|
ONE of the
defining and a peculiar characteristic of a secular society is
the absolute denunciation of any form of relationship between
the use of force and religion, no matter how tenuous the link.
Yet, organised violence inflicted by secular states; the West
in particular is tolerated, justified and often encouraged. A
potent example is the needless bombing of the civilian
populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons.
The ‘peace’ loving secular West celebrated the occasion rather
than showing any kind of remorse. General Curtis LeMay, then
commander of the US Strategic Air Commander, commented: “If
we’d lost the war I would have been indicted for war crimes”.
This is not an attempt to defend or attack religion but to
state the matter as it manifests in the real world. Two of the
largest wars in history, centuries of colonisation, slavery
and genocide, the use of the lethal nuclear bombs, not to
mention the recent fabricated war on Iraq are all products of
secular (Western) nations. Simultaneously, these nations are
preaching the immorality of associating religion with the use
of force! That raises the question, what is the underlying
criteria that makes the distinction between religious and
secular states using force which may led to violence as a
means to achieve their respective objectives. NB: Criticism of
the West is purely from a geo-political perspective, there are
many people form the West who have taken the vanguard in
addressing and criticising their governments.
The negative attitude towards associating religion with the
use of force or violence can be attributed to European history
where secularism originated. Religious institutions in the
pre-secular era inflicted repression and violence, from the
medieval crusades, sectarian wars, and suppression of
knowledge, witch burnings to the barbaric inquisitions. This
is odd considering that the central message of Christianity is
one of ‘love’, as the preachers extol ‘love you enemies’ and
‘turn the other cheek’. The traumatic experience which
Christian Europe has suffered is reflected in its attitude
towards religion in general. Islam has had to bear the full
brunt of this reactionary emotional response. In sum,
‘religion’ today is judged according to Europe’s trauma at the
hands of Popes and Priests.
Consequently, the West redefined religion (Christianity) as
being absolutely benign, passive and a matter for the
individual to accept or reject. Therefore, the use of state
apparatus to enforce religion has been portrayed as a
contradiction of ‘religion’ itself. This concept is now being
used against the tide of rising of Islam.
As for the secular West remaining indifferent towards the
violence inflicted, which increased in quantity and
qualitative terms, this can be primarily ascribed to the
increase in material prosperity and comfort arising from the
colonisation and the pillaging of other distant lands. The
scramble for Africa and the genocide inflicted upon Latin
America by the conquistadors are the most vivid examples.
Furthermore, in the absence of electronic mass media, the news
of the violence and suffering inflicted never reached the
ordinary masses, touching their conscience.
Whilst pursuing colonisation they found the obstacle of the
Islamic state. The colonialist nations (West) embarked upon a
programme of propaganda to dismantle the association of
military force (Jihad) with religion (Islam). Such propaganda
was extended to other areas like polygamy; all constructed on
the basis of its own historical experiences, their definitions
of ethics and inherent prejudices. This eventually developed
into a subject of research and study called ‘orientalism’. The
sole purpose was and is to undermine political Islam and
Jihad, thus facilitating the process of Imperialism.
The British even spawned the heretical sect, known as the
qadianis. Not surprisingly one of its (qadianism) main pillar
is to abrogate Jihad. All the Islamic conquests under the
Prophet Mohammed’s (SAW) personal guidance reinterpreted to
purely ‘defensive’ operations.
The neo-mods (Islamic ‘moderates’!) of today have adopted a
similar position on the issue of Jihad, capitulating under the
pressure of the Western intelligentsia and their ignorance.
Even a cursory examination of the expansion of Islam from
Prophet Muhammad (SAW) rule in Medina until the first thirty
years after his demise, shows the unquestionable expansion of
the Islamic state to Morocco, Syria, southern Russia and
India. If the expansion is to be explained as the result of a
series of ‘defensive’ wars, which is not only the apex of
intellectual dishonesty but demonstrates utter stupidity, and
lacking in common sense.
