• Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sajini W
    • Sid’s blog
    • Sonia Afroz
    • Sunny on CIF
  • Comrades

    • 1820
    • Angela Saini
    • Aqoul
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Big Sticks, Small Carrots
    • Blairwatch
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Derek Wall
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • Matt Murrell
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sakshi Juneja
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown






  • Technorati: graph / links

    Indian Muslim body refuses to bury terrorists


    by Sunny on 1st December, 2008 at 6:28 pm    

    The Times of India reports:

    The Muslim Council on Sunday decided not to allow burial of the bodies of the nine terrorists killed during the Mumbai siege in the Marine Lines Bada Qabrastan (cemetery). The council said it was trying to send a message to all cemeteries in India that none of the bodies should be buried on Indian soil.

    Bhai Jagtap, a Congress MLA from VP Road-JJ constituency, told TOI some Muslim organisations had approached him demanding that the terrorists should not be buried in any cemetery in India.

    Good.



      |   Trackback link   |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: India, Terrorism




    58 Comments below   |   Add your own

    1. Roger — on 1st December, 2008 at 7:20 pm  

      Surely you mean “Indian Muslim body refuses to bury terrorists”

    2. Sid — on 1st December, 2008 at 7:26 pm  

      Roger is right. I’ve edited the title to ‘bury’.

      And yes, good.

    3. Mezba — on 1st December, 2008 at 7:28 pm  

      there could be a theological argument too as to whether they were Muslims since they obviously committed crimes against the Quranic instructions (as evidenced by thousands of fatwas from the majority of clerics AGAINST terro rism).

    4. Sunny — on 1st December, 2008 at 7:52 pm  

      whoops. what did it say before?

    5. MSK* — on 1st December, 2008 at 7:52 pm  

      Pardon my ignorance in this matter, but why is this “good”?

      Where should they be buried instead?

      Re: Mezba’s post - Islamic jurisprudence & theology is quite unanimous in that one doesn’t de-Muslim-ify oneself by committing a crime, or even a sin, various attempts of political bodies to the contrary notwithstanding.

    6. Roger — on 1st December, 2008 at 8:04 pm  

      “whoops. what did it say before?”
      It said “Indian Muslim body refuses to cremate terrorists.”, Sunny.
      In fact, Mezba and MSK, given muslim instructions that bodies should be buried, cremating these bodies might signal both contempt for the men concerned and that muslims do not think them muslims.

    7. Paul Moloney — on 1st December, 2008 at 8:10 pm  

      Ignore.

    8. Roger — on 1st December, 2008 at 8:10 pm  

      MSK: wouldn’t someone who committed a crime or sin and maintained that they were justified by islam be guilty of “innovation” and so have ceased to be a muslim?

    9. Don — on 1st December, 2008 at 8:12 pm  

      I think it said ‘burn’. Typo?

      Mezba, I’m sure you are correct. But AFAIK, if someone self-identifies as a muslim then no individual has the authority to say they are not. Isn’t it the case that a fatwa is simply a judgement by a scholar which can be accepted or rejected? Even if there were 100% concensus among scholars (which there isn’t) that butchering children is wrong, does islam have the mechanisms to, in effect, excommunicate?

    10. S Johal — on 1st December, 2008 at 8:20 pm  

      I say send their bodies to their loved ones this will show how humane we are, let their mothers bury their children as those have in Mumbai, after all mothers are mothers let us not stoop to their level.

    11. MSK* — on 1st December, 2008 at 8:34 pm  

      Dear Roger,

      No, they would not. According to Islamic law, it’s extremely hard to declare an “original” Muslim to be a non-Muslim. Judgment lies, ultimately, in God’s hands.

      If a Muslim were to say that there is no god, or that Muhammad was not God’s messenger, or that the Qur’an is not God’s speech or somesuch - THAT would be cause for treating that person as murtadd, i.e. apostate.

