Introductory books on Mawdūdī rarely refer to his views on jihād. These views are uncompromising, unapologetic, and very disturbing in their implications. Mawdūdī begins his short treatise, Jihād in Islam, with a definition of religion and a definition of nation: But the truth is that Islam is not the name of a "Religion”, nor is "Muslim” the title of a "Nation.” In reality Islam is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals. "Muslim” is the title of that International Revolutionary Party organized by Islam to carry into effect its revolutionary programme. And "Jihād” refers to that revolutionary struggle and utmost exertion which the Islamic Party brings into play to achieve this objective.
Abul Ala Maududi
Related topics
alter
carry
conformity
definition
effect
exertion
ideology
international
islam
muslim
name
nation
nor
objective
order
party
play
programme
reality
rebuild
refer
religion
revolutionary
short
social
struggle
title
treatise
truth
utmost
world
jihad
islamic
Related quotes
Obama offered Muslims a careful admonition about women's rights, noting how denying women education impoverishes a country - balanced, of course, with this: "Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." Example? "The struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life." Well, yes. On the one hand, there certainly is some American university where the women's softball team has received insufficient Title IX funds - while, on the other hand, Saudi women showing ankle are beaten in the street, Afghan school girls have acid thrown in their faces, and Iranian women are publicly stoned to death for adultery. (Gays as well - but then again we have Prop 8.) We all have our shortcomings, our national foibles. Who's to judge?
Charles Krauthammer
After 200 years, the constitutional protection of the right of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is virtually gone. Today's current terminology describing rights reflects this sad change. It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer to: black rights, Hispanic rights, handicap rights, employee rights, student rights, minority rights, women's rights, gay rights, children's rights, student rights, Asian-American rights, Jewish rights, AIDS victims' rights, poverty rights, homeless rights, etc. Unless all the terms are dropped & we recognize that only an individual has rights, the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found. The longer we lack of definition of rights, the worse the economic and social problems will be.
Ron Paul
There is a word very commonly used these days: "anti-communism." It's a very stupid word, badly put together. It makes it appear as though communism were something original, something basic, something fundamental. Therefore, it is taken as the point of departure, and anti-communism is defined in relation to communism. Here is why I say that this word was poorly selected, that it was put together by people who do not understand etymology: the primary, the eternal concept is humanity. And communism is anti-humanity. Whoever says "anti-communism" is saying, in effect, anti-anti-humanity. A poor construction. So we should say: that which is against communism is for humanity. Not to accept, to reject this inhuman Communist ideology is simply to be a human being. It isn't being a member of a party.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn