Terrorism could be the heading of the running chapter in human history though strife had always been its grand title. Assorted terrorist groups to espouse their parochial causes have come to target their ideological opponents with utter cynicism. At least they have an articulated grievance and identified opponents with defined terror zones that are amenable for containment and redressal and or both at some stage or the other.
But what of the jihadi terrorism! It matters little where we live in this wide world, and one being a Musalman is no guarantee either to escape being its victim. Its madness might reduce us to a statistic of the dead or injured in tomorrow's newspaper headline in today's fidayeen attack. If left unabated it might one day engulf all of us in the Third World War. And thus the significance of any exercise aimed at improving our understanding of the involved issues cannot be overemphasized.
Well the origins of it all could be traced to the religious character of the Semitic faiths on one hand and on the other to the historical hurt of varied hues in the subcontinental society. Based on the scriptural quotes and the historical notes the wide spectrum of communal strife is captured here for a fascinating view in what is possibly a new genre that is un-put-downable. The theory that is postulated here is bound to impinge upon our ignorance or bias and /or both for an informed approach in analyzing the scourge.
As opposed to the purported revelation of the God’s ‘chosen path’ to man through some messiah, which forms the basis of the Semitic faiths, the essence of Hinduism has been for one to adhere to his dharma, supposedly sanctified by Gods in communion with the seers. And dharma, though varies from man to man, per se is the common course for the salvation of the souls. It is this salient feature of its religious character that gives Hinduism its theological variety and philosophical edge, sorely lacking in the Semitic faiths, each molded in the persona of its prophet.
Well, in the Semitic religions, the essence of the faith is the implicit obedience to the Almighty, and the strict compliance with the dogma enunciated by the messiah, ostensibly received from the Creator. Moreover, it is incumbent upon the faithful to treat that ‘the God’ showed the right path to His prophet for the believers to unquestioningly follow. Besides, it is the unique feature of the Semitic religious dogma in that the messiah is believed to be endowed with the power of intercession on behalf of the faithful on the Day of Judgment. If anything, this precept seems more pronounced in the Christianity and Islam than in the Judaism. This unmistakably led to the Semitic habit of the faithful looking up to the messiah to help them attain salvation, or reach the paradise as the case may be. Intended or otherwise, the messiah became the fulcrum of the faith as well as the icon of the Semitic religious ethos. In the process, as it were, the Lord of the religion gets relegated to the background.
In such a religious setting, it was only time before the vulgar minds insensibly allowed the prophet to rule their religious space in the practice of the faith, supposedly founded by him at the behest of ‘the God’. The Semitic idea of decrying idol-worship, ostensibly to let ‘the God’ not suffer any rivals, seems to have been diluted by the gentiles who embraced the Christianity in the medieval times. Of course, that was well after Moses’ Hebrew herds worshipped that golden cow in the ancient times. At length, in the practice of the faiths, this ‘no rival to the God’ dogma turned out into an ‘accent on the prophet’ culture. But in the end, the Christian model insensibly found the savior sharing the ecclesiastical dais with the exalted preachers of his faith. And seemingly Islam wanted to avoid that ever happening to its prophet, and designed a mechanism to preclude that forever. But in the process, the Musalmans came to condition themselves to revere the Prophet rendering Islam into Mohammedanism in practice.
In the realms of Hinduism, even as one’s religious ethos is to seek God’s favor for his moksha, in the philosophical sense he perceives Him as his own spiritual self, aham brahmasmi brahma. Conceptually thus, such a relationship between man and his maker, without the intermediary of a messiah, enables the worshipper experience a sense of oneness with the worshipped. Hence, it is no blasphemy for a Hindu to tirade his God, strange though it may seem, when felt let down by Him.