Shahrukh’s Solidarity speech for the 26/11 commemoration
This entry was posted on November 29, 2009 at 8:26 PM and is filed under the ugly . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
16 Responses to “Shahrukh’s Solidarity speech for the 26/11 commemoration”
This is a very interesting and sometimes bold speech.. SRK interestingly moves away from the more right oriented fictions of his earlier films and comes over to the side of ‘Nehruvianism’. Now these were probably always his views, his father of course belonged to the Congress. Nonetheless he was part of a conservative counter-reaction by way of his most iconic films. Over the last decade (roughly) he started accenting his own religion a lot more or at least started speaking up on it a great deal in public venues. This current speech represents the culmination of that ‘public’ awakening. I cheer his speech here. It would have been easy to just come out on the side of bland liberalism. There is some of that here but he also points the finger in many ways at those who question him particularly because of his religion. Now one can be properly cynical about whether SRK himself has quite been victim in this immediate sense but his larger point surely holds. And if he is ‘representing’ those who have been in such situations he is by virtue of this performing a valuable move.
A sincere speech especially the one he reads. I still think he should have avoided first couple of lines of speech. You can see the smirk on his face when he says “kyonki shayad mei musalman hoon”. I think most of the people (I don’t think apart from journalist ask this question) who ask this question probably ask him because he is a celebrity but I don’t discount that he is also a Muslim probably has something do to with it. How many times a normal Muslim is asked this question? Probably he/she is already seen with suspicious eyes.
You can sense a bit of discomfort in the audience when he says those lines which is why I’m glad he did. It is true that the audience does not see him that way necessarily but it was a valuable move for him to code himself as such. In other words (and getting back to Qalandar’s argument in his current Outlook piece) whereas SRK might have been the deracinated ‘Muslim’ earlier his frequent assertion of his religious identity these days means that he has to be accepted on those terms. The inclusiveness of the liberal discourse must always be celebrated but it can go too far when it tends towards such ‘deracination’ or the effacing of difference (this in some ways is a critique of ‘America’ as well). In other words the liberal compact in these matters is ‘we’re all secular progressives and to the extent we practice religion we either do so as a dirty secret or else we indulge in it only as a cultural matter.. otherwise we’re all the same and we’re also ‘good’ in the same way!’. Here too SRK by defining himself as a ‘good Muslim’ (‘vanity’ is sometimes useful!) opposes himself to those ‘bad Muslim’ who commit terrorist acts. In one sense the reliance on such an opposition is a problematic move because it keeps propping up this ridiculous schema when it comes to Muslims, of the George Bush variety if you will. On the other hand in this Kasab/SRK opposition the ‘choice’ becomes rather stark and perhaps there is a provisional political victory to be gained here. Obama on the other hand in his recent Fort Hood address largely avoided this danger, i.e. he didn’t really prop up such an opposition. The reason one should otherwise reject such structures is because in the guise of ‘good liberalism’ these actually buttress the very danger they purport to avoid. If a Christian or a Hindu or a Muslim or anyone else committed these sorts of acts why should I consider the actions of such individuals or even the political groupings in question anymore than just that? Why would I even need to oppose the notion of a ‘good’ Christian or Hindu or Muslim to this? Unless I were dumb enough or partisan enough to believe that those acts reflected on everyone following those religious systems! Nonetheless SRK’s move despite its troubling nature might not be the worst one under the circumstances.
This is actually a pretty decent speech, not the leasrt because he sounds quite sincere. One can feel in his eyes and voice that he actually means what he says. And, he is not a good enough actor to be able to fake it!
It seems that you have got the point but allow me to restate.
What SRK is saying is that those who follow Allah (swt) are Muslims, whereas those that follow the Devil, practice Terrorism. Just like there are those that proclaim to be Muslims but are in truth the followers of the Devil, there are likewise Hindus, Christians, Sikh, Jews etc that proclaim to be one thing but are terrorists.
A religious persons upholds the value of his religion without tarnishing or hurting other religions. So far the stereo-typical liberal position has always suppressed the intrinsic religious identity, but SRK, as opposed to
these stereo-typical liberal is saying that one should be proud of their religious identity, as it represents “goodness”.
Terrorist can ONLY operate in the absence of religious value. Hence projecting our goodness helps to keep terrorism in check.
