Thank you for your post Alochok Avijit. Since you are talking about semantics here, the word "Religion" comes from the French word "Religion". This French word is a derivation of the Latin word "Religio", which means piety or conscientiousness. In our modern vocabulary, religion is a generic word to describe a set of beliefs. It wasn't invented by the church, as you seem to suggest. There is no word for "Religion" in either Arabic, Hebrew, Ancient Greek or Latin, or even Pali or Sanskrit. In each of these languages, what they describe as "religion" is a set of beliefs (e.g. "Din" or "Deen" in Arabic, "Orrah" in Hebrew, "Theos + logos" in Greek, "Religio" in Latin, "Kamma" or moral law in Pali, or "Dharm" in Sanskrit).
By the way, the Arabic word for "knowledge" is not "Din or Deen". The word "Din" or "Ad-Din" literally means "way of life". Arabic word for "Knowledge" is "Mariqah" or "Al-Mariqah" or even "Al-marefah". Do forgive my spellings. I am not Arab. But you get the point.
It is a historical inaccuracy that the concept of "religious war" was waged only by the Crusaders. The concept goes back hundreds of years before that. In Judaism the expression is "Milhement Mitzvah", in Christianity its "Crusade", and in Islam its "Jihad". They all have different meanings and applications, but fundamentally they are all "holy wars", so to speak.
But since we are talking about Islamic history, let's make sure that we give accurate information to the readers. After the death of Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), the newly founded "Caliphate" began to wage wars against other Semitic tribes, pagan sects, Jewish and Christian tribes of Syria, Jordan valley, and present day Palestine. Abu Bakr justified these "holy wars" as the "Ridda wars" or the "War of Apostasy" and stated that since some of the Semitic Arab tribes are opposing the rule of Caliphate, they must be put down. Sadly enough, in some cases, these Semitic Arab tribes were Muslims but refused to be ruled by Abu Bakr or a Caliphate. During these campaigns, the army of the Caliphate not only fought the Arabs, but also Jews and Christians who considered themselves to be part of the "Ummah", just as the prophet Mohammed (pbuh) intended in Madina.
Secondly, it's a falsehood that the caliphate never waged war on to spread Islam or the knowledge of Islam. A religious war is not always against people of other faiths, but also against people of the same faith who may have different opinions contradicting the majority of followers. During the Umayyad Caliphate, there were several wars between the Umayyads and everyone else, especially the Khijirites. Within 200 years of Prophet's death, the Umayyad Caliphate had successfully obliterated the egalitarian and secular practices of the prophet, and fought two opposing tribes Qays and Kalb who wanted a different Caliph. Other religious wars during the Prophet's lifetime were fought in Uhud, Khandaq, Mecca, and Hunayn, and all these wars were against non-Muslims. It is true that forcible conversion was never a part of Islam, and it is forbidden. However, to live and prosper within the Islamic Caliphate, non-Muslims paid hefty taxes (jizyah). Also, any opposition to the rule of the Islamic Caliphate was met with the might of the sword.
I have provided a list of references on Islamic History at the end of this posting that would verify my comments.
You argue, "anyone who were wrongfully killed or murdered for creating chaos or spreading dogmas are deserved to be named shahid." By your definition, should we then consider everyone who was ever killed (wrongfully or rightfully), or slaughtered or murdered for creating chaos or spreading dogms (i.e. set of religious practices) "shahids"? I think there is a fundamental difference between the words "slain", "murdered", "assassinated", "martyred", and "Shahid", and they all carry special significance and circumstances. Can an innocent man accidently killed in crossfire be called a "Shahid"? Or should we reserve that title for those who sacrifice themselves for the humanity? I guess that's a moral debate that would take years to solve.
I am sure President Zia is held in high esteem by many Bangladeshis, and even though I have serious reservations about his posthumous divinity, I can respect the fact that people feel that way about him. What I cannot and will not accept under any circumstances is the statement that he was the "father and architecture of democratic Bangladesh based on inclusion of all the members of the society." Those of us who have survived the Zia regime know all too well that there was nothing "democratic" about it. In every society and every social science book a "Military Democracy" is still an oxymoron.
Just my two cents.
Cyrus
References: The following notable books would support my assertions about religious wars in Islamic history. I would request you not to interpret them as I did, but rather do so as you deem appropriate.
1. Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam
2. Mahmoud M. Ayoub, Islam: Faith and History
3. William M. Watt: Muhammad at Medina
4. Jadunath Sarkar, How the Muslims forcibly converted the Hindus of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to Islam
5. T. E. Lawrence, The Seven Pillars of Wisdom
6. Muhammad Hamidullah: Battlefields of the Prophet Muhammad
7. Abul Ala Maududi, Jihad Fil Islam
8. Albert Hourani and Malise Ruthven, A History of the Arab Peoples
9. Fazlur Rahman, Islam & Modernity: Transformation of an Intellectual Tradition
10. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Islam:Religion, History and Civilization
From: Avijit Dev <avijit_dev@yahoo.co.in>
To: alochona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2009 11:22:52 AM
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: Remembrance of Shahid Zia and cantonment house
Cyrus wrote:>>I thought a "shahid" is a martyr who sacrifices himself or killed in a religious war.<<
Just get this, Cyrus, that the word "religion" is foreign to Muslim world. The word "religion" is name for the authority of church and that had been replaced by political authorities in different guise in christian countries. And the concept of "religious war" were waged by the crusaders those who were/are wearing a mask of love and for them (crusaders) war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.
There are no recorded history any Caliphate had ever waged war on to spread deen[knowledge] . and to spread knowledge[deen] as Koran says, don't compel people to accept deen[knowledge] . Compulsion is not the way of peace[Islam] but it is chaotic what crusaders always did and still does that in the name of "political economic guise" with a political state authority. This distinction must be recognised.
As for who deserves to be named shahid? anyone who were wrongfully killed or murdered for creating chaos or spreading dogmas are deserved to be named shahid.. And Shahid Zia is one of them for many people in Bangladesh. Just as Quran says: killing someone is killing all humanity and saving someone life is saving all humanity.
For many people, late president Zia was decent, honest and was working for a "just cause" or to build pragmatic society instead of totalitarian concept that BAKSAList wanted to achieved.
He was the father or architecture of democratic Bangladesh based on inclusion of all the members of the society. And it is imperative to form a country with all its inhabitants to have a peaceful society and otherwise it is chaotic, dogmatic and intentionally mobilising for chaos to perpetuate destability for alien causes.
There are a few parties under the umbrella of BAL are mobilising for chaos in name of democracy for their masters and those should be recognised and should be awarded them with a tag "neo-rajakar" . And these neo-rajakars' masters' strategy is to divide and conquer and in effect, destroying a nation's industrial base and just as destroying the moral of a country while we remain infighting to each other.
-- In alochona@yahoogroup s.com, Cyrus <thoughtocrat@ ...> wrote:
>
> almost 30 years later, I still don't understand why Major Zia was given the posthumous title, "Shahid". I thought a "shahid" is a martyr who sacrifices himself or killed in a religious war. If memory serves me right, he was killed by his own associates. There was no religious war, nor there was any self sacrifice. Just curious!
>
> C