Quran Verse Chapter 13 Surah l Raad verse 28-29:Who have believed and whose hearts have rest in the remembrance of Allah. Verily in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find rest!
I stated above because of what I am to put forth upon in this article. Even Quran verses where one from among the extremists try to influence other young people over their deeds to be true is unaccepted with 'Righteous deeds' stated in the Quran. Its like constitution you can be free to express views but extremity will end up in judicial action against the one. I wanted to make recite some verse form Bhagwad Gita but any resemblances with any ancient documents may arise a situation of debate where we could be as which or what came first; there is no less irrational people who can question one's spirit. If constitution and Quran are same with some verses I strictly oppose upon its use as weapon to instigate innocent people on earth.
You cannot go against internationally recognized accepted principles in social environment. Quran is a holy book read by many but is understood to less, probably is read by Muslims, who are divided into two sects Shia Sunni, When Prophet Mohammed who was considered as messenger of Allah in form of human was to assign his disciple, a ideology of dissent broke in between the followers of two men who were followers of Prophet. One was Abu Bkr father of his wife Aisha and another was Ali a fourth Prophet. One who followed Abu Bkr were later called as Sunni which are around 80% of of total Muslims other was Ali whose followers constitute around 20% of total Muslims who are known as Shia, the conflict started when Sunni troops killed Hussein son of Ali in Karbala (Modern Iraq). Its not in the essence of Muslim to attain allah without doing righteousness which can only come through the 'right deeds' of which killing is not a part of. Some state its a fight between Shia and Sunni which has given potent rise to radicalization.
A recent attack on Paris had started a debate on whether there is a presence of Islamic terror as IS states 'Islamic State' and is considered to use Quran and other holy books for their benefit. I am a least knowledgeable person of religion being linked to terror because I cannot ever make out a way of terrorizing people, doing just the opposite what it was made for. Why the terror attack took place in Paris which is such a securitised place in the world. Why was it on the notion of IS from the beginning? What Islam has role to play if any in this terror attack? What sort of people can justify such attacks? There are no sect of individuals who think that People have died and we must pay homage without saying but in their homage. How does this happen its out of question. Since the days Of George Bush, Iraq had been a state maligned for its mass murderer weapons infamously stated to have kept with it, could be called as propaganda by bush to just keep its control over Gulf countries.
France is an ally of America and have present army inductance in NATO. With some of its unethical policies regarding Muslims it made itself hostile against them. When Sarkozy was President of France he tried to implement 'no Burqa to women' policy in accordance of security defaming his government and angering Muslims of the country. Thereafter France was at its high tide of secularism face off with Muslims. It was seen as an act to malign the image of Islam in purview of secularism. The most damage done to France was Charlie Hebdo, in the name of Freedom of speech and expression it started drawing cartoons of Prophet which is prohibited in Islam, this itself was enough reason for a violent attack, but the question is whether violence only option to carry out against innocent people, there is always a rule of law where one can easily be prosecuted for wrongdoings. I am of the opinion that any person of any religion do no have right to call his belief to be belief of the religion. If Islamic State feels its the voice of the Muslims it is Obstructively wrong and naive in its thinking. Any wrongdoings not in favor of humanity is against Islam person pursuing it against Islam. But any person who carried out such attack can he someway not become a tyrant for the victims who suffered in Paris.
A violence of this category carries grudge of the people of one sect religion. They don't see an individual but what they preferred there rule of action. If they shouted alla-hu-akbar it becomes barbaric from there on who speaks it is seen as an offender to them. It is not what has to be escalated every now and then for Islam. If at all it could've been controlled by the diplomatic reasons, weapons are not the answer. It can damage an individual, what about interpretation of fallacy which lies in them. Most heinous attack seen in this month in wake of religious tyranny can be an eye opener for Radicalism, it is not a place to exercise militancy, they need to be fair in such games. Provide weapons to every individual on street and target the one's who are of particular sect can they? No. this cannot be a service to allah, he is not understood to you if you feel that such massacre is wanted. Islamic State until now has been the dangerous fanatic militant group who do not suffice on borders of peace.
On what grounds would one believe such fanatic even if all surrender before them, a person with Gun can never be trusted, irrelevance of book he/she has kept with him/her. If such attacks have ever been in mind why to do through Quran or from religion or particular sect, you know you cannot win whatsoever, a fight of might is unseen sight to man. There had been fanatic warriors who ended worse than what they did to the victims. I believe in debate on who is radical, person with minute mind who totally had been manipulated by showing the path of Heaven or person who sitting at a lavish countryside misinterpreting verses of Quran putting it somehow into ideologue. If you present your religion as a peacemaker you must revive what has been lost due to incursions not by violently killing people, it will become different than what actually Islam means.