This is well summed up.. I would just however deviate a touch in the interests of complete rigor…
It seems to me that we continue to err when we think of ‘terrorism’, i.e. as a noun and hence something in itself when we should be thinking of something like ‘terrorizing’ and accentuate the verbal aspect here. With the latter one highlights the ‘instrumental’, with the former one thinks of it as something ‘essential’.
Let’s take an analogy. Killing people is considered wrong by every legal and moral and religious system out there. However many of the very same edifices sanction ‘killing’ in certain situations. On the field of battle, in confrontations with criminals, so on and so forth. The state first of all reserves the right for itself to kill anyone it chooses. The only difference is that a legal structure supports these ‘decisions’. But this legal structure (any legal structure) can hardly exhaust the much greater and wider demands of morality and justice. In other words a state can act legally but immorally. It was perfectly legal to drop atom bombs on Japan but it was also immoral in this wider sense. The Nazis made sure that everything they did was perfectly legal, hence they always passed certain laws in advance. This was in many ways the blind spot of Nuremberg and any such trial in the contemporary world. Those nations that judge such atrocities have to rely on wider moral frameworks in order to ‘condemn’. Of course the very same nations then do not mind flouting the very same frameworks (often called ‘international law’) for their own ends. But the larger point here is that if ‘killing’ were an absolute wrong it would be so in each and every situation. There would be no exceptions allowed for the state or anyone else. When one allows for exceptions one enters a realm of calculation. This is justifiable in many instances but it also introduces the arbitrary since the calculations of one age or culture might differ from another very dramatically.
Terrorism is nothing in itself. It is an instrument of violence that has been common to nationalist movements, state actors, those guides by religious, ethnic, other political ‘isms’, but also individuals and individual groups that wage, to use Reza Aslan’s phrase, cosmic wars. In each case note how the ends justify the means. In other words terrorism is acceptable in certain situations depending on who has the power to define the term. Again if the taking of ‘innocent’ life is wrong it is so in every single situation. Pragmatically one ought to be more concerned about certain manifestations of terrorism but that is a different ‘calculation’.
The reason I say all of this is that I am unsure if by following such a path of violence one ceases to be a follower of one’s professed religion. Now my own reading of Islam does not lead me to believe that ‘terrorism’ in its contemporary manifestation is sanctioned anywhere. It seems to run against the grain of the entire moral and ethical fabric of the Koran. But isn’t it an easy liberalism to insist on the idea that anyone who practices violence in the name of religion is not a follower of his/her religion at all? Does extremism take anyone outside the boundaries of faith? Obama said at Fort Hood that ‘no religion’ sanctions this sort of violence and that those who act this way receive justice in this world and the ‘next’. This is a comforting idea but there are two problems here…
1)why should one accept the discourse of religion at all just because someone claims to act in the name of one? Blowing up people is a repulsive act irrespective of the motivation. Such would be my view. I do not need the crutch of religion to suggest that this is wrong, nor do I even need to argue with the guy who claims to be ‘divinely guided’. The violence must be completely rejected.
2)But there is a place for another debate. What is it about the current age that a great deal of extremism (that then results in terrorism) emanates from those who are nominally ‘Muslim’? The answers might be historical ones, sociological ones or whatever. These should be given the greatest importance. One might also compare ‘Islamic extremism’ with others kinds. All of this is again crucial.
Either way one must seek to understand what those pathways are that allow people of a certain faith or a political ideology to act in such repulsive ways. One must counter the argument at its source and not have apologetic explanations after the event. I generally have a rather simple rule in these matters (or any other) — if the claim is not debatable I’m not interested! Because terrorism is often a result of the very absence of debate. The people who blew up the WTC were not willing to debate their position with anyone. They did not ask whether those in the tower were Muslims or Christians or Buddhists or whatever. They had a certain schema in their mind which made the deaths of those belonging to any, every or no religion acceptable. But they weren’t willing to debate this. Hence they simply acted. Isn’t it therefore dangerous to hold any position that is not open to debate? One might argue that in a religious system one does not function that way. This however is also quite untrue. Sticking to Islam again the history of thought and practice within the religion suggests extraordinary diversity (as with any other ‘faith’) and it is not at all accurate to suggest that there is only one way of staying true to it. This not just in ‘metaphysical’ matters but even the most basic ones. The problem is that in our ordinary lives we often don’t consider our deeply held views debatable. We do not act in violent ways to uphold them, this distinction is critical of course, but we are also not amenable to the sort of openness and debate that might often nip extremism in the bud.
