do you have to say about this sort of approach?
A: Any immature approach is of course wrong and completely impractical and, moreover, it is counter-productive. However, you must realize that much of the SIMI's rhetoric was limited to raising slogans. Islamic movements across the world have increasingly begun to avoid empty rhetoric. They know that any immature action leads to harsh suppression. Islamic movements in various countries are clearly realizing that the only practical avenue before them is through peaceful mass movements which could engage in democratic politics and in elections to present their agenda and win public support. Well-known Islamic parties such as the Jamaat-e Islami of Pakistan and Bangladesh, the Ikhwan ul-Muslimin in Egypt, the Refah Party in Turkey and so on are routinely taking part in elections and seeking peaceful means to come to power. They de facto recognize the existing secular and democratic Constitutions, even though they may not be Islamic Constitutions. Seeking to gain public acceptance and support by participating in elections and using peaceful means is their method.
Q: So, are you suggesting that the radical approach of extremist groups such as Hizb ut Tahrir in the Arab world and Central Asia or the SIMI, which aimed to capture political power through violence to establish what they call an Islamic state, is wrong?
A: To shun peaceful mass movement and adopt coercion is entirely impractical and counter-productive, as I earlier mentioned. As I said, only through peaceful means one may seek to bring about the desired change. However your perception that SIMI aimed to capture power through violence is entirely wrong. Participating in democratic elections is certainly one possibility before the Islamic parties. It is a different matter that when in some countries an Islamic party wins the elections the West (which otherwise keeps harping about democracy) makes sure that such a party does not actually come to power. The instances of Turkey and Algeria can be seen in this context. But even if this happens, there is no practical alternative to the peaceful movement method. After all, how long can the West succeed in denying Muslim masses the regimes that they democratically wish to elect?
