NOT IN THE NAME OF GOD…..
It is often thought mostly by those who don’t understand the true teachings of a religion that religion teaches violence, it creates divisions among people and spreads hatred. But if we look at the issue more closely and consider what has been done in the name of religion in the recent past what we actually see is that it is not religion that has in fact taught or motivated any of these acts that are blamed on it. Let us consider the case of extremism and terrorism in the name of Islam. Osama bin Ladin was not a religious scholar, Aaiman uzawahiri is not a scholar or in the case of isil their leadership has nothing to do with religious scholarship. The only thing they do is they talk religion and act irreligiously, they shout God but do what is ungodly. They kill people, spread violence and mischief in the name of God which is the denial of faith itself. In Islamic Fiqh committing a forbidden act it is called sin but if the same act is committed by someone having a belief that this act is actually virtuous whereas it is against the express provisions of the Quran and Sunnah such a person is not a Muslim no matter how good intension he has because a good intension can not turn a crime into a virtue. Something that has been expressly declared to be forbidden and haram can’t not become lawful or permissible merely because someone is doing it with good intension. Taking a person’s life (save as in the cases where it is allowed in accordance with law and through a judicial process) is forbidden and no intension however noble or pious it is can make it lawful. Indiscriminate killing of innocent people is not allowed even in a state of lawful warfare. Committing suicide or strapping a jacket around one’s waist to kill people is unislamic and irreligious. If a fanatic criminal and terrorist is doing this in the name of religion it should not make religion bad. If someone commits a crime which is racially motivated, will it make that particular person a racist or the entire community he comes from and that particular race he belongs to should be considered to have motivated that crime. If someone commits a criminal act and when tried in a court of law justifies his act by saying that he believed the act to be lawful, will the court accept that excuse? No. Or will the society start blaming the law itself and demand that this is a bad law and must be banned? The answer is no again. If there is a law on statute book which says that “whoever intentionally kills a man shall be punished by death or life imprisonment” and a man who has just read this provision witnesses another man who kills someone before his eyes and believing that it is quite legal for him to punish this killer and in fact catches the criminal and hangs him to death. Is he justified in what he has done? Can we accept his justification that he has followed what law says. The answer is quite clear we don’t accept his justification and we don’t blame that particular law as well. We don’t say that it is this law which is teaching violence and must be condemned. When we don’t do this in respect of a law being misused, don’t blame a race in whose name a crime is committed then how can we condemn religion in whose name someone commits terror. If no one condemns the entire German nation and rightly so for the crimes of hitler who believed that Germans are a superior race and only they had a right to live in Germany. How can Islam be blamed for the terrorist acts of those who know nothing about Islam and its teachings. Islam is a religion of peace and we as peace loving Muslims can’t allow it to be hijacked by the terrorists. We condemn them and can not allow them to commit these crimes in our name or in the name of our religion.