Getting back to where I started out when one defines the ‘terrorist’ as simply ‘non-Muslim’ one misses the opportunity for a greater examination and exploration.
Now all of this is very different from engaging in certain gestures for temporary political victories. Hence I was glad SRK made that speech. But this sort of gesture does not begin to address the heart of the matter. What the good Muslim/bad Muslim dichotomy leaves unexplored is: why are there so many ‘bad Muslims’ today? Until one addresses this one is forever indulging in apologias.
satyam.. yaar just as a friend can i know what are ur degrees.. m quite impressed with (though i have always been with ur knowledge.. but u keep surprising..)
i ask u as international law is my topic of 5th year law and i gave the xams just few weeks ago.. and i have to say that u have summarise and put forth everything in a very good manner..
international law is really weak law.. andi wrote a answer for the same.. so my memory was refresh reading above..
Generally we talk only about those events that we see on “MTV” (mass media). Yesterday, the media had communism in its cross wire, today it is Islam. This does not mean that the only terrorism that exist is Islam related (directly, or indirectly). In MTV land yes, all terrorism is thanks to islam, but statistics show that more than 85% of terrorism is drug related, i.e. it has nothing to do with religion and or nationalistic movements and or foreign policy of super powers. UN has been trying to define terrorism. Unfortunately no definition seems to be acceptable to the present powers to be (on all sides of the spectrum). Personally I have always espoused the opinion that unless we are ready to equate all acts that instill terror, irrespective of whether it is state terrorism or terrorism courtesy a delusional person, this will continue. A demented man blowing up a bus is no worse than a pilot hurling smart missile from a plane on a wedding party.
I can certainly speak about Islam (I know it better), and say that even in a “war” Islam forbids poisoning of wells, burning of trees, leave alone killing of innocent animals or humans. In Islam, the war is restricted to the “warriors” on either side. Any killing outside this narrow defined zone is forbidden. Islam does not forbid someone to fight for his homeland or in defense etc, but it clearly forbids terrorism. Suicide bombing started with “Hercules” or with Tamil Tigers (depending on how far you want to go).
Let’s talk about this nutcase from Fort Hood, viz Major Hassan. This guy, like so many others before him in the armed forces, cracked under pressure. It has nothing to do with religion. Such events are fairly common. NOW, some people think that since Major Hassan was not in a theatre of war, we cannot claim that he cracked under pressure. BUT, there is something called “secondary smoke”, and evidence show that it is ALSO dangerous. Major Hassan was catching this “secondary smoke” through traumatized patients that he was treating. When Major Has was informed that he was to be deployed to a war front, he did whatever possible to get out of it. Major Hassan (shows how smart he actually was) started wearing “Islamic” clothes, started chatting trash on Islamic sites, hoping that he would be “found” and “excused” from duty. Sadly he had won awards & promotions, and hence his immediate supervisors saw his ploy for what it was worth. No one bought into his mind games, because others also play all kinds of mind games to get out of being deployed. Unfortunately, Major Hassan was really cracking and the world found this out a little too late.
BTW how many people do you think know that the root of 72 Virgins lies in a Nordic Myth about Valkyrie ( & Valhalla). There is no such reference in the Quran, while the “Hadith” about these 72 Virgins is too weak & discredited for the “fundamentalist” to accept it. Most genuine Islamic scholars pay very little attention to this “Hadith”. During the Afghan war against the Russians, “those training” the Mujahedeen sexed up this weak & discredited Hadith to inspire and motivate them to fight. Today this is part of the blow back, unfortunately a lot of people wrongly think it is a fact. Quran just says that those (Men & Women) who reach heaven (thanks to honesty and tolerance and good deeds etc) will find “pure” companions. Quran does not talk or hint about the activities that one will indulge in with these companions. The entire BS that you hear in the name of Islam on this issue is mostly from the Valkyrie myth.