      But committing crimes in the name of religion … not so much. They are treated as “misguided” & Muslims are enjoined to make them see the wrong of their ways.

      Of course, they would also have to face punishment for the crimes committed, in this case murder, sedition, armed uprising against lawful government etc.pp.

    12. Ashik — on 1st December, 2008 at 9:42 pm  

      As a Muslim I was always taught that even if someone I disliked was awaiting burial it is a duty for a Muslim to help give them a decent and honourable burial. I think they should be buried with all due respect but their burial ceremony and the site/s itself should not become an attraction for people to ‘celebrate’ their misdeeds - again out of respect for all the people they murdered.

    13. Rumbold — on 1st December, 2008 at 9:49 pm  

      I have to agree with Ashik on this one. We are better than these people, and we should let our enemies bury their dead.

    14. mediasheep — on 1st December, 2008 at 10:13 pm  

      Roger

      “MSK: wouldn’t someone who committed a crime or sin and maintained that they were justified by islam be guilty of “innovation” and so have ceased to be a muslim?”

      No theyd be guilty of a major sin but not to disbelief

    15. Sid — on 2nd December, 2008 at 12:15 am  

      Good article by Shiraz Maher.

    16. Sunny — on 2nd December, 2008 at 12:33 am  

      Who is the enemy that will take responsibility for burying the dead, exactly? To the Muslim orgs of Mumbai, these dead terrorists are also the enemy.

    17. Refresh — on 2nd December, 2008 at 12:44 am  

      Ashik is right. It would be an innovation for all muslims and non-muslims to not bury them according to their declared faith.

    18. Sid — on 2nd December, 2008 at 1:13 am  

      Ahmadiyya women are refused Muslim burials in Pakistan when Jamaat-e-Islmai mullahs objected.

      Why so coy when it comes to mass murderers?

    19. Refresh — on 2nd December, 2008 at 1:27 am  

      How are the two connected?

    20. Nomadic Matt — on 2nd December, 2008 at 2:42 am  

      excellent!

    21. Golam Murtaza — on 2nd December, 2008 at 6:27 am  

      I like the idea of sending the bodies back to their families and saying ‘you deal with it’. But would any relatives actually come forward?

      Maybe just ditch them in the sea. Except they’d end up washing up on land again…

    22. Sid — on 2nd December, 2008 at 8:38 am  

      How are the two connected?

      The JI refusal for burying the Ahmadiyya woman obviously sets a legal precedence.

    23. Shamit — on 2nd December, 2008 at 9:03 am  

      I agree with Ashik - (never thought that would happen).

      It is the responsibility of the Indian State and they should follow exact same procedures as they would follow for any other criminal - who dies in an encounter and no one is claimining the body.

      This is a strong statement from Muslim Council which in other words mean that Indian muslims do not want terrorists to kill in their name. That is not what they want.

    24. platinum786 — on 2nd December, 2008 at 9:33 am  

      Ahmedi’s aren’t Muslim Sid. Are you Muslim yourself? I always get confused. You seem to be, but then sometimes you fall over at the basic hurdles.

      Ahmedi’s are not Muslim and hence cannot be given a Muslim burial. There is no reason someone can’t be put in a grave, but the funeral etc cannot be done. As for Muslim burial grounds, they are for Muslims, hence Ahmedi’s are non Muslims, thus they should bury their dead in their own burial grounds.

      As for not burying these guys, I can only think of one legitimate reason, that they cannot confirm whether they are indeed Muslim or not. Apart from that, the Burial is an Islamic duty upon the living, not the dead, you could drop the body in a ditch or float it in the ganges, God’s business is with the soul.

    25. Rumbold — on 2nd December, 2008 at 9:39 am  

      Sunny:

      The terrorists’ families should be allowed to bury them. We should allow bad people to be buried for the same reason we shouldn’t allow torture, or lengthy detention without charge, or punishing children for the sins of the parents; because it is the right thing to do.

