Shared by Zafar Khizer
Islam at War – with Itself
From Aleppo in Syria to Quetta in Balochistan, Muslims are engaged in the slaughter of other Muslims. The numbers are enormous: over 93,000 killed in the Syrian civil war and over 48,000 dead in Pakistan. Millions have perished in similar intra-Muslim conflicts in the past four decades. Many wonder if the belief in Islam was sufficient to bind Muslims in peace with each other.
Since the end of the Second World War, the world has moved in two distinct directions. The West, mostly Christian, has tried to minimize the intra-European conflict and has largely been successful with some exceptions. The Muslim world, on the other hand, has fallen into one violent conflict after another, involving mostly Muslims. Several intra-Muslim conflicts continue to simmer as proxy wars. In the 80s, the Iran-Iraq war alone left millions dead. More recently, a car bomb in Iraq on Sunday killed another 39 in the sectarian warfare between the Shias and Sunnis that killed at least 1,045 in May 2013.
As the violence amongst Muslims increases, most Muslims prefer denial or look for scapegoats. Those in denial believe no such violence exists and the entire issue is made up by the western-controlled media. Others blame it on scapegoats – Indians and Americans are the most frequently blamed. The overwhelming evidence, however, suggests that the sectarian and tribal divisions amongst Muslims and justifying violence in the name of religion are the primary causes of why Islam is at war with itself.
Muslim societies have thus evolved into places where revenge is confused with justice, forgiveness with weakness, and peace with cowardice. These are the places where unholy men wage holy wars against unarmed civilians, pitching Muslims against other Muslims.
For more details please click on the link
http://dawn.com/news/1018849/islam-at-war-with-itself
Here’s a compilation of various readers’ comments on the article. It bespeaks volumes on the obsolescence of Religions, specially of Islam whose extremist and militant sect is raising hell with all the Muslims not belonging to that Sect and to adherents of other Faiths. It is more than obvious to me that the validity or usefulness of all religions, has expired some time ago. There are better alternatives in place to teach peaceful co-existence to human beings of all Histories, Geographies and Faiths.
Quote
Historically religion seems to have encouraged both inter and intra-religious violence. There has been violence between Catholics and Protestants, between Shias and Sunnis, and of course between different religions e.g. Muslims against Christians, Hindus against Muslims and against Sikhs. The hatred between Muslims and Jews is encouraged by their religions despite the fact that both claim that religions teach love and peace. The fact is that for thousands of years religion has encouraged and caused violence and untold misery. The Christians had their crusades. Muslims still kill in the name of Jihad, millions were killed, maimed and suffered unforgettable misery during India Pakistan partition, all in the name of religion. In the Gujrat riots Muslims burned Hindus alive in train bogies and then Hindus raped and killed innocent Muslims. Some Muslim religious leaders in Africa are well known who say killing Christians is their religious duty as they are Kafirs. We are told that it is not the fault of religions but of those who practice it.
Is it not time to abandon the Institution ?
Muslims have been killing each other from day one, during first 50 years they killed 3 of their most beloved Caliphs and slaughtered the most beloved grandson and family of their Prophet. The blood bath is still going on. If there was any progress during 1400 years it was by those who had liberal attitudes. It is obvious that the message has not been understood.
The problem is that Muslims in general don’t tolerate anything which goes against their beliefs. It is impossible to say something in Pakistan without offending someone. People should realize that it is their religious beliefs which are causing hatred. Unless people try to tolerate each other’s religious and non-religious beliefs, bloodshed will never end.
The problem is Islam itself. You can sing ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ till the cows come home, but that does not make it so. Prophet Muhammad spent a great deal of time in battles and hence Islam was born in violence. Compare that with Buddhism or Hinduism and the difference in philosophies becomes glaringly obvious.
Islam is not a religion of peace, it has been a religion of violence since 7th century, and unless and until there is major reforms within Islam, it will continue in the same vain.
“From the very first day Muslims are taught that their belief in Islam trumps all other identities that they may hold. Their skin color, tribe, caste or creed, none matters once they enter the fold of Islam.” I guess such a unipolar identity is easily hijacked by redefining Islam to be suitable for one’s political ends. Why can’t religion be on equal footing with a person’s other identities? And I wouldn’t call people who kill women, children and care-givers human, let alone Muslim. IMHO, people are multi-dimensional, and religious affiliations should be intensely private and one-to-one with God.
