After little confusion, I decided to put this topic in both ‘Religion’ and ‘Politics’.
Taleban have said that they told hijackers to drop unislamic demands, i.e. 200 millon $ ransom and dead body of militant. Hijackers seem to be convinced.
Which demands are Islamic and which are unislamic in hijacking? How does one carry out hijacking in Islamic way?
I don't believe there is such a thing as "Hijacking Islamically"
The question you are asking, would be better asked:
Can, what some label 'terrorism', be considered an acceptable form of Jihad and/or warfare against oppression?
I don't know the answer. Here are a few points that I do know:
1) Subjecting innocent women and children to ANY type of violence is NOT permitted in Islam. I believe, when Hazrat Umar (the second righteous Caliph), took Jerusalem, he asked his soldiers not to a) harm children, b) harm women, and c) cut down any trees. Similar campains of war, fought by Muslims against aggressors, have insured that women and children are safe-guarded from harm.
2) Further, war, as I understand it is not to be waged in the sacred month of Ramadan - which is NOW.
3) Muslims are commanded to wage war against those who wage war against them: "And wage war on all of the idolaters as they are waging war on all of you. And know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him). (9:36)"
4) Once aggression is rooted out, Muslims must desist from waging war. "So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, Allah alloweth you no way against them. (4:90)"
So if the actions of these individuals (hijackers, terrorists, freedom fighters, mujahideen) or whatever you want to call them, fit into the category of a just struggle, they're actions and intentions would be in the right if - a) they did not wage this war in Ramadan, b) they did not harm anyone who is not an aggressor, c) they treated prisoners (which is what the hostages properly, d) they freed women and children right away, e) they freed those who are not in any way responsible for the conditions of aggression against Muslims (ie, non-Indians on board the plane).
I don't think there actions are justified Islamically, I think most would agree. It was the wrong time, and the wrong venue. They would be better off continuing to fight a ground battle with the oppressive Indian military, and not the general population of India.
Achtung
So if it was after ramdan and if they held others hostage after leaving women, children and firangis, it is perfectly islamic according to Achtung.
Actually ZZ, I'm not sure if thats what I was trying to say..I guess my post might be a bit confusing.
Look at point 3 - Muslims are too fight those who wage war against them. I don't know if these 'hostages' would fit in that category.
I also am not sure if terrorism (violence targeting civilians) is considered justifiable.
I didn't say anything about 'firangis', just those who don't wage war against Muslims, Indians could fit in this category.
Achtung
Jihad extols the followers to do any & all until victory is realized.
[This message has been edited by faceup (edited January 02, 2000).]
Is it correct? I believe it is correct since Taliban have sided with hijackers and not punished hijackers or handed them over to International community. Since Taliban are respected authority on Islam, I believe they have done an Islamic thing.
Taliban have sided with hijackers and not punished hijackers or handed them over to International community.<<
and what the heck did India do when their own airlines plane was on their own turf? They sure did hand them over the International community.
Then hand over to Indian govt. or punish them according to Taliban law. But perhaps Taliban law was to set them free which is what they did.
ZZ wrote: "Since Taliban are respected authority on Islam, I believe they have done an Islamic thing."
No ZZ, YOU are the respected authority on Islam...or at least that is what you would have us believe by some of your posts.
The Qur'an is the respected authority. The hijackers should have been detained and questioned, about the death of the hostage. Isn't it true that one hijacker was killed on board? What was the reason for his death? Was he perhaps the one who killed Katyal? In which case the trial is over...Or maybe he was trying to save Katyal, in which case we are back to square one.
Killing innocent people is not Islamic and should be condemned. That is why Muslims have condemned this hijacking as well as the oppression in Kashmir. Many Hindus on the other hand, have not gone as far, to condemn the attacks of terrorism conducted by their government against innocent people (read Amnesty International reports if you don't believe that they are happening and ask yourself why Indian government does not allow impartial international human rights observers in Kashmir).
Achtung
Allama Iqbal said:-
'Parwanay ko charagh Bulbul ko phool bus
'Siddique kay liay khuda ka rasool bus