    26. billericaydicky — on 2nd December, 2008 at 9:58 am  

      I don’t know much Islamic theology but the Catholic church has always buried any Catholic died, the exception was suicide.

      All the way through the IRA campaign Volunteers killed on active service were buried with full military honours and the rights of the Roman Catholic Church.

      It is worth watching the new film about the IRA hunger strikes and the attitude of the Church towards men who had decided to kill themselves.

      I think they should be buried at home even if makes them into some kind of symbols. Does the wider Islamic world know how they are viewd by the rest of us? There was a lot of coverage of this in the Spanish press with obvious comparisons to the Madrid bombings.

    27. Roger — on 2nd December, 2008 at 10:00 am  

      Ahmadis are every bit as sure they are muslims as you are or the people who murdered in Bombay were, Platinum 786. If others are entitled to decide Ahmadis aren’t muslims and can’t be buried with muslim rites the same is true of the murderers in Bombay.
      The reason for refusing them muslim burial isn’t for revenge or to spite their families but because it would make it plain that nearly all muslims reject their claim to be islamically justified and it may stop people blaming- and murdering- other muslims for these actions.

    28. billericaydicky — on 2nd December, 2008 at 10:00 am  

      “Rights” in the above piece should of course have been “rites”. I think that wouldhave got past spell check as well.

    29. Shamit — on 2nd December, 2008 at 10:09 am  

      The really sad part is no one would be coming to claim the bodies. The family probably does not even know that their son is part of this madness and hatred — and those who have sent them are cowards who dont have the guts to take back the bodies.

      This also happened in Kargil and there it was the Pakistan Armed Forces that refused to claim their bodies and they were buried with full military honours in India. So that Pakistan state could claim deniability.

      How sad?

    30. Sid — on 2nd December, 2008 at 10:22 am  

      Ahmedi’s aren’t Muslim Sid. Are you Muslim yourself? I always get confused. You seem to be, but then sometimes you fall over at the basic hurdles.

      Ahmedi’s are not Muslim and hence cannot be given a Muslim burial. There is no reason someone can’t be put in a grave, but the funeral etc cannot be done. As for Muslim burial grounds, they are for Muslims, hence Ahmedi’s are non Muslims, thus they should bury their dead in their own burial grounds.

      Since you seem to have granted yourself the spiritual authority to declare Ahmadiyya, and myself, as non-Muslims, what are your reasons for declaring these mass murderers as Muslim, given that, as Mezba has declared upthread, they broke any number of fatwas regarding the non-Muslim nature of terrorism?

      As for not burying these guys, I can only think of one legitimate reason, that they cannot confirm whether they are indeed Muslim or not. Apart from that, the Burial is an Islamic duty upon the living, not the dead, you could drop the body in a ditch or float it in the ganges, God’s business is with the soul.

      I have noticed in other threads that you been an apologist for the massacre of innocents committed by these terrorists. Which is why I think Pakistan should bury these terrorists in accordance with Islamic ritual since a large number of Pakistanis, yourself included, seem so inclined to support their actions.

    31. Golam Murtaza — on 2nd December, 2008 at 11:00 am  

      Yeah, Sid. Stop falling over the basic hurdles!

    32. platinum786 — on 2nd December, 2008 at 11:50 am  

      Sid you suggest that I have supported their actions, prove it. Provide a single shred of evidence. Just 1 would do.

      Secondly I have not suggested you are not Muslim, I have suggested that I think you are Muslim (from what I recall of stuff written by you) but at the same time, you seem to fail on some of the fundementals of Islam.

      For everyone’s sake, you are a Muslim if you believe Allah is the one true god, Muhammed (pbuh) is his final Prophet. That is known as Shahada, witnessing the fact you are a Muslim. Contradict that and you are no longer Muslim, commit any other sin and you are just a really bad Muslim.

      Ahmedi’s claim to have another Prophet, hence they have rejected the finality of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) hence are not Muslims.