Unquote.
Before I attempt to comment on his views some quick questions:
Is Wequar Azeem trying to prove that a world without religions would have been a “peaceful place”? If his answer is ‘Yes!’ then what about all those pre-biblical fierce wars between the Greeks and the Persians or Romans and the Persians and many more? In the modern times, what about the first and second World Wars which have nothing to do with religions when, according to Wequar Azzem, the validity of religions had expired; which happened in the wake of Nietzsche’s proclamation “God is dead” and the Nazi German’s following his philosophy of Uberman (beyond man) or Superman created an unprecedented hell on this planet? When God is dead, religions are dead, then why this world was visited by these two horrible wars that exceeded the Savage Religion-less Mongols’ ravaging and killings of humankind. How about the Korean and Vietnam Wars which have nothing to do with religions?
Mirza Ashraf
Wequar Azeem:
Brevity is not one of my significant traits, nor is ‘scratching the surface
only’ to arrive at a conclusion of what is at the deep end of foundation.
Man belongs to animal kingdom and has all the animal instincts of a beast,
and can be far more feral and ferocious because of a brain capable of
scheming, planning and analyzing. The process of improving the generic
mind set, from wild animal behavior to a civilized and human conduct, is
long drawn and needs initiation and dogged follow-up, right from birth. The
process of cultivating a civilized psyche, from its generic and wild nature
at birth, to a tamed, domesticated and ‘humanized persona, is generally
three pronged. Good upbringing served by the immediate and extended family,
which teaches decency, fairness, integrity, morality and importance of
equal access to every individual to all opportunities in life, irrespective
of gender, race, ethnicity or faith, is paramount. Upbringing is followed
by education based on logic and reasoning through unlimited use of critical
thinking. The third prong is environmental cultivation of unwild thought
process imparted by discipline imposing society and refined culture.
*Buss ke dushwaar hae har cheez ka aasaaN hona*
* Aadmi ko bhi moyessar nahiN insaaN hona*
I am sure most readers would agree with my fore-going pronouncement.
Unfortunately, the devil is in the detail. Before the religions were
conceived and adopted, humans were mere animals with brazen and unbridled
use of animal instincts. As time went by and evolution advanced, humans
experienced the urge to sophisticate the conduct and distance itself from
its untamed origin. Some superior brains conceived the God(s) and
religions followed as corollary. The first person who conceived God(s) has
not been recorded in history, although many anecdotal accounts have been
put in written form, long after the fact (?). The integrity of those
accounts is anything but unquestionable. What followed as an unintended
outcome of conceiving and framing codified religions is unhealthy and
bestial rivalry, between competing religions. To begin with, no religion
claims to teach inequality, unkindness, greed, lies or dishonesty, but
exhorts slaying of those who oppose the religion with intent to advance the
rival religion. The proponent of each religion claims very special
position for himself, his own family, his progeny. For example, in Islam,
being a Syed bestows the status of a religious VIP. The more Durood one
offers to the soul of the Prophet PBUH, the more divinity point one earns
on his/her Aamaal Naama. The entire universe was statedly created for the
sake of glorification of the Holy Prophet. Many more illustrations of
prophet-centric glorifications can be cited from religious literature. And
who is the source of information of all these special exaltations of the
Holy Prophet ? The same Holy Prophet himself.
Many individuals, over the last 14 centuries, have attempted to be
recognized as the Holy Prophet’s Deputy, Second in command, entitled to
VVIP status, with all the exaltation worthy of the Right Honorable Deputy
of the most glorified Prophet. Each such individual became the
fountain-head of blood feuds between the rival sects.
So yes Mirza Ashraf Saheb, the concept of religion did a lot of good but
whole lot more of bad in the final count. The concept is flawed. Its
genesis is anchored in personal glorification of its proponent. No Prophet
said “I am quite ordinary- many among you listeners are better persons than
me. My progeny are even more ordinary people – not entitled to any
privileges. Do not attach any importance to me and my role in conveying
God’s commandments to you. The only important thing is the Commandment of
God. No credit is owed to me “. What has been happening is the exact
opposite. Can anybody deny that ?
