In the name of God....
"In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, may peace be upon the cheerful one and undaunted fighter, Prophet Muhammad, God's peace be upon him."
Thus begins the text of the statement on a website of an organisation believed to be affiliated to Al-Qaeda. This organisation has claimed responsibility for the London blasts.
How hollow and inappropriate this statement sounds when one sees the havoc wreaked in London by these 'mujahideen' ! Do these people believe that their God will condone these acts of terrorism ?
Of all the crimes commited by Man, those commited in the name of God are the most reprehensible because no God, no faith, no religion advocates such heinous acts.
Thus begins the text of the statement on a website of an organisation believed to be affiliated to Al-Qaeda. This organisation has claimed responsibility for the London blasts.
How hollow and inappropriate this statement sounds when one sees the havoc wreaked in London by these 'mujahideen' ! Do these people believe that their God will condone these acts of terrorism ?
Of all the crimes commited by Man, those commited in the name of God are the most reprehensible because no God, no faith, no religion advocates such heinous acts.
posted by Vibhu at 7/08/2005 01:24:00 AM
6 Comments:
"Of all the crimes commited by Man, those commited in the name of God are the most reprehensible because no God, no faith, no religion advocates such heinous acts."
No God, no faith, no religion, would be sustainable if it were not for acts, heinous or otherwise, such as these. Only by creating "in groups" and "out groups" (a la Animal Farm) can any religion / faith / god survive. Not a single religion exists that has not indulged in such acts, and it is not for us to stand in judgement over one particular religion / group / god and say, "hey, no god will allow this."
I'm not trying to justify what happened. I am merely wondering what kind of a value system we have when we calmly accept the carpet-bombing of towns, villages and cities, killing thousands, in the quest for oil and money, but scream in outrage when the same thing is done, albeit on a miniscule scale, to a western country by less sophisticated means. The British Army, I would say, is no different from the organisation that has claimed responsibility.
All is fair in love and war as they say.
So it is war as far as the bombers are concerned and they retaliated against earlier atrocities.
Now, on the other side, it is also war (and so fair) if Britain goes and bombs let us say Timbuktu based on suspicion and in retaliation for this.Because what the bombers did is somewhat similar. They killed people who may have actually opposed the british armys deeds in the first place just to put a cold finger in the British hearts.
As kamal said "Avana nirutha sol..nan nirutharen"
That should be "As Velu nayyakkar said "
No God, no faith, no religion, would be sustainable if it were not for acts, heinous or otherwise, such as these
I beg to differ. A religion should not have to resort to such acts to sustain itself. Religion sustains itself(and its followers) through the faith that it inspires.
we calmly accept the carpet-bombing of towns, villages and cities, killing thousands
We do not "calmly accepted". The actions of the UK/USA et al and their preference for oily places over holy places has been derided. It is another thing that this derision has been ignored by the Western nations, in the manner of a tiger ignoring a flea, because they believe that might is right.
Regardless of what each party believes, the only people who end up suffering are the common people in UK/USA/Afghanistan/Iraq;not Blair/Bush/Osama/Saddam.
All is fair in love and war
If so, then those who live by the
sword will die by it(Refer Velu nayyakar)
Its not just the ones who have chosen to play with the sword who end up on the sharper edge of one. The passers-by and the mute witnesses too get the same lesson. In days forgotten, its the king of the nation and his cabinet who decide on moving to the war-front. But arent we living in countries run in a democratic way? No kings no queens. (Lets forget the country currently discussed as a latest victim. Not that it matters!) Why do people choose to play mute witness?? Maybe the drawback(sometimes it is) of democracy is that its not really a rule by ALL the people but the majority. If the majority happens to have skewed thought process or is gullible enough to be lead by one or more with a remarkable lack of consideration for humanity, then "In the name of God" , of all religions, we will soon have ozone holes due to smoking guns!
Vibhu,
"A religion should not have to resort to such acts to sustain itself. Religion sustains itself(and its followers) through the faith that it inspires."
The first sentence is a fond hope you have expressed, and an ideal that religion can never achieve. The second sentence is patently false. It is the lie religions use to grow their numbers, and if you really believe in it (which I am almost sure you do not!!!), you have been taken in by the lie of centuries.
Religion is all about who is 'in' and who is 'out'. But they will not tell you so. For, if a religion tells you, "hey join in, for what we are really about is to band together and annihilate those that do no agree with our view of god" you'd dismiss them as cranks. On the other hand, if they play nice music, feed the poor, build huge buildings for religious purposes, give you "spiritual support", take the burden of making life decisions from you by prescribing certain ways of life, then, you begin to see them as a godsend (punny, aren't I!).
Almost all human institutions, when stripped off all pretences and trappings down to the basic functions they play, appear "ugly" to our urban, politically correct sensibilities.
As for calmly accepting carpet bombing, I do not recall a single headline which talked about any Iraqi city in the same terms in which London is being talked about.
When we say that only the common people suffer, not the rulers, are we not saying uequivocally that we are looking at a failure of democracy?
Post a Comment
<< Home