Not being a Muslim, I do not have a personal experience. But, this underlines how a handful of terrorists has made it very difficult for a ‘good’ Muslim as SRK puts it to retain and affirm their religious belonging andat the same time feel obliged to denounce this heinous acts at every turn.
Is it fair to expect that Muslims have to be more vocal in disowning the terrorism? And, if they dont, then take it as an implicit admission that they sympathise with terrorists?
‘SBK’ arrival triggers rumours of SRK sighting in Goa!
2009-11-30 22:20:00
Don’t believe in rumours – it is wisely said. Hours before Sir Ben Kingsley was to arrive in Panaji for the 40th edition of the International Film Festival of India (IFFI), the venue was abuzz with rumours of Shah Rukh Khan dropping by at the IFFI venue at the same time.
By afternoon, even mediapersons were bitten by the SRK bug. Some insisted that the Bollywood superstar and Sir Kingsley would be addressing a joint press conference.
King Khan finally did not arrive for the IFFI. Turns out that the confusion had arisen after the organisers had flashed messages that SBK (initials of Sir Ben Kingsley) would be addressing the media on Monday afternoon.
And SBK had mutated into SRK (Shah Rukh Khan’s initials) in a matter of minutes, which had the rumour mills working furiously.
‘We had heard that SRK was coming. There were messages floating around that Shah Rukh would either be addressing a press conference or he was around in town,’ Sean Faia, a public relations professional, told IANS.
Sir Ben Kingsley subsequently addressed the media at 4 p.m., speaking about his forthcoming film ‘Taj’ and fielding questions on his role as Mahatma Gandhi in Sir Richard Attenborough’s epic film ‘Gandhi’.
seems a political move to me. either SRK planning to swoop into politics/congress playing sympathy/religion card here or part of his marketing promo for My name is Khan ??
November 29, 2009 at 8:34 PM
This is a very interesting and sometimes bold speech.. SRK interestingly moves away from the more right oriented fictions of his earlier films and comes over to the side of ‘Nehruvianism’. Now these were probably always his views, his father of course belonged to the Congress. Nonetheless he was part of a conservative counter-reaction by way of his most iconic films. Over the last decade (roughly) he started accenting his own religion a lot more or at least started speaking up on it a great deal in public venues. This current speech represents the culmination of that ‘public’ awakening. I cheer his speech here. It would have been easy to just come out on the side of bland liberalism. There is some of that here but he also points the finger in many ways at those who question him particularly because of his religion. Now one can be properly cynical about whether SRK himself has quite been victim in this immediate sense but his larger point surely holds. And if he is ‘representing’ those who have been in such situations he is by virtue of this performing a valuable move.
November 29, 2009 at 9:05 PM
A sincere speech especially the one he reads. I still think he should have avoided first couple of lines of speech. You can see the smirk on his face when he says “kyonki shayad mei musalman hoon”. I think most of the people (I don’t think apart from journalist ask this question) who ask this question probably ask him because he is a celebrity but I don’t discount that he is also a Muslim probably has something do to with it. How many times a normal Muslim is asked this question? Probably he/she is already seen with suspicious eyes.
ps: “do rai ho hi nahi sakti”
Arundhati Roy: `terrorism is the symptom not the disease’
November 29, 2009 at 11:33 PM
You can sense a bit of discomfort in the audience when he says those lines which is why I’m glad he did. It is true that the audience does not see him that way necessarily but it was a valuable move for him to code himself as such. In other words (and getting back to Qalandar’s argument in his current Outlook piece) whereas SRK might have been the deracinated ‘Muslim’ earlier his frequent assertion of his religious identity these days means that he has to be accepted on those terms. The inclusiveness of the liberal discourse must always be celebrated but it can go too far when it tends towards such ‘deracination’ or the effacing of difference (this in some ways is a critique of ‘America’ as well). In other words the liberal compact in these matters is ‘we’re all secular progressives and to the extent we practice religion we either do so as a dirty secret or else we indulge in it only as a cultural matter.. otherwise we’re all the same and we’re also ‘good’ in the same way!’. Here too SRK by defining himself as a ‘good Muslim’ (‘vanity’ is sometimes useful!) opposes himself to those ‘bad Muslim’ who commit terrorist acts. In one sense the reliance on such an opposition is a problematic move because it keeps propping up this ridiculous schema when it comes to Muslims, of the George Bush variety if you will. On the other hand in this Kasab/SRK opposition the ‘choice’ becomes rather stark and perhaps there is a provisional political victory to be gained here. Obama on the other hand in his recent Fort Hood address largely avoided this danger, i.e. he didn’t really prop up such an opposition. The reason one should otherwise reject such structures is because in the guise of ‘good liberalism’ these actually buttress the very danger they purport to avoid. If a Christian or a Hindu or a Muslim or anyone else committed these sorts of acts why should I consider the actions of such individuals or even the political groupings in question anymore than just that? Why would I even need to oppose the notion of a ‘good’ Christian or Hindu or Muslim to this? Unless I were dumb enough or partisan enough to believe that those acts reflected on everyone following those religious systems! Nonetheless SRK’s move despite its troubling nature might not be the worst one under the circumstances.