With reference to the query raised by Noor Salik Saheb
” Some time ago – means 20th century, 17th, 15th or before.
Approximately since when all religions have become irrelevant/obsolete
according to Wequar Azeem?
”
Salik Saheb, one time-frame does not fit all religions and all regions. The
religion became obsolete when and where the followers received education of
Science and Nature through critical thinking. When indoctrination and
dogma is packaged as “Deeni Uloom” the result is NOT an enlightened person.
What you get is so-called Dr. Amir Liaquat Hussain, Abul Ala Maudoodi et al.
Surprisingly, i agree with every word wequar sahib has written all the way from ” man belongs to animal kingdom”…. till “fountainhead of blood feuds between the rival sects”.
So you do agree that some belief in a superpower and eventually the arrival of organized religion brought us out of the animal state and tamed us. And then you list three pronged process of bringing up a child as a tamed/civilized human being and not as an animal. But where did that taming process come from? apparently that process must have been repeated by this child’s grandparents when they were bringing up the child’s parents and so on up the generations. So why change that process when it has had so much success(i am only referring to the taming process) through the centuries?
I realize and i agree that a lot of evil has been inflicted in the name of religion. Why can’t we just try to control or correct those evils instead of advocating a complete rejection of religion. Like i said earlier, why throw the baby with the bathwater? The bathwater may be dirty but can’t you just drain the dirty water and fill it with clean water and still save the baby?
There is a real danger that if you take away an ever watching god looking at your good and bad deeds (even if that is just an imagination) that over many generations we may degenerate to the animal level again. I agree some people can lead an ethical and moral life without worrying about god’s displeasure but a majority of humanity needs that fear to stay on the straight path. How many people do you think would drive at 55 mph if there were no police or radar to worry about? A very small minority, if any.
So my main argument here is that just because religion has caused wars and we have figured out a small segment of the mysteries of nature does not mean religion has outlived its usefulness.
I’m afraid the codified religions do not offer the option of cherry picking. One is not allowed to ‘keep some and reject some’ religious injunctions. In Islam, the Deen has been FINALIZED in all respects by the message of the Last Prophet PBUH. For instance, you can not trifle with the requirement of four pious Muslims as eye witnesses of both fornication and rape. That is the category of “Hudood Allah”, no one, not even the Prophet, is allowed to mess with it. So, there you are. If you consider tweaking the Sharia regulations to make it more acceptable to Logic and Reasoning, then you are inventing a new religion, NOT sanctioned by Allah. That will be not only rejected by the Faithfuls, you will be hunted and stoned to death.
No argument there at all. My argument is not that religions – all religions in general and more specifically islam – need fundamental changes; it is that you cannot renounce the institution of religion completely because of its few – may be many – shortfalls. The shortfalls are there mostly because religions have failed to keep up with the times, especially islam , which claims to be the religion of all times in the same form it was 1400 years ago.
Yes, you are right about what happens to people who try to change islam; just this morning i was asked by someone if islam could be “modernized”, and i said i felt pessimistic because of that very same reason. Even though a large majority may want change, a small vocal and violent minority intimidates the majority from speaking up.
Dr. Nasik Elahi
The trouble is people end with highly variant definitions of both the baby and the bath water.
As for cherry picking it is a universal human trait. Humans profess pure thoughts but apply them selectively. If we all recognize the common basis of our hypocrisies the world would be a more tolerant and peaceful place.
