Explosions in Delhi

[Navi Sandhu]

There were multiple bombs that exploded in Delhi today, killing three people and wounding at least 20 others.

This past summer bombs exploded in Ahmadabad and Bangalore. I lived in Delhi for 6 months and the city was constantly on red alert because of bomb threats.

What do you guys think about this? Do you think this is due to some kind of Islamic movement in India or Hindu-Islamic rivalry?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/three-killed-as-mutiple-explosions-rock-new-delhi-929403.html

 

[Naveen Singh Khokhar]

yo...first thing first dont call it an islamic movement....any true member of any faith wouldn't bomb people like that. Sometimes it just happens that some of the extremist groups are muslim, but that doesnt make it an islamic movement. Islam doesn't tell ppl do blow up innocent people...

 

[Navi Sandhu]

sorry. i didn't mean to put it that way. you're right..i meant for of a fundamental/extremist movement.

 

[Kamran786]

I don't know.

All I know is that terrorists be crazy.

 

[Summy]

Naveen, people dont hesitate to call the air india bombers as sikh terrorists, or the numerus western media outlets that called khalistan, the "Sikh" separatist movement. If your going to claim that, its an up hill battle for this type disassoication. But by sheer coincidence, the Indian mujahideen, the group responsbile for the bombing, also have members from the Students ISLAMIC MOVEMENT of India. So the person who posted it was right, whether he/she meant it or not.

Secondly, it never fails to amaze me that people can break the hand that feeds them. Now, I am not implying any sort of government superiority or anything like that, but this group is the INDIAN mujahideen. Whatever their political views may be, the meaning of mujahideen and indian infront of it, and then bombing INDIA doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. But these bombings are becoming all too fimilar, and way to consistent. These people said they would attack again during Diwali, which shows how pious their fight actually is. I guess it is a stretch to ask for some sort of respect from these people though...

These bombings will continue, its an inenvitablitiy of life. But how to western muslims feel not about the attacks, because I hate generic responses all too common in BTF such as "terrorism is bad", but how there has been a lack of strong influential voices against these attacks within the islamic community. This would be interesting because muslim kids born and raised in the west under judo-christan ideology, I would like to hear how they feel about islam being protrayed as a violent religion, and the lack of, in my opinion, influential muslim leaders against these attacks.

Lets get away from, no religion promotes violence, yeah we get it. Islam is against killing of the innocent, yep, got that too. No generic answers, and we are talking about the rightness/ or wrongfulness of the attacks, but rather how after the attacks it is handled within the islamic community. How they feel about their religion being protrayed on tv, how they feel about their religion being victimized whether it be in America, Israel, Europe, or India.

Why havent influential muslim leaders, be them political or religious, come out against the attacks... Is there an underlying benefit of promoting the separation between islam and others? Are there feelings as a muslim that although you are against the attacks (of course), you do feel a sense of duty to defend your religion as others may question it? Therefore, do the bombings in some manner promote a stronger religious identity?

Lets keep it fresh, we all think dieing is bad.

 

[Kamran786]

These bombings do not mold a stronger religious identity. All it does is further polarize the true Muslims from those who use it for their own means. This is true with every religious group at one point or another.
When people go to war in the name of religion that doesn't suddenly make it a war that the religion is responsible for nor does it make it permissible to carry out various wars within the religion.


If people haven't noticed by now,in the past, the present, and inevitably the future, individiuals and power hungry groups WILL use RELIGION as an instrumental means to accomplish their own personal agenda.

However any person who can think for themselves should know not to let such events change their understanding of various religions.

In terms of why Muslim leaders don't speak against terrorism. They do all the time, but the media doesn't care when they express their condolences or discouragement for such acts. The media has made one portrayal about Muslims thus they will only choose to cover what is already consistent with their current mindset.

 

[Waleed]

Summy,

To answer your questions from a different point of view, one needs to understand that these terrorists do not care who they are killing.

Just in the past 3 years, over 3500 Pakistani civilians have died in attacks all over the country. The mindset that "these Muslim terrorists are killing non-Muslims" is incorrect. If you combine the figures from just Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan you will realize how many Muslims have died at the hands of these terrorists who claim to be Muslims as well.