    33. Sid — on 2nd December, 2008 at 11:53 am  

      #32 following #24 is known “backpeddling like a motherfucker”.

    34. MSK* — on 2nd December, 2008 at 12:11 pm  

      To platinum786:

      The shahada does NOT say “Allah is the one true god, Muhammed (pbuh) is his final Prophet”

      It says “la ilaha illa l-lah, muhammadun rasulu l-lah”, which translates to “There is no god but the god, Muhammad is the messenger of the god.” (One could also [in English] write it as “There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God.”)

      Nothing about “final” messenger/prophet there. So, strictly going by the shahada, Ahmadiyas are Muslims. Interestingly enough, only in Pakistan one has to declare that the Ahmadiya’s founder was not a prophet in order to qualify to be a Muslim …

    35. Jai — on 2nd December, 2008 at 12:16 pm  

      I think that the following…..

      I say send their bodies to their loved ones

      The terrorists’ families should be allowed to bury them.

      It is the responsibility of the Indian State and they should follow exact same procedures as they would follow for any other criminal - who dies in an encounter and no one is claimining the body.

      …..are the best possible solutions and the more civilised options, especially in the spirit of taking the moral high ground.

      Of course, if you wanted to take a more Spartanesque approach, you could also throw out a challenge to the deceased individuals’ fellow terrorists about claiming the bodies, ie. “If you want them, come and get them”.

      This is a strong statement from Muslim Council which in other words mean that Indian muslims do not want terrorists to kill in their name. That is not what they want.

      Agreed, it actually sends out an extremely strong signal. Hopefully it would also set a precedent for other Muslim groups (ideally internationally) to follow their lead.

    36. Jai — on 2nd December, 2008 at 12:20 pm  

      Either way, the terrorists are lucky (if that’s the appropriate word) that, despite their own regressive agenda and barbaric modes of warfare, a great deal of the rest of the world has moved on — otherwise states targetted in their so-called “holy war” could deliberately dispose of the bodies by cremation. Whilst dealing with the dead in this way is a perfectly acceptable course of action for Hindus and Sikhs, for example, I believe this would be viewed as particularly horrific by Islamist terrorists and potentially act as a deterrent (of course, in many cases it would probably have the opposite effect and enrage them even further).

      Once upon a time, it would also have been an accepted solution in many parts of the world — including here in Europe — to decapitate the bodies and stick the heads on spikes in public places as a warning to others considering attempting similar attacks. There is plenty of room on the seafront down Marine Drive in Mumbai for such an approach, for example.

      It also goes without saying that AQ and jihadi terrorists with a similar mindset are interpreting the moral compunctions amongst their targets as a weakness, and are exploiting it as such.

      However, as Rumbold said:

      We should allow bad people to be buried for the same reason we shouldn’t allow torture, or lengthy detention without charge, or punishing children for the sins of the parents; because it is the right thing to do.

      …..So we should not defile the bodies in this way, because by engaging in such brutal actions we would simultaneously brutalise and degrade our own conscience and psyche.

      ******************************

      I wonder how China would deal with such issues if a similar AQ/AQ-inspired attack took place in Beijing, for example. I bet they wouldn’t engage in this level of soul-searching about suitable responses. This doesn’t necessarily mean they’d be doing the “moral right thing”, of course — I expect they’d be motivated more by issues of pragmatism rather than ethics — but it’s an interesting alternative scenario. And probably a taste of things to come during the next few decades.

    37. Refresh — on 2nd December, 2008 at 12:23 pm  

      And of course an equally stronger one to the BJP and Shiv Sena - “Don’t even think about it!”

    38. Jai — on 2nd December, 2008 at 12:25 pm  

      By the way, Sky News has footage of the surviving terrorist being disarmed and captured by a mob of ordinary civilians in Mumbai. What a bunch of heroes; you’ve got to respect and salute their bravery.

