10-12-2004, 02:50 PM #1Associate Member
- Join Date
- May 2004
israel the cause of all US problems in mideast
and it will remain as so so long as the US supports Israel with its DAILY killings and onslaught of palastinian children/ppl. here is an article that i fully agree with, although the points are very sad and shocking it is none the less INEVITABLY correct.
By Yamin Zakaria
“And fight them on until there is no more persecution” The Qur'an – 2:193
Retribution is the natural response to an onslaught. It is a right of all human beings, under the principle of “an eye for an eye”. The critics of this notion often tend be the ones lecturing the victims, which is easy when you are not the one who has lost the eye! In fact, it sounds rather hypocritical to demand forgiveness from the victim instead of demanding the cessation of hostility and reparation from the aggressor.
Similarly, the sincere but confused Muslim moderates and the malicious moderates have largely placed the blame on the real victims, by asking them to cease the resistance under the flag of ‘peace’ but without any justice. They have hardly accounted the aggressors who are busy ravaging and pillaging the Islamic lands. With the final confirmation of the absence of WMDs, something that most people already knew, the criminality of Bush and Blair is clear but who will try them and demand war reparations for Iraq?
Rather than confronting the real aggressors, these moderate clowns have started to reinterpret Jihad and other well-established Islamic notions that run contrary to Western interests. Like the Qadianis, they construe Jihad to be largely defensive by choosing certain Islamic texts and ignoring or misinterpreting others. Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of Islamic history would know that the borders of the Islamic state expanded from Medina to Spain, Syria, Southern Russia, China and India. This expansion is explained as the result of a series of ‘defensive’ wars, which is not only the apex of intellectual dishonesty but also demonstrates stupidity.
Even on the notion of defensive Jihad there is much duplicity. The moderates profess their support for the resistance but not their methods! However, they do not provide a practical alternative given the huge disparity of forces. So what does their ‘support’ mean? This is like a dog chasing its tail! And when they are taken to task by the media, instead of confronting the criticisms and the critics they capitulate. Unashamedly, some have even adopted the terms like ‘terrorists’ or ‘extremists’. One can see undeclared ******** between the treacherous moderates and the state terrorists. In contrast, Claire Short, former cabinet member of the Blair government in the UK and a non-Muslim, categorised the Mujahideen as resistance fighters with a genuine cause.
Given the absence of the Islamic state (Khilafah) and most of the Islamic countries are under direct or indirect occupation, it is rather academic to discuss the notion of offensive Jihad. Hence, let us analyse the evidences pertaining to defensive Jihad.
a) Who can declare defensive Jihad?
Many of the moderates since 9/11 have claimed that no one can declare Jihad in the absence of a legitimate Islamic ruler (Khalif). This was not due to sudden discovery of the need for the Khilafah and the Khalif after remaining silent on these issues for so long. It is an indirect attack at the behest of the crusaders, on Usamah Bin Laden and to discredit his call to resist the crusaders. However, as mentioned earlier retribution is a right of all human beings, thus it is universally recognised. It is also part of his instinctive nature for self-preservation. Therefore, no legal permission is required to declare a defensive Jihad; its requirement is self-evident from the reality. You don’t need an edict (‘fatwa’) when your house is on fire, unless you are mentally retarded!
b) Options in Defensive Jihad
“And if you punish, then punish with the like (bi-mithli) of that you were punished but if you show patience, that is indeed the best (course) for those who are patient” The Qur'an 16:126
The abovementioned verse along with numerous other evidences ‘permits’ the Muslims to defend themselves by inflicting a proportionate level of response. The word used is “mithli”, which means similar, not excessive. Hence, acts like the needless genocide of the Germans in Dresden or the use of the Atomic bombs in Japan when it was clearly on its knees, preparing to surrender, are clearly not permitted.
However, if one is able to forgive the aggressors then that is the recommended option. This is however, should be the sole prerogative of the victim. The following verse also elaborates on the important notion of ‘retaliating’ in a similar manner.
c)Retaliation or Retribution
“The violation of the sacred month may be retaliated in the sacred month and for all sacred things there is the law of retaliation (Qisas); whoever then transgresses against you, transgress against him in a similar (bi-mithli) manner as he attacked you.” (Quran 2:191)
If an individual ‘citizen’ committed a crime, he or she can be punished by the law of equality (Qisas) after being tried by the courts and found guilty. However, this is not applicable in a war, where the culprits are not the individual soldiers but the entire nation that has authorised the war. The guilt of the invading army is self-evident from their actions; they are targeted in general and no trial is necessary for them.