My frustration stems from the way the media has covered our post-9/11 world. There are wars being fought in Africa, conflicts in East Asia and insurgencies in South America... all without any Muslims involved, however the media chooses to focus on conflicts involving Muslims.

However at the same time let's not overlook the many conflicts involving Muslims. What is the source? It is a combination of many things. Real quick, here are a few reasons in my way view:
- Treatment of Muslims in the post-colonial world.
- Poor comprehension and understanding of the Quran (Emphasis to learn the Arabic without ever learning the translation. It's just like if someone recites prayers in Latin without ever knowing the meaning).
- Illiteracy in the Islamic world. Lack of emphasis on education.

I also agree with Kamran786, in the post-9/11 world, Muslim countries, governments, community leaders have all condemned these attacks but no one wants to take notice. Statements by Muslims against violence gets virtually no air time, however an attack by Muslims is a completely different story.

Part of the solution lies in more responsible and fair reporting by the media. The media keeps feeding this hysteria that Muslims are out to get you. There is a sense of apprehension to collaborate with concerned Muslims. I can feel the growing frustration within the Muslims regarding these terrorists who have hijacked our religion. In Colombia, the people formed 'paramilitares', small armies to battle the terrorists and drug barons who were ruining their country. Could we see the same phenomenon in the Muslim world? However, that is not the answer, it will only increase the violence.

Sorry for the unorganized thoughts but I wanted to give some input on this. Back to work!

 

[Summy]

Firstly, I respect both views, but this whole debate of true muslims vs un-true muslims is highly problematic. You may view those who do suicide bombings as not true muslims, and that may be the case. But there is a huge grey area, of people who may not support the bombings but also may not condemn them as well. True vs un-true muslims? How do you make that distinction? No disrespect Kamran but that is the type of response I was talking about when I say generic answers. Muslims protrayed in the media are highly problematic, but there is more to why leaders who have come out against terrorism are not covered in the west, ill talk about that later in this post.

As an outside observer, I personally believe the problem of suicide bombings and the violence in Islam is much beyond a fight between the pious and the confused. It has defintely reached an epidemic. WHat I was getting to with my question is kind of what Waleed proved. There are muslims who are now engaged because they percieve their religion as being attacked. There are youth who are now more aware of their history and their religion because of the added attention to islam. So, in one way or another, even though true there needs to be a separation between militant islam and others, there has been some positive effect of western outlets combining both into a mass society.


Waleed brother, in all do respect, I understand that you feel that some people may view muslims as attacking others, but I dont think that way and others dont as well. I mean the sunni shite wars have been well documented, and the recent choas in pakistan also lets us now that sometimes it is a stuggle within the religion as well. But I mean, muslims are engaged in wars all over the world. Be them the west v. militant islam, israel v palestine, pakistan v india, sudan areas, and it is the duty of leaders to take more of a REAL, DEFINITE, CONCRETE STANCE.

The pakistani government is completely against militants in Kashmir. However, they continue to intentionally turn a blind eye there. They intentionally do not go after the militants, and do not inhibit their practices both in pakistan and kashmir and even fund the militants in backdoor ways. This is not claiming they are right or wrong, and india is right, far from it...However, if the media were to report on the pakistani's government and their stance against militants, it might give a false outlook on what is actually going on. We can say the same things about Iran. How they continue to overlook militant operations in their land, and publicly denounce terrorism etc... If the media reported that Iran was against militant islam, would that be accurate? Not at all. The same goes for other religions as well, such as Sharon's stances on how their military was acting in Palestine.

Saudi Arabia another nation against militant islam, but Al-qaeda continues to grow immensely right under the government's eyes... So how would you feel if you heard from the media that Saudi Arabia is distinctly anti terrorism, and then realize no reforms have been made since 9/11 when the majority of the hijackers were saudi?

I think blaming the media is a cop out personally. There is a lot benefits to blaiming something faceless, but the fact of the matter is there are distinct problems within the upper brass of islamic continues and how they continue to allow their militants to grow under their eyes.



Now this is not an indication of right v wrong. I understand many people feel that this on salught of islamic violence is payback for years of bad treatment muslims have felt over the years. I am not going to comment on that. But is we are talking about the subsiding of islamic violence, I think the governments in which these organizations operate need to stop shooting the shit that people may not buy in the west, and produce real results.... But there are so many variables that one cannot go into, and with the young generation being exposed to these violence means of attack, I wouldnt be shocked if I witnessed a couple more genocides and reliatory attacks back and forth between the west and the islamic world.