November 29, 2009 at 10:37 PM
srk vishal patch up.. mm news..
http://mumbaimirror.com/article/30/200911302009113002321467fc714dd5/Bye-bye-to-bhai-bhai.html
November 29, 2009 at 11:15 PM
this seems like a nothing story at this point…
November 30, 2009 at 10:26 AM
This is actually a pretty decent speech, not the leasrt because he sounds quite sincere. One can feel in his eyes and voice that he actually means what he says. And, he is not a good enough actor to be able to fake it!
November 30, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Ha!
December 1, 2009 at 3:51 AM
So you were expecting him to show his acting skills in that speech?
November 30, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Satyam
It seems that you have got the point but allow me to restate.
What SRK is saying is that those who follow Allah (swt) are Muslims, whereas those that follow the Devil, practice Terrorism. Just like there are those that proclaim to be Muslims but are in truth the followers of the Devil, there are likewise Hindus, Christians, Sikh, Jews etc that proclaim to be one thing but are terrorists.
A religious persons upholds the value of his religion without tarnishing or hurting other religions. So far the stereo-typical liberal position has always suppressed the intrinsic religious identity, but SRK, as opposed to
these stereo-typical liberal is saying that one should be proud of their religious identity, as it represents “goodness”.
Terrorist can ONLY operate in the absence of religious value. Hence projecting our goodness helps to keep terrorism in check.
November 30, 2009 at 11:28 AM
This is well summed up.. I would just however deviate a touch in the interests of complete rigor…
It seems to me that we continue to err when we think of ‘terrorism’, i.e. as a noun and hence something in itself when we should be thinking of something like ‘terrorizing’ and accentuate the verbal aspect here. With the latter one highlights the ‘instrumental’, with the former one thinks of it as something ‘essential’.
Let’s take an analogy. Killing people is considered wrong by every legal and moral and religious system out there. However many of the very same edifices sanction ‘killing’ in certain situations. On the field of battle, in confrontations with criminals, so on and so forth. The state first of all reserves the right for itself to kill anyone it chooses. The only difference is that a legal structure supports these ‘decisions’. But this legal structure (any legal structure) can hardly exhaust the much greater and wider demands of morality and justice. In other words a state can act legally but immorally. It was perfectly legal to drop atom bombs on Japan but it was also immoral in this wider sense. The Nazis made sure that everything they did was perfectly legal, hence they always passed certain laws in advance. This was in many ways the blind spot of Nuremberg and any such trial in the contemporary world. Those nations that judge such atrocities have to rely on wider moral frameworks in order to ‘condemn’. Of course the very same nations then do not mind flouting the very same frameworks (often called ‘international law’) for their own ends. But the larger point here is that if ‘killing’ were an absolute wrong it would be so in each and every situation. There would be no exceptions allowed for the state or anyone else. When one allows for exceptions one enters a realm of calculation. This is justifiable in many instances but it also introduces the arbitrary since the calculations of one age or culture might differ from another very dramatically.
Terrorism is nothing in itself. It is an instrument of violence that has been common to nationalist movements, state actors, those guides by religious, ethnic, other political ‘isms’, but also individuals and individual groups that wage, to use Reza Aslan’s phrase, cosmic wars. In each case note how the ends justify the means. In other words terrorism is acceptable in certain situations depending on who has the power to define the term. Again if the taking of ‘innocent’ life is wrong it is so in every single situation. Pragmatically one ought to be more concerned about certain manifestations of terrorism but that is a different ‘calculation’.