Post 9/11, Jihad has once again come under close scrutiny. The
term has been historically demonised by the Hollywood film
industry, the mass media including the filthy gutter tabloid
press. It is usually depicted as ‘wild irrational fanatics’
(Mujahideen) firing their Kalashnikovs, killing anyone
considered to be an infidel. Note, the usage of the term
‘Jihad’ and ‘Mujahideen’ had favourable exposure during the
Russian invasion of Afghanistan. This is no surprise, since it
suited the interests of the West. Thus, the usage of the term
is not devoid of ulterior political motives.
Similarly the Afghans battling against the Taliban were
described as Mujahideen. This is absurd, considering that,
Jihad by definition means battling against the forces of
non-Islam (Kufr) rather than against practising Muslims. It
has to be noted, is the Northern Alliances ‘Mujahideen’ are
composed of criminals, rapists, homosexuals, and of course
drug dealers - the very antithesis of Mujahideen.
The broadcast of the message of Shaikh Usamah Bin Laden
disappointed many of the anti-Islamic fanatics, in their zeal
to project an irrational fanatic waving his Kalashnikov and
threatening to kill all in site. Coming back to reality from
Hollywood fiction, Shaikh Usamah neither showed anger, nor
made stupid and ignorant (unlike President Bush and his
cohorts) statements, but appeared calm, humble and serene. The
message was clearly understood by the ordinary masses in the
Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike. In particular those
that have been the victim of American aggression. This is
something that CNN, FOX or the BBC dare not broadcast.
Another distinguishing feature is that one of honesty and
integrity, you may not agree with their viewpoint but they do
not lie and deceive their population for the sake of making
companies richer and in turn themselves (Halliburton and
Cheney, Chevron and Condoleezza etc.). People have
conveniently forgotten hypocrites like Bush who talk of
fighting for ‘freedom’, avoided all military service during
the Vietnam War. Prescott Bush, his grandfather made a good
deal of money dealing with the Nazis, when young American and
British soldiers were dying in Europe. In contrast Shaikh
Usamah Bin Laden personally engaged in the battlefield and
sacrificed his vast wealth, instead of squandering it by
building opulent palaces.
Jihad can be both defensive and offensive, preferably by the
Islamic state. At times, the distinction between the two modes
of operation is blurred, depending on the political and
military situation. At present it may be academic to discuss
offensive Jihad, as the Islamic state does not exist in the
world today. In addition the Muslims are facing an onslaught
in their own lands, but nevertheless, it is worth examining it
briefly to clarify some of the misconceptions.
Offensive Jihad
The Islamic state reserves the right to use military force
against foreign states that engage in persecuting Muslims or,
preventing the spread of Islam within their lands. Note, in
principle there is no concept of forceful conversion of
non-Muslims to Islam. Even today, there are non-Muslims in
most of the majority Muslim countries.
There is an enormous amount of deliberate scare mongering in
the Western mass media and from the secular
Muslim-intelligentsia depicting Jihad as a means to convert
non-Muslims to Islam. However, one has to consider the fact
that Christianity was involved in forceful conversion e.g.
Spanish inquisition, and centuries of false propaganda has
contributed towards some level of knee jerk reaction from the
West. Nevertheless, one cannot deny the fact that the advanced
‘scientific’ West is still medieval in its attitude when it
comes to assessing Islam.
There is a very significant and sharp distinction between
offensive Jihad and colonialist occupational aggression. The
sole purpose of Islamic conquests is to implement Islam, not
to engage in empire building where the end justifies the
means. The motive is not profit, subjugation or any other form
of material benefit. This is why conquered nations often took
the flag of Islam and continued with the expansion of the
Islamic state e.g. Berbers and Mongols.
The above principles, coupled with other textual evidences,
confirm that ‘first strike’ using ANY type of weapon upon
civilians or non-combatants is prohibited according to Islamic
law. Furthermore, it actually defeats the whole purpose of
Jihad. Which is to convey (not to convert by force) Islam to
non-Muslims rather than engage in their annihilation, e.g.
using nuclear weapons. Such