    39. Refresh — on 2nd December, 2008 at 12:28 pm  

      equally strong

    40. platinum786 — on 2nd December, 2008 at 12:50 pm  

      MSK, that is correct,however the finality o the prophet is confirmed in the Quran, which is the word of God. One cannot deny the word of god. You can disobey it and be a sinnner, but you cannot deny it.

      for example, drinking alchohol, makes you a disobedient Muslim, declaring it Haram, means you are oppsing the word of Allah, that makes you a Non Muslim.

    41. Jai — on 2nd December, 2008 at 12:50 pm  

      Sid you suggest that I have supported their actions, prove it. Provide a single shred of evidence. Just 1 would do.

      “Platinum786″, you are already on record as saying you don’t give a damn about this atrocity and the associated deaths of hundreds of innocent people because you don’t like Indians.

      This implies that, in some measure, you are glad that this has happened and therefore support the terrorists’ actions.

    42. sonia — on 2nd December, 2008 at 12:57 pm  

      10 - S Johal said it all. why stoop to that level. the people who are dead are dead. and as rumbold said in no. 25.

      there might be some ’symbolism’ for the ‘religious establishment’ trying to indicate it thinks this is a bad thing -but it can do that anyway surely without interfering with burial/cremation/what to do with the dead bodies. there is a lot of obsession with ‘honour’ and burial and clearly that’s where it comes from, but its all a bit much. this kind of ‘vengeance’ is really not very helpful. don’t see why it should be a ‘muslim’ organisations’ responsibility to bury them though. if they want to take it up for ‘humane/muslim duty’ reasons then fine, but i don’t see why they should be foisted with it either. make much more sense to ask the families (assuming we know who they are!) what they want. or however the indian state would deal with it but given everyone is so hung up on burial rites/religion link in india, i daresay its not surprising this ‘debate’ is coming up.

    43. fugstar — on 2nd December, 2008 at 3:00 pm  

      JI arent an islamic legal body.

      Ive heard of the refusal to bury in South Asia before, probably in the cases of executed terrorists in Bangladesh. Its more at the sociological end than the pure theological end. I think its an interesting synthesis of hindic (shame) and islamic (burial) ethic.

      ‘Even the earth won’t accept you, for you denied your role as it’s custodian and created mischeif’

      There are tonnes of other graveyards in India, or wherever they end up coming from. This one’s refusal is useful for those looking for ‘categorical, condemnation’ from the innocent and non responsible.

      Its a symbol that a lot of people are looking for. Not sure if its a piece of fiqh. Its more emotional and pragmatic. Also, can you imagine the risk of general desecration to the organisation?

    44. Ashik — on 2nd December, 2008 at 3:14 pm  

      I do not think an analogy between those who perpetrated the Mumbai attacks and Ahmadis can be made. The latter are widely perceived to be heretics across political, theological and ethnic fissures in Islam for not believing in Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) the Seal of the Prophets (the last Prophet of Allah (SWT)) while the former, barring any denunciation of their deen (faith), would be considered Muslims despite their misdeeds. No mainstream Muslim accepts that MIrza Gulam Ahmed was a Prophet. None.

      Platinum, I can well understand your confusion about whether Sid is acquainted with the fundamentals of Islam. Perhaps Sid’s comment (no. 57 on his ‘Saudi Pecking Order’ thread) will illuminate matters: ‘bananabrain, I would rather not regard myself as an apostate, even though I may be one technically, because I would like to see my children grow up’. When writing articles about Muslim-related issues (as Sid often does) perhaps it would be instructive to mention that the writer Sid considers himself possibly to be an apostate. I’m sure we can agree this will have an impact on his (universally negative) viewpoints on Islam & Muslims.

      And Platinum, I’ve read your comments on the Pakistani military forum you inhabit and must say that you did condone the Mumbai attacks. Despite the legitimate grievances of Indian Muslims and Kashmiris, violence is not going to solve their problems. Are you a Kashmiri or a Punjabi Pakistani? In my experience Indian and Pakistani military forums tend to have Punjabi/North Indian armchair nationalists salivating over the number of tanks and missiles each army has, despite both being third world unprofessional and corrupt forces where an airforce plane crashes every other day due to basic piloting errors and lack of maintenance.