The reason I say all of this is that I am unsure if by following such a path of violence one ceases to be a follower of one’s professed religion. Now my own reading of Islam does not lead me to believe that ‘terrorism’ in its contemporary manifestation is sanctioned anywhere. It seems to run against the grain of the entire moral and ethical fabric of the Koran. But isn’t it an easy liberalism to insist on the idea that anyone who practices violence in the name of religion is not a follower of his/her religion at all? Does extremism take anyone outside the boundaries of faith? Obama said at Fort Hood that ‘no religion’ sanctions this sort of violence and that those who act this way receive justice in this world and the ‘next’. This is a comforting idea but there are two problems here…
1)why should one accept the discourse of religion at all just because someone claims to act in the name of one? Blowing up people is a repulsive act irrespective of the motivation. Such would be my view. I do not need the crutch of religion to suggest that this is wrong, nor do I even need to argue with the guy who claims to be ‘divinely guided’. The violence must be completely rejected.
2)But there is a place for another debate. What is it about the current age that a great deal of extremism (that then results in terrorism) emanates from those who are nominally ‘Muslim’? The answers might be historical ones, sociological ones or whatever. These should be given the greatest importance. One might also compare ‘Islamic extremism’ with others kinds. All of this is again crucial.
Either way one must seek to understand what those pathways are that allow people of a certain faith or a political ideology to act in such repulsive ways. One must counter the argument at its source and not have apologetic explanations after the event. I generally have a rather simple rule in these matters (or any other) — if the claim is not debatable I’m not interested! Because terrorism is often a result of the very absence of debate. The people who blew up the WTC were not willing to debate their position with anyone. They did not ask whether those in the tower were Muslims or Christians or Buddhists or whatever. They had a certain schema in their mind which made the deaths of those belonging to any, every or no religion acceptable. But they weren’t willing to debate this. Hence they simply acted. Isn’t it therefore dangerous to hold any position that is not open to debate? One might argue that in a religious system one does not function that way. This however is also quite untrue. Sticking to Islam again the history of thought and practice within the religion suggests extraordinary diversity (as with any other ‘faith’) and it is not at all accurate to suggest that there is only one way of staying true to it. This not just in ‘metaphysical’ matters but even the most basic ones. The problem is that in our ordinary lives we often don’t consider our deeply held views debatable. We do not act in violent ways to uphold them, this distinction is critical of course, but we are also not amenable to the sort of openness and debate that might often nip extremism in the bud.
Getting back to where I started out when one defines the ‘terrorist’ as simply ‘non-Muslim’ one misses the opportunity for a greater examination and exploration.
Now all of this is very different from engaging in certain gestures for temporary political victories. Hence I was glad SRK made that speech. But this sort of gesture does not begin to address the heart of the matter. What the good Muslim/bad Muslim dichotomy leaves unexplored is: why are there so many ‘bad Muslims’ today? Until one addresses this one is forever indulging in apologias.
November 30, 2009 at 11:35 AM
satyam.. yaar just as a friend can i know what are ur degrees.. m quite impressed with (though i have always been with ur knowledge.. but u keep surprising..)
i ask u as international law is my topic of 5th year law and i gave the xams just few weeks ago.. and i have to say that u have summarise and put forth everything in a very good manner..
international law is really weak law.. andi wrote a answer for the same.. so my memory was refresh reading above..
tc..gn
November 30, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Generally we talk only about those events that we see on “MTV” (mass media). Yesterday, the media had communism in its cross wire, today it is Islam. This does not mean that the only terrorism that exist is Islam related (directly, or indirectly). In MTV land yes, all terrorism is thanks to islam, but statistics show that more than 85% of terrorism is drug related, i.e. it has nothing to do with religion and or nationalistic movements and or foreign policy of super powers. UN has been trying to define terrorism. Unfortunately no definition seems to be acceptable to the present powers to be (on all sides of the spectrum). Personally I have always espoused the opinion that unless we are ready to equate all acts that instill terror, irrespective of whether it is state terrorism or terrorism courtesy a delusional person, this will continue. A demented man blowing up a bus is no worse than a pilot hurling smart missile from a plane on a wedding party.