 

[HarmanSingh]

Summy, many organizations have taken a definite stance against terrorism and violence. You can look to two of the largest American Muslim groups for proof on that (Muslim Public Affairs Council and Council on American-Islamic Relations). Also, numerous fatwas have been issued by Muslim organizations condemning terrorism and attacks.

Sure, it is fair to ask why so many predominantly Muslim nations continue to involve themselves in violent actions, but keep in mind many groups have spoken out against it. And Waleed did a nice job of summing up some of the very basic reasons why terrorism continues to be a global issue, although as I am sure you know, the issues run much deeper. To be honest, you seem to have an axe to grind with Muslims. I hate to bring up the past, but lets keep in mind you used the term ?sullah? multiple times and have mocked Islam time and time again. Sure, Muslims seem to be involved in a lot of conflicts across the world. But guess what, throughout history; nearly every religious group has been involved in violent conflict.

Regarding your comment on Saudia Arabia, I guess you are ready to condemn all of India?because the government has committed unbelievable atrocities against Sikhs. You can separate the government from the people in the case of India, but not in the case of Saudia Arabia?

 

[pluthra]

okk so in general to go back to the explosions, even though the whole debate is good, I really think that the indian media just really exaggerates alot of stories......like do we ever hear anythin good happenin on indian news...anythin useful?? no, instead everything is there to scare the viewers, make em wanna sit at home, blah, blah blah (maybe theyre using it to keep people at home-thus the limited gov't control-or well the limited govt can claim heyy we are doin our job and protectin u and thus...by controlling they can say theyre usin their police efficiently-when really theyre not)....ok so thats just far-fetched

back to the point....i overhead my mom talkin on the phone...and when she mentioned explosions it was like wat are u talkin bout...kinda like um sure it may have occured sorta deal..but nothin huge...so i really feel like the story is just blown a bit out of proportion like alot of other stories they show....im waitin for the day that journalism in india gets professional

 

[Summy]

Harman,

firstly, like I said after that sullah comment, that i used to share my account with someone else and after he posted those comments it ended our friendship. I didnt expect anyone to believe that so I apologized immensely, and even talked to a member on the phone about those comments; and I still dont expect people to udnerstand that. Having said that, the fact that you have this pre-concieved notion of me against muslims is highly faulty for many reasons. The biggest is obviously you missing the point of my post. Secondly, you wont talk about how on both on POL and BTF, I have been sympathetic with the palestinan cause amongst others, and you also will forget that I argued heavily against people who talked about afghanistan as a place where terrorist roam. I recall arguing with people back on POL that the Taliban brought prosperity to a corrupt government to the people who quickly called the taliban a bunch of terrorists. I have defended islamic thought, on POL before, so I suggest you read up. I have also been against the most in my opinion ruthless, ignorant, horrible, almost hitler level american government and american brass and how they have tread iraqis and muslims overseas including afghanistan.

You said look at the two largest AMERICAN muslim groups for condeming violence. Yeah thanks, american groups. I wonder what the response would be if they supported violence. Numerous fatwa's have condemed attacks? You realize you just isolated half of the muslim community with that statement right? Also it was the wrong word to use there, please research its meaning.

Many groups have spoken out against violence huh... I emplore you to name groups with as much influence as the governments, WHO GOVERN the states, and thus where the crackdowns should be happening. You pre-concieved notion of me realized that I was not arguing against muslim or insulting them in any way, rather showing how in some manner it has caused a rise is islamic identity in the west. I guess if I stated that since the 9/11 and the conflicts overseas, there have been more of centric american attitude both in the media and across the united states, you wouldnt feel that to be prejudice would you? This is what I mean, when you dictate yourself the conatations of people's words it makes you miss the complete point.