I stated above because of what I am to put forth upon in this article. Even Quran verses where one from among the extremists try to influence other young people over their deeds to be true is unaccepted with 'Righteous deeds' stated in the Quran. Its like constitution you can be free to express views but extremity will end up in judicial action against the one. I wanted to make recite some verse form Bhagwad Gita but any resemblances with any ancient documents may arise a situation of debate where we could be as which or what came first; there is no less irrational people who can question one's spirit. If constitution and Quran are same with some verses I strictly oppose upon its use as weapon to instigate innocent people on earth.
You cannot go against internationally recognized accepted principles in social environment. Quran is a holy book read by many but is understood to less, probably is read by Muslims, who are divided into two sects Shia Sunni, When Prophet Mohammed who was considered as messenger of Allah in form of human was to assign his disciple, a ideology of dissent broke in between the followers of two men who were followers of Prophet. One was Abu Bkr father of his wife Aisha and another was Ali a fourth Prophet. One who followed Abu Bkr were later called as Sunni which are around 80% of of total Muslims other was Ali whose followers constitute around 20% of total Muslims who are known as Shia, the conflict started when Sunni troops killed Hussein son of Ali in Karbala (Modern Iraq). Its not in the essence of Muslim to attain allah without doing righteousness which can only come through the 'right deeds' of which killing is not a part of. Some state its a fight between Shia and Sunni which has given potent rise to radicalization.
A recent attack on Paris had started a debate on whether there is a presence of Islamic terror as IS states 'Islamic State' and is considered to use Quran and other holy books for their benefit. I am a least knowledgeable person of religion being linked to terror because I cannot ever make out a way of terrorizing people, doing just the opposite what it was made for. Why the terror attack took place in Paris which is such a securitised place in the world. Why was it on the notion of IS from the beginning? What Islam has role to play if any in this terror attack? What sort of people can justify such attacks? There are no sect of individuals who think that People have died and we must pay homage without saying but in their homage. How does this happen its out of question. Since the days Of George Bush, Iraq had been a state maligned for its mass murderer weapons infamously stated to have kept with it, could be called as propaganda by bush to just keep its control over Gulf countries.
France is an ally of America and have present army inductance in NATO. With some of its unethical policies regarding Muslims it made itself hostile against them. When Sarkozy was President of France he tried to implement 'no Burqa to women' policy in accordance of security defaming his government and angering Muslims of the country. Thereafter France was at its high tide of secularism face off with Muslims. It was seen as an act to malign the image of Islam in purview of secularism. The most damage done to France was Charlie Hebdo, in the name of Freedom of speech and expression it started drawing cartoons of Prophet which is prohibited in Islam, this itself was enough reason for a violent attack, but the question is whether violence only option to carry out against innocent people, there is always a rule of law where one can easily be prosecuted for wrongdoings. I am of the opinion that any person of any religion do no have right to call his belief to be belief of the religion. If Islamic State feels its the voice of the Muslims it is Obstructively wrong and naive in its thinking. Any wrongdoings not in favor of humanity is against Islam person pursuing it against Islam. But any person who carried out such attack can he someway not become a tyrant for the victims who suffered in Paris.
A violence of this category carries grudge of the people of one sect religion. They don't see an individual but what they preferred there rule of action. If they shouted alla-hu-akbar it becomes barbaric from there on who speaks it is seen as an offender to them. It is not what has to be escalated every now and then for Islam. If at all it could've been controlled by the diplomatic reasons, weapons are not the answer. It can damage an individual, what about interpretation of fallacy which lies in them. Most heinous attack seen in this month in wake of religious tyranny can be an eye opener for Radicalism, it is not a place to exercise militancy, they need to be fair in such games. Provide weapons to every individual on street and target the one's who are of particular sect can they? No. this cannot be a service to allah, he is not understood to you if you feel that such massacre is wanted. Islamic State until now has been the dangerous fanatic militant group who do not suffice on borders of peace.
On what grounds would one believe such fanatic even if all surrender before them, a person with Gun can never be trusted, irrelevance of book he/she has kept with him/her. If such attacks have ever been in mind why to do through Quran or from religion or particular sect, you know you cannot win whatsoever, a fight of might is unseen sight to man. There had been fanatic warriors who ended worse than what they did to the victims. I believe in debate on who is radical, person with minute mind who totally had been manipulated by showing the path of Heaven or person who sitting at a lavish countryside misinterpreting verses of Quran putting it somehow into ideologue. If you present your religion as a peacemaker you must revive what has been lost due to incursions not by violently killing people, it will become different than what actually Islam means.
No comments:
Post a Comment