    45. Sid — on 2nd December, 2008 at 3:20 pm  

      When writing articles about Muslim-related issues (as Sid often does) perhaps it would be instructive to mention that the writer Sid considers himself possibly to be an apostate. I’m sure we can agree this will have an impact on his (universally negative) viewpoints on Islam & Muslims.

      I have a very good view of cultural Islam, Islamic arts etc. I worked for many years as a traditional Islamic architect in an earlier career.

      I have quite a good understanding of Islamic theology and fiqh. This is why when you come up with bullshit about “scholars ban mixed marriages in Islam” as you have in another thread, you will be corrected by people more knowledgable in Islamic fiqh, such as me.

      I have a very jaundiced view of religious supremacism, Islamist authoritarian politics and exceptionalism - which all falls under political Islam.

    46. Joseph — on 2nd December, 2008 at 3:28 pm  

      Here’s some ancient wisdom for many of you: “Those who are merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the merciful”.

      How much longer will it be before the courageous nations of the Free World declare absolute and total war on these murderous Jihadis?

    47. platinum786 — on 2nd December, 2008 at 4:16 pm  

      Ashik, your misunderstanding of my comments is disappointing. Simply being neutral on a matter does not mean you condone it. Had you read all my material, you will have read many times, that i in fact condemned the action, I simply have no sympathy for the government it occured against, though can empathise with the victims.

      If you want to know more about the wide variety of people on the forum, i suggest you join it, it’s more than a military forum. Your understanding of it is rather skewed. I am a Kashmiri myself, the forum has more people from Karachi than it does from Punjab, and we have members from Balouchistan and NWFP too. Even people who currently reside in FATA.

      Outiside of that we have members from, China, India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, UAE, UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Russia, Taiwan, Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, Italy. These are ones I’ve interacted with and can confirm of the top of my head.

      Attempts to misrepresent me in order to malign my views, will not be successful as “some people” have tried.

    48. Beavis — on 2nd December, 2008 at 4:28 pm  

      Oh Shakeel, do you really want more quotes putting up, don’t you think you’ve dug yourself a deep enough hole already?

    49. Beavis — on 2nd December, 2008 at 4:38 pm  

      Post 24 is very interesting, is this how you normally refer to members of the Jewish faith?

      http://pakistanidefenceforum.com//index.php?showtopic=78506

    50. Refresh — on 2nd December, 2008 at 4:51 pm  

      Platinum768, I find that deeply shameful. I am not sure you understand your faith as well or as deeply I believed you might.

      It is shameful - when did you accept that sort of terminology? Do you realise where it comes from?

    51. fugstar — on 2nd December, 2008 at 7:37 pm  

      35
      “Agreed, it actually sends out an extremely strong signal. Hopefully it would also set a precedent for other Muslim groups (ideally internationally) to follow their lead.”

      It’s not the first time this signal has been sent. Its heartening that it was listened to and interpreted by non muslims though.

      Would be terrorists are estranged from community based organisations anyway, but perhaps not their close family.

      So what might be even better would be for the heartache of the greiving parents of the terrorists to be listened for. That was the case of the father of one of the 7/7 attackers. he was roaming restlessly and didnt know what to do.

      Drawback would be of possible indian public lynching though.

    52. Ravi Naik — on 3rd December, 2008 at 2:13 am  

      I certainly think the best thing is to send the terrorists’ bodies back to Pakistan, and let them be buried there. However, I think it is very positive to see the Muslim council denounce these attacks and say that they will not bury them in India.

      In any case, I don’t real care if they are fed to the dogs. I rather think about the victims, and the heroes that always appear in these tragic times. One of the inspiring stories is the nanny who saved the little boy after the parents were tortured and killed. This and other stories make me really sad and depressed.