I will demonstrate this again... You seem to have a problem with mainstream india. With the run of mill indians, with popular india, dont want to pick out one religion although I have my suspicions. Now, for me to state the complete hypocrisy of a proud american being against a government committing atrocities against their own people, I would state the obvious... However when did I bring up the people of Saudi Arabia? Dont remember that... When did I bring up the people of Pakistan? Nope, cant find that one either.... The point I was trying to get across to non-bias readers is that leaders of islamic nations continue to let violence run under their nose and in some cases sponsor it. Now, did the Indian government do that as well, yes. Did I condemn the indian government, more times than you can probably count. Have I spoken out against the government, numerous times... Where the people of Saudi and the people of India got involved in merely something drummed up in your head, in my opinion.


I think people on this site, and youth is general have little to no balls when it comes to making a stance on their opinions. They have been raised under the lollipop gum drops umbrella that is western society and western education, that any sort of criticism will lead to calls of prejudice thinking and divisionist thinking. No Harman, just because I said that the government of islamic states dont take a hard ball approach against militant islam doesnt make me prejudice nor does the insinuation make me prejudice. When I critisized the indian government, you loved it, there were no calls of prejudice thinking. I guess the validity of my claims are low cause I am an outsider. Makes sense.

If you got the point of my post, I asked why arent more leaders coming out against militant islam. I am not talking about american soicities, those are great, and they should be against the violence as americans. But why arent the pakistani, saudi arabian, iranian and other government coming out against militant islam, not in speech or in word, but in policy... I said, if the media were to report the government's speeches against militant islam, it would give people a false sense of security.

I am probably more versed than you in Islamic text, and I have a immense appreciation for the religion. I suggest your old notions, and biases be kept to yourself, or again you will miss the point of my post.

The approach to islam in the west and all over the world is becoming increasingly negative. For me to be prejudice against another minority group is against all that I believe is right. Having said that, the undertone of the post was to show to everyone that, yeah you read about these bombings and you have your concerns, but people forget that simply claiming terrorism is bad isnt a good enough stance to have. Muslims have become engaged because of the depeiction of muslims in the west. Younger generations are becoming more involved in their religion because islam at a religion is being "hijacked" as Waleed put it. Somebody said they dont think this has cause a stronger religious identity, when in fact it has.

Just like you called out India on their HISTORY of policy making, I am doing the same thing to current day islamic states. Attacking a religion is when you insult its practices, calling out nations on their policy making is not prejudice, it is fair question to be raised.

The majority of the hijackers where from saudi arabia, i believe it was 16 of the 19 hijackers. The fact that Saudi Arabia hasnt employed any sort of reforms to the movements of militant islam in their country is problematic, and something I guess flied over people's head when they like to throw religion into everything.

 

[Kamran786]

Summy,

I won?t take the time to find articles upon articles showing Muslim leaders and nations condemning terrorism. But here is one. Basically a 57-nation Organization showed up to an Islamic Conference and expressed their condemnation of terrorism. This conference represented 1.2 billion Muslims of the world.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/15/world/fg-islamic15

This is in response to your inquiry as to whether there are Muslim nations or leaders who do condemn terrorism. So here it is.



You mentioned that many governments say they stand against terrorism; however they let it happen right under their noses. By definition I may be rationalizing, but the reality is ALL governments contradict themselves at one point or another. Welcome to the real world my friend. As you know the real world is not perfect therefore governments will not always adhere to what they say. Keep in mind governments do not even make up the fraction of a population and rarely do governments ever represent their people accurately. When a few ?Muslim? nations contradict themselves that should not make one doubt the true motive and attitudes towards terrorism that all Muslim scholars and leaders hold.
Don?t forget that most of these contradictory ?Muslim? leaders of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia do not practice the religion, but only use it for their own agenda as I have mentioned before. But do remember that dozens of Muslim nations HAVE condemned acts of terrorism repeatedly.

But really, who cares about listening to a bunch of people telling the world ?Terrorism is wrong?. Thus this is why it doesn?t get media coverage. People don?t care to hear the obvious and that is why things like this are hard to detect at the surface.

I hope this gives you a little more insight on this specific topic.

 

[Summy]

I really dont know how to say it any clearer... Like I am actually dumbfounded... How do you want me to say it.. Okay ill try one last time and I hope youll get it this time...

Like I said probably 10 times, and I will say it again, I am not looking for governments who stand against terrorism in word only, in speech, in proposals, etc.... This is why I critisized your comment of the media has not reported nations who have condemn the acts in speech... WHat I am eluding to is why havent governments in ACTION, in POLICY, in LEGISLATION taken a stand against militant islam?

