Passive Jihad

Submitted by Ravi Ranjan Singh BharatPanthi (India), Sep 15, 2010 at 08:46

One Muslim should not be punished for deeds of another, rather beliefs of the other.
One Muslim can not be forced to consume liquor, because some other Muslims consumes it. No Muslim can be stopped from liquor business because some other Muslim hates alcohol.
If both of them use democracy for their own reason or profit it is their smartness and right and not failure of Democracy, may it is exploitation of democracy in remote sense.
you can't hold responsible one act or individual for another. This reason is not fair.

However, Muslim Taxi Driver can not refuse to carry any Muslim or non- Muslim for reason he has a bottle of liquor in his baggage, as he is not forced to drink it. Teller can not refuse to make bill for a list of items just because if has wine in that list. Unfortunately, that is happening, drivers have refused to carry passengers. Even if there are not many cases, but every single such incident is setback to democracy, will and act to impose, subjugation and passive Jihad.

Additionally, this will tear the democracy texture, Sikh may refuse passenger carrying cigar, Hindu Beef, Jew pork.
But why should property of Government be burnt in Kashmir because some one in US has (not) burned the Koran. Why should twin tower be attacked because some one is trying catch Laden in Af-Pak.

Why should Christians be prosecuted, victim child of Rape be stoned to death, those who say humans are unfair to Jihadis have to explain this.
www.jhatka.org explains about Halal Jihad.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".