    53. Astrid Essed — on 3rd December, 2008 at 1:25 pm  

      DENIAL OF THE BURIAL OF THE MUMBAI ATTACKERS ON AN ISLAMIC GRAVEYARD IN CONTRARY WITH FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS

      Dear Editor and Readers,

      I have learnt with concern about the decision of the Indian Muslim Council, not to allow the burial of the 9 killed Mumbai attackers, on an islamic graveyard

      As a reason, the Council declares, that the attackers cannot be held muslims, because they went against the teachings of Islam
      Another Council-member said, that the attackers had defamed the religion.

      See also:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7758651.stm

      Of course I agree with the fact, that the Mumbai attacks, being crimes against humanity, are in contrary with the teachings of the Islam

      However, viewed from a religious perspective, the decision of the Indian Muslim Council is, too, a defamation of the teachings of the Islam, being based on respect for every human being, regardless of descent or committed crime

      The denial of a grave is not only one of the most extreme signs of disrespect, it is also a
      violation of the right on human dignity, which is confirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

      See Preambule:

      http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

      Also the allegation, that those attackers were no muslims, makes no sense, because they were practising the Islam, althouigh their interpretation was totally wrong

      It is evident, that the killed Mumbai attackers are guilty to very serious crimes, for which they would be held accountable on earth, in a fair and independent trial, according to international standards. [1]

      However, now they have passed on, no Council or other authority has the right to deny them eternal peace on a graveyards
      The Council, based on the teachings of Islam, should set the example of humanity and respect

      Kind regards

      Astrid Essed
      Amsterdam
      The Netherlands

      [1]

      http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/01/india-respect-rights-hunt-mumbai-conspirators

    54. TFI — on 3rd December, 2008 at 1:44 pm  

      You see the “Muslim Race”, which we are constanstly told needs anti racial laws, are very keen on seeing the Ummah as a “race”. This is popular idea until it is decided that they “aren’t a Muslim” because they “stepped outside of its teachings” then they have “no religion”.

      Wouldn’t be great of the “blacks” where able to say “we don’t recognize OJ Simpson any more, he’s not black man”. I’d like to reject Mira Hindly, I don’t think that she is white.

      TFI

    55. Meer — on 4th December, 2008 at 3:10 pm  

      @platinum786
      “Ahmedi’s aren’t Muslim Sid.”

      Why aren’t Ahmadis Muslim? Because they think a prophet can come after Muhammad? Following people also believe that a prophet can come; Mawlana Rumi, Ibn Arabi, Hazrat Imam Abu Ja’far Sadiq, Hazrat Shah Wali Ullah Muhaddith of Dehli,Hazrat Maulana Faranghi Mahal, Imam Raghib, Muhammad Qasim Nanotwi

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_the_prophets

      Do you think they are all non-Muslim too? Please elaborate as I am totally unsure why you think Ahmadis are non-Muslim even though they hold the same beliefs as many scholars before them.

    56. Meer — on 4th December, 2008 at 3:18 pm  

      @platinum786
      “Ahmedi’s aren’t Muslim Sid.”

      If you can understand Urdu then here is a video for you;

      http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0sw6Qyqjh04

      Now don’t be a hypocrite and immediately declare Maulana Qasim Nanutw founder of the Darul-Aloom Deoband a non-Muslim as he believes the same as Ahmadis regarding Khatme Nabuwat.

    57. Meer — on 4th December, 2008 at 3:46 pm  

      @platinum786
      “MSK, that is correct,however the finality o the prophet is confirmed in the Quran”

      Prove it!!

    58. Musa — on 4th December, 2008 at 11:59 pm  

      HI MSK

      I believe in Only One God the Almighty the One who has Created the Earth the one who is Loving and Kind
      But we Call Him God
      Father Of Christ .
      He is The true God and Very Powerful.
      He has Created the mankind.



    • Post a comment using the form below

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2007. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.