I mean I cant put it anymore clearer. Take those nations, how many of them have passed legislation against militant islam within their own country. I can tell you for sure, the Saudi's havent. I can tell you for sure, with the retirement of Musharaff, there goes at least the surface commitment to stop miliatnt islam in pakistan. The Iranian government continues to sponsor militant islamic groups that attack Israel and grow in Palestine. As does Lebanon.

Im sorry, you probably dont know me, but you cant buy materialistic publicity orientated claims like you posted. You look at the policy passed in certain nations. Hezbollah, Fatah al-islam, these are all groups that are government endorsed and funded. Jaish e Mohammed was heavily funded my wiring money straight from Pakistan Intelligence services. Iran has been indited by world organizations and have been accused of sponsoring numerous fatahs, hezbollah, and hamas.

So when I talk about taking a stance, you have really think. You cant write what you just wrote because if islamic nations did not go forth with such propositions, what would it take for them to denounce terrorism? This is not an implication on Islam or a dictation of the religion. NO, only people who tie religion with the politics (the greatest indicator of their own prejudice against islam) would think that. It is an implication of governments who refuse to take a stance.

I personally agree with the plight of Hamas, and others fighting agianst Isreali occupation. But I disagree with their tactics which is at the basis of the israel -palestine conflict. However, if islamic countries do want to curb this type of behaviour, there needs to be more nations passing POLICY, PASSING ACTION, TAKING FORCE AGAINST THESE GROUPS. THIS IS NOT GETTING DONE. This is something I hear loud and clear from muslims all over the world, questioning why states keeping on sponsoring these groups. Many people argue there is a beenfit for having HAMAS fight the battles against israel rather than the nation of Iran. It kind of keeps their hands clean and away from any blatent accusations by the western world.

This is what your not understanding. You need stop swallowing what they release and look beyond that. I hope this gives you a little more insight of what is actually going on.

 

[Kamran786]

Summy,

It is important to distinguish the various forms of ?militant Islam? as you have mentioned. The militancy practiced in parts of countries like Pakistan is quite different from that which is practiced in Lebanon and Palestine. One kind is trying to diabolically rule the world through religion while the other is serving as a pseudo-armed forces for their attempt for independence. One is completely religion oriented while the other is shifting more towards a national independence movement. So to clump it all under ?Militant Islam? is wrong because the militancy we see in Palestine and Lebanon is a tactic that is backed by Sunni,Shia,Druze,Christians of those countries.In other words it goes beyond religion, specifically the religion of Islam.



Now you ask , ?why havent governments in ACTION, in POLICY, in LEGISLATION taken a stand against militant islam??


My answer is I don?t know. Like most people we are still unable to figure out what benefits these various countries are deriving through the killing of innocent people. Who knows why a government would support an Islamic militant group that actually kills many other innocent Muslims? If we knew I?m sure the problem would be closer to being solved.

But like many things, it?s all politics. And in these politics we won?t be able to truly find out why these governments are turning a blind eye to terrorism. That?s just how politics works. The guys at the top run a show at the surface but beneath the surface there are a million things going on that we are completely unaware of. And this is definitely the case with countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

But if I ever hear a real testimony from an Ex Pakistani or Saudi government agent as to why they are not taking any real action against terrorism in their own countries, you will be one of the first to know.

 

[Summy]

Kamran,

Hamas, and Hezbollah have different objectives. As do Al Nasirin fighting in Kashmir, and those who are responsible for the current delhi bombings, the Indian Mujahideen. I think it would be naiive to believe that I insinuated the objectives and desires of all the groups I mentioned were the same. That is not what is being debated, what is being debated is their involvement of religion with their acts of terrorism when I refer to them as "militant islam". Regardless of the final objectives, whether them being for national independence, or world domination (wrong, and highly problematic, but I wont get into it), their tactics and inclusion of islam as a justification for their violence, is what allows people to group them into the same category. Their final objective has nothing to do with their tactics and use of religion in terms of their belief of a pious fight, so your wrong on that front.

