Those who take to guns could do so due to deprivation, suppression, or historical legacy. The Afghans have lived through violence for centuries, by the Mughals, the Russians, their own people, so they have always had to fight for freedom... we cannot take away the context. But they legitimised it by using jihad, a religious sanction, so they could be seen as mujahids, fighting for Allah. And you cannot say there is nothing concrete.

Jihad is misused by fundamentalists. The Quranic meaning is not meant for war at all, in the sense of killing.

I am not an individualist in the Western sense. Collectivism can become oppressive when it tries to dictate; the rights of the two should not clash.

I was told by my father, who was a priest, that it was the basic duty of a Muslim to establish peace on earth... I soon came to the conclusion that it was not religion but misuse of religion and politicising of religion, which was the main culprit.

Weapons are less harmful than words.

What is religion? I want to remove the chaff from the grain. For me it is not what it is for the common people. If you take away certain social customs, they think you have taken away religion. For me it means purifying it.

Quran says do not abuse others' gods, they will abuse Allah. But most people do not believe in this... they feel their way is the only right one. This is to maintain religious hegemony.