I can certainly speak about Islam (I know it better), and say that even in a “war” Islam forbids poisoning of wells, burning of trees, leave alone killing of innocent animals or humans. In Islam, the war is restricted to the “warriors” on either side. Any killing outside this narrow defined zone is forbidden. Islam does not forbid someone to fight for his homeland or in defense etc, but it clearly forbids terrorism. Suicide bombing started with “Hercules” or with Tamil Tigers (depending on how far you want to go).
Let’s talk about this nutcase from Fort Hood, viz Major Hassan. This guy, like so many others before him in the armed forces, cracked under pressure. It has nothing to do with religion. Such events are fairly common. NOW, some people think that since Major Hassan was not in a theatre of war, we cannot claim that he cracked under pressure. BUT, there is something called “secondary smoke”, and evidence show that it is ALSO dangerous. Major Hassan was catching this “secondary smoke” through traumatized patients that he was treating. When Major Has was informed that he was to be deployed to a war front, he did whatever possible to get out of it. Major Hassan (shows how smart he actually was) started wearing “Islamic” clothes, started chatting trash on Islamic sites, hoping that he would be “found” and “excused” from duty. Sadly he had won awards & promotions, and hence his immediate supervisors saw his ploy for what it was worth. No one bought into his mind games, because others also play all kinds of mind games to get out of being deployed. Unfortunately, Major Hassan was really cracking and the world found this out a little too late.
BTW how many people do you think know that the root of 72 Virgins lies in a Nordic Myth about Valkyrie ( & Valhalla). There is no such reference in the Quran, while the “Hadith” about these 72 Virgins is too weak & discredited for the “fundamentalist” to accept it. Most genuine Islamic scholars pay very little attention to this “Hadith”. During the Afghan war against the Russians, “those training” the Mujahedeen sexed up this weak & discredited Hadith to inspire and motivate them to fight. Today this is part of the blow back, unfortunately a lot of people wrongly think it is a fact. Quran just says that those (Men & Women) who reach heaven (thanks to honesty and tolerance and good deeds etc) will find “pure” companions. Quran does not talk or hint about the activities that one will indulge in with these companions. The entire BS that you hear in the name of Islam on this issue is mostly from the Valkyrie myth.
November 30, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Not being a Muslim, I do not have a personal experience. But, this underlines how a handful of terrorists has made it very difficult for a ‘good’ Muslim as SRK puts it to retain and affirm their religious belonging andat the same time feel obliged to denounce this heinous acts at every turn.
Is it fair to expect that Muslims have to be more vocal in disowning the terrorism? And, if they dont, then take it as an implicit admission that they sympathise with terrorists?
November 30, 2009 at 12:18 PM
That is sad but true.
November 30, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Off topic but I found this story amusing
‘SBK’ arrival triggers rumours of SRK sighting in Goa!
2009-11-30 22:20:00
Don’t believe in rumours – it is wisely said. Hours before Sir Ben Kingsley was to arrive in Panaji for the 40th edition of the International Film Festival of India (IFFI), the venue was abuzz with rumours of Shah Rukh Khan dropping by at the IFFI venue at the same time.
By afternoon, even mediapersons were bitten by the SRK bug. Some insisted that the Bollywood superstar and Sir Kingsley would be addressing a joint press conference.
King Khan finally did not arrive for the IFFI. Turns out that the confusion had arisen after the organisers had flashed messages that SBK (initials of Sir Ben Kingsley) would be addressing the media on Monday afternoon.
And SBK had mutated into SRK (Shah Rukh Khan’s initials) in a matter of minutes, which had the rumour mills working furiously.
‘We had heard that SRK was coming. There were messages floating around that Shah Rukh would either be addressing a press conference or he was around in town,’ Sean Faia, a public relations professional, told IANS.
Sir Ben Kingsley subsequently addressed the media at 4 p.m., speaking about his forthcoming film ‘Taj’ and fielding questions on his role as Mahatma Gandhi in Sir Richard Attenborough’s epic film ‘Gandhi’.
http://sify.com/news/39-SBK-39-arrival-triggers-rumours-of-SRK-sighting-in-Goa-news-National-jl4wubgbdhj.html
December 3, 2009 at 2:08 AM
seems a political move to me. either SRK planning to swoop into politics/congress playing sympathy/religion card here or part of his marketing promo for My name is Khan ??