Both groups use faulty interpretations from the Quaran to accept their fights. As you can tell by their names, and simple research into their practices (what days and times they fight, what times of the years they dont), each and every militant islamic group has a name reffering to a pious war, a war fought in the name of... Mohammed Reza showed that some Quaran verses translated correctly or incorrectly, depending on your view shows that, it was written that "fighting is good for you", and "those who take away from muslims deserve to be engaged in a fight". It is said that in the Quaran it says "Those who wage war against Allah and their messanger.... deserve heavy punishment"... I am very loosely quoting the verses, but that can be found in the certain Quaran translations in the 2, 5th, and 9th books/ chapters. If you want the exact ones, i can post them here.

These basic tenents is what they are fighting on. Now I personally believe it may be a faulty translation, as does Waleed, as do a lot of people. However, there are divionists who dont believe it is faulty, and thus a justification for a religious war is born. These are the basics,and it does run deeper, however, to think there is no underlying bond between each group is highly irresponsible.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So when you actually evulated my question, your basic answer is I dont know. This is what I was getting at. You say 'just politics', thats not good enough. That is why people should stop pointing a finger at these obsecure unknown groups and say they are interpretating islam wrong, thats right they are. Thats why people should stop saying, LOOK NATIONS ARE AGAINST TERRORISTS. Yeah, thats right. But the direction of one's anger needs to be pointed towards the policy makers, the legislators in powerful situations to crack down on these types of attacks.

Its not that simple, however. Firstly, although I disagree with their tactics, and their stances, if Hezbollah and Hamas were to be finished today, I would be depressed. I understand the thought process that these groups are fighting against tyranny, and there is some truth to that. If that is the case, than is the violence justified. If without these groups, governments would run free, the powerful governments that is, is the fighting justified in people's eyes? Just to think about issues deeper than what is feed to you, and what connects the dots in your head.

You need testimony from ex government officials? How about this, read dick clarke's last book. He talks about even in Saudi Arabia, a US friendly nation, the government continued to provide safe houses for terrorists indicted in Africa. Read about how when Clinton wanted to go after Bin Laden in the 90's, how the only resistance he got was from not the nations in which he wanted to invade, no, but from his own government, who were being pressured not by Saudi, Jordan and Iran, not to invade. The CIA did not give Clinton basing rights in the middle east because they were being pressured by other islamic governments, in the 90's. When 9/11 came along, the US got basing rights there. Rather than attacking the nation where the hijackers were born and breed, SAudi, they attacked Afghanistan a nation that fell out with the Saudi's and the Iran's after the Taliban took over. You see, read my older posts, and youll get an idea. The Taliban was good for the people of Afghanistan. The previous Afghani government used to use oil money and benefits from natural resources to pay off the saudi interest groups, the iran's, the other bigger islamic governments. When the Taliban came in and overthrew the government, they kept the money and re-invested in Afghanistan. When the saudi's took pressure of the US, and when they got their basing rights, it was time for the US and its allies (Saudi) to clean up in Afghanistan. Look at Jordan and their ties to the US and how they benefited.

So, I didnt want to feed the answers to you, and actually have a discussion, but that didnt happen. Perhaps Islamic governments protects militant groups for reasons outside political gains. Why dont you research into the reasons a government would tell the world community they are against militancy, but support it behind close doors. There are opinions floating out there, one of which I stated, that make you realize that it is not the militant groups themsevles, rather it is an upper brass supporting and even initiating their actions.

 

[Kamran786]

Summy,

Though your analyzation of the issue is interesting and informative I still do not see its a fallback for myself for not knowing why countries have a hypocritical stance on terrorism. The idea of certain countries speaking out against terrorism yet harboring it to some degree boggles my mind and doesn't make sense and I have no problem with saying I don't know what the actual problem is. As to finding out why some Islamic countries harbor terrorism by research, the tactic just doesn't seem like it would work. Unless something comes to the surface I don't think intensive google searches or thoroughly looking for Int'l relations journals will help me find out why certain countries practice these things. For the most part I feel like whatever I read will only be an interpretation of a certain individual/group's perspective rather than a true answer. Until there is a real reason that is uncovered the other reasons can number in the dozens and the answers to the questions may very well be subjective. As you mentioned, these are 'opinions', and I feel like opinions will only make me think of more possible reasons , but not find the actual answers. Perhaps these answers will be found in facts rather then in opinion.