So, how does this right to retaliate translate in the context of modern day warfare? There is no disagreement in engaging the army. However, what should be the response if civilian cities including schools, mosques and hospitals are attacked routinely as it happening in Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine? During Prophets (SAW) time armed conflict was confined to the battlefield between combatants. There were no F16s and B52 bombing indiscriminately, killing civilians or non-combatants.
The moderates and even some of the so-called radical groups are restricting this right of retaliation only to military targets, what they call combatants. In support of their argument they cite the incidence where the Prophet (SAW) instructed not to kill non-combatants, particularly women, children and the elderly in war. The argument is incorrect, as restricting to military targets would not constitute retaliation in a similar manner for the following two reasons:
•In state of war, the right to attack the military exists anyway, even when they are not actively engaging in combat. Hence, targeting the army would not constitute retaliation. The enemy army is targeted for complete annihilation or subjugation and no principle of proportionality is applied here.
•Since the verse says retaliate in a similar manner (Bi-Mithli), hence one is permitted to hit the targets that are similar in nature. If they target our civilians we reserve the right to target their civilians in a similar manner. This is only acceptable in retaliation. As stated earlier, the command of the Prophet (SAW) was in the context of the time when the enemies did not target the Muslim civilians indiscriminately.
Therefore, the general rule forbids the deliberate targeting non-combatants. This is definitely observed in offensive Jihad the purpose of which is to convey (not to convert by force) Islam to non-Muslims rather than engage in their annihilation, for example by using nuclear weapons. The use of such weapons or their equivalent can only be expected from bloodthirsty criminals and state terrorists. Examine the history and pronounce your judgement.
In defensive Jihad the same ruling applies however, if our non-combatants are targeted, we reserve the right to target theirs in a similar manner, provided it is not excessive like the bombing of Dresden. Therefore, if 9/11 was undertaken by those brave 19 Mujahideen they are clearly justified as the US has been bombing and killing our citizens en masse since 1991, some may argue since 1948 by its constant military and economic support to the illegitimate state of Israel (occupied Palestine).
Those who constantly cite the number of American and Israeli victims never explain the victims of their aggression that are far greater in magnitude. Are all human-life equal in value? Islam certainly upholds this; murder of a non-Muslim is the same as murdering a Muslim. Of course, for the chosen race or the chosen nation that is not the case. American and British lives are worth much more; just examine the compensation paid to the victims of Lockerbie and to those in Iraq. Similarly, Talmudic law clearly states that a Jew can never murder a Gentile (Goyem). Surely, this is the real Fascist ideology, where as Islamofascists is a myth, created for propaganda.
If the Muslims are facing an imminent attack on a scale that threatens the lives of everyone, they are permitted to respond in a manner that would prevent from such a thing from happening. This is an Islamic obligation, not just a right. Hence, they would be obliged to retaliate even if it means bombing their towns and cities as a means to halt and deter further aggression.
Therefore, restricting retaliation to military targets would not be practical as ones survival could be at stake, considering the track record of the US in using Nuclear, Chemical and its near equivalent weapons. A further difficulty in restricting to military targets is that often they may be out of reach due to the huge disparity in forces. For example the high altitude B52 bomber is not within the range of most of the surface to air missiles (SAM).
Some are resorting to sentimental arguments, that we as Muslims should not target their civilians, as we should not go down to their level. This is the utterance of the foolish - a real fool when one is prepared to watch the destruction of the civilian population, whilst feeling good about his superior ‘moral’ stance and ineffective response. Such types of people often live in their academic ivory towers in distant lands rather than experience the reality of war, death and destruction.
“Against them make ready your strength (forces) to the utmost of your power, including the steeds of war to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides whom you may not know” (Quran 8:60)
The abovementioned verse commands the Muslims to build up their strength and security to deter the enemy from contemplating attacks. Instead the various Muslims countries are capitulating to the various international organisations that are run like the mafia. So, to deter the enemy, it means nukes for nukes. However, as many foolish individual are saying the use of indiscriminate powerful bombs are un-Islamic. In that case it would not be much of a deterrent to posses the weapons and then to inform your enemies you will not use them!
Deterrence therefore requires that we be permitted to arm ourselves with similar if not more powerful weapons than the ones possessed by the enemies. Indiscriminate and overwhelming power means inevitable mass civilian casualties. In the course of the battle, using such weapons would make it impossible to restrict to military targets, aimed at combatants only. Hence the argument would be rendered academic.
10-12-2004, 02:57 PM #2Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2001
- The Resistance
i personally wouldn't say israel is responsible for all of americas problems in the middleeast but it is responsible for some of americas biggest problems also america should be responsible for its own mistakes just like england who also does alot of bad things.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)