Nasik
I totally agree with Mr. Wequar here. War is in the human genes, deep down we are what our ancestors were – animals. Being territorial is our hallmark. Religious wars were just another excuse to control resources, where religion was used as a tool to enlist man power. What kind of consolation is that non-religious wars resulted in greater destruction, and I can’t find this fact (if correct) justifying or condoning religious wars – religion was like adding combustion material to the existing fire. Evil Mullahs are to this day exploiting young minds and luring them to even blow themselves up, aren’t they using religion to tell these young suicide bombers that they will go straight to heavens and enjoy rivers of honey and milk and hoors for eternity? How many religious, so called scholars, voice their disapproval and explain that rivers of honey or virgins are not physical rewards but metaphorical references at best. Total failure of religious leaders and intellectually dishonest conduct on their part when Muslim historians and writers omit, the violence as Muslim culture, starting right from Abu Bakr succeeding Mohammad, if not all four, three Khulfa e Rashideen were definitely murdered, one inside a mosque. Mohammad’s family started off this blood shed, specially immature Aisha is to be blamed. Muslim (Shias) mourn with violence by beating themselves up with blades and chains, cutting goats with dull knives is “proud” tradition performed in front of young children with the idea of hardening them. Violence in the culture of Arabs was deep (ref. Hind tearing the heart of Hamza out and eating). Massacre of Medina is never mentioned but praises for the charter of Medina in abundance. Is there any greater aggression than the practice of Daawa, of offering a choice to convert, or surrender and pay Jizia or get ready to die, which our writers mention so proudly. These are only a few examples, you read up on Ottoman monsters personal conduct, how the pride of Ottoman’s Haroon Rashid hung his mentor/teacher for walking in his presence unannounced and the body not allowed to be removed from public display for a year….and all you are told about his legacy is how he promoted art. I can not even list all the sects that Muslims kept on dividing into, Sunni, Shia, Wahabi, Deobandi and I don’t want to hear any more..it goes goes on and on…Ismaili 7 imam 12 imam etc. We distort history, we tell Mohd Bin Qasim arrived in India to rescue a Muslim girl where as the fact is that the loot and plunder that Omar started continued and Somanat’s jewels were actually being sought in India. We Muslims live in a concocted history, we mind it very much when West accuses us of barbarianism – not that West has no horrendous past of its own, the peak of its religious mania, witch hunt and Spanish Inquisition can never be forgotten but West at least owns it and calls it their dark ages. All our “scholars” do is Qasida Khawani, Sarkar e Do Alam, king of kings and what not.
I also agree with Wequar that religion (all kinds) has lost whatever noble result used to come out of it. We no longer need to name wrong as sin, we can understand right from wrong without being threatened with eternity of burning in fire…yes, it took a long time to replace threats/fear with reasoning to educate ourselves.
If getting freedom from the chokehold of religion meant to be more tolerant and free from hatred, unfortunately it is not obvious from some of the anti religious comments. These comments are filled with intolerance, contempt and anger. It seems, Humanist minds, free from religion, are supposed to be tolerant and hatred free and seems like it has worsened and not improved. These so called Humanist minds have not received any peace or solace from atheism as they claim, rather they seem more at edge and restless. No matter what the main topic is, they start regurgitating the same anti-religious routine. Even when an argument can be made in non-offensive or least offensive way, they deliberately chose most offense way.
They claim that religious people are closed minded, but they also fail to see the obvious, like atrocities committed by non-religious Wars, atheists like Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
Exchanging one ideology with the other has not improved the mindset as is claimed.
Fayyaz
“They claim that religious people are closed minded, but they also fail to see the obvious, like atrocities committed by non-religious Wars, atheists like Hitler, Stalin and Mao”.
The above remark by Fayyaz Sahib is a typical response by theists; “They” I suppose refers to atheists. “They” do not have a code of conduct like the ten commandments or Sharia or holy books.The only thing that “they” agree on is that there is no God – end of story. Now I have not heard in my entire life any one say that non-religious wars were okay and only religious wars were bad. Furthermore, the biggest monster mentioned (Hitler) was Christian, Catholic to be precise, and wanted to purge Jews from Christianity (ref. movement of Positive Christianity) – although this is not my point. My point is that Hitler’s beef with Jews was racist and Jews monopoly of economy and his war was due to his nationalism and revenge for the way Germany was humbled at the end of WWI. I do not get what is the point in referring to non-religious wars, one atrocity does not justify another. Stalin’s and Mao’s atrocities were also for economic reasons, against capitalism, not against any particular faith, not because they were atheists.
