An interesting comment was offered to me recently:
"And yes, i hated the phrase "Hindu Terrorist" and for a moment i thought, how much will an ordinary muslim hate or feel bad if people use "Islamic Terrorist" or "islamic Militant"."
There are multiple questions that arise with this comment:
1) What is the definition of a terrorist?
2) Does the recent rightwing Hindu outfit in the news fit the definition of "a terror outfit" at all?
3) How does the ordinary Muslim feel about Islamic terrorists?
4) Does he know where the problem is?
5) What choices does he have?
6) What has he tried till now?
This is an open blog-- come along my secular hearties, lets see where this discussion goes. At the end of the discussion, I will update the answers for these questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Is the compound "islamic-terrorist" a dvandva or bahuvriihi?
Depends what history you think is authentic regarding Islam.
Two interesting points--
1)never in the history did either a hindu swamy/archaka, nor a christian bishop/monk had such a hold over individuals.
2)regardless what the p-secs, humanists, or islamophiles say about misinterpretation of Quran, Islamic terrorism directly derives its justification from Quran and the bloody Islamic history.
This direct sequence of Quran->clergy->terror, it is clear that
the religion (or atleast the most vocal interpretation of it) does provide a spiritual sanction to terrorism.
In this sense, "Islamic-terrorist" is a dvandva shabda.
Post a Comment