I feel that Fayyaz Sahib has my comments in mind while talking about “intolerance” of atheists. I do realize that my comments are blunt but to call them sign of intolerance is not fair. Religious intolerance is Mumtaz Qadri murdering Governor Taseer for speaking out against blasphemy laws, and abduction of his son. I only referred to history to show that violence was very much part of religions. Only Buddhism can claim to be peaceful I guess. How hard it is for our religious friends to accept history? Correct me if I am wrong. The only way to improve is by accepting our shortcomings first.
Shoeb Amin Sahib has argued to let religion do the good work and not declare it outlived;
I think it is a reasonable suggestion if it could work in the time of awareness and knowledge…I mean how can you keep on telling a child that what he/she will find under the Christmas tree is from Santa, one day the child grows up and you have to come clean. Why not tell the child that lying is unacceptable and bad, stealing is bad and there will be consequences – all we are asking is to tell the truth as we know it, not fairy tales that we find ourselves at a loss proving these as true. How do you convince me that glacier will melt and cause a global flood if gay marriages are legalized?? Try convincing me that goat appeared while one shepherd was going to cut his son !! Tell Palestinians that their land was promised to Jews!!
Babar Sahib thanks for the comments. My previous and these comments are written both yours and Wequar Sahib’s comments in mind.
1- I agree with you that War and atrocities committed by any one is wrong. Unfortunately both religious and non religious tell half the story and tell only the atrocities of the other side and ignore own side. My comments was to just show the other side of the coin in response to your and Wequar’s comments.
2- Every one is so sure of his own side and wonders how the other side can believe it ? So much surety is not a sign of tolerance from each side.
3- As I have mentioned before every one has right to practice his/ her believes as long they are not imposed on others and others’s such right is respected. Even if other’s believes seem ridiculous,which by nature always seem, but it is other’s right.
4- One has the right to express one’s opinion even if it is sometime offensive to others, but one should at least try to express it in least offensive way possible. If it is deliberately expressed in most offensive way, then the motive is to offend and not express one’s opinion.
5- Hitler was a racist and nationalist. His religious affiliation is a big suspect at best which was deliberate on his part for political reasons. He was no different than Stalin and Mao regarding his views about religion. See following references about his plans to demolish Christianity.
• Sharkey, Word for Word/The Case Against the Nazis; How Hitler’s Forces Planned To Destroy German Christianity, New York Times, 13 January 2002
• The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches, Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, Winter 2001, publishing evidence compiled by the O.S.S. for the Nuremberg war-crimes trials of 1945 and 1946
• Griffin, Roger Fascism’s relation to religion in Blamires, Cyprian, World fascism: a historical encyclopedia, Volume 1, p. 10, ABC-CLIO, 2006: “There is no doubt that in the long run Nazi leaders such as Hitler and Himmler intended to eradicate Christianity just as ruthlessly as any other rival ideology, even if in the short term they had to be content to make compromises with it.”
• Mosse, George Lachmann, Nazi culture: intellectual, cultural and social life in the Third Reich, p. 240, Univ of Wisconsin Press, 2003: “Had the Nazis won the war their ecclesiastical policies would have gone beyond those of the German Christians, to the utter destruction of both the Protestant and the Catholic Church.”
• Shirer, William L., Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany, p. p 240, Simon and Schuster, 1990: “And even fewer paused to reflect that under the leadership of Rosenberg, Bormann and Himmler, who were backed by Hitler, the Nazi regime intended eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could, and substitute the old paganism of the early tribal Germanic gods and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists.”
• Fischel, Jack R., Historical Dictionary of the Holocaust , p. 123, Scarecrow Press, 2010: “The objective was to either destroy Christianity and restore the German gods of antiquity or to turn Jesus into an Aryan.”
• Dill, Marshall, Germany: a modern history , p. 365, University of Michigan Press, 1970: “It seems no exaggeration to insist that the greatest challenge the Nazis had to face was their effort to eradicate Christianity in Germany or at least to subjugate it to their general world outlook.”
• Wheaton, Eliot Barculo The Nazi revolution, 1933–1935: prelude to calamity:with a background survey of the Weimar era, p. 290, 363, Doubleday 1968: The Nazis sought to “to eradicate Christianity in Germany root and branch.”
Fayyaz
Warfare came about approximately when human beings developed agriculture. It is believed that the current, best attested case of when there was probably a war was 12,000-BCE; that is when there were no religions. So, empirically it seems we have had war for 14,000 years of human history, and this is likely to continue without some kind of radical change. Sociologists, psychologists and philosophers alike have long debated the possible existence of destructive, “war-like” impulses as something inherently a part of the human condition. They believe that there is something innate, inherent, and festering within man’s genetic code waiting for the proper forum to be unleashed in destructive and devastating ways. Humans are “hard-wired” with the “war impulse” or the drive to destroy their fellow beings prior to any sort of provocation. Alas, nothing reveals man, whether religious or non-religious, the way war does.
We have often thought and debated that religions are the cause of wars between the believers of different faiths. Some argue (including myself) that the secularists have done much more killings in wars than the wars fought on religious differences. But warfare, whether started by religions or by the secular rulers, has always been equipped by the scientists who would invent and provide new and newer armaments for the fighters. The vast devastations done by the two world wars in the twentieth century was because of the invention of horrible bombs, bomber aero-planes, fast moving warships and then the atom bomb dropped on Japanese cities. Whereas we are proud of many great scientific inventions and discoveries by man the scientist, we are pained to say that much before God revealed religions, it was the man of science who first invented killing tools made of stones, then of wood, steel, guns, and now nuclear armaments and drones. Even today where a man of religion is fighting for his religion, the man of science is furnishing him with arms of mass destructions. Where to draw a line between the religious and the scientific man, the debate is an endless war of words.
Mirza Ashraf
Continuing on Islam at war with itself; The discussion drifted, right from the beginning, from Islam’s internal conflicts to all religions and believers and non believers pointing fingers at each other and comparison of violence. Before returning to the topic I would
like to thank Fayyaz Sahib for research on Hitler’s faith (no offense but technically Hitler remains Christian, doesn’t matter if he would have redefined Christianity according to his racist ideas, not accepting Jesus as originally a Jew – portraying Jesus as Nordic instead).
Author of this article has tried to reject “conspiracy theories” of exploitation of Muslims by
the West and blamed Muslims themselves for being violent and constantly bickering. Most of us would agree that violence is a human trait to begin with and not only Muslim trade mark. Muslim culture is basically Arab culture, I have no idea from where the chopping of hands and stoning to death became Muslim style but in 7th century Europe was grappling with its dark age too. Fast forward to twenty first century, Europe has become more civilized, owned its Inquisition and 300 years of wars and learned their lessons but Muslims are bent on not learning from their history and probably will follow suit after learning it the hard way. I am not so sure that exploitation of sectarian differences by the West is entirely a conspiracy theory – there is good reason these conspiracy theories could be true. The countries like Malaysia and Bangla Desh which are not sitting on energy resources and just as Muslim and as divided, are spared this blood shed but middle East and Pakistan (being in the way of energy corridor) are bleeding and it is a point to ponder.
I personally can not imagine any person, Sunni or Shia, who is religious will bomb the other sect’s mosque, there definitely is exploitation to achieve ulterior motives. Muslims can not cry foul only, they must unite and make sure that those who have eyes on their land and resources, do not succeed without fighting an open war. We should be mindful of “Target Softening” before assault. The best way is to curb our enthusiasm in the struggle to establish who is a real Muslim and focus on becoming a better human. I guaranty which ever way one offers prayer or does not offer prayer at all, or does not even believe in God, God if exists, will prefer a better human over vicious believers.
P.S. Yes, I may be an atheist but my tribe remains Islam, and I do not relish the dismal condition of Muslims. I would like to see my tribe become civilized and prosper like the Europe and West.
Babar
This latest comment by Babar Mustafa is not only a mature assessment of the whole situation, but is also a logical reflection of what I have been beating the drum of “Islam as a Civilization” in the eye of the proponents of Western Civilization. I believe that Muslims are civilized, but are not organized or they are being shattered internally by those who don’t want to see them united. However, after Babar’s P.S. remark, I don’t think we need to argue more on this topic.
Mirza Ashraf
Never underestimate the value of a post script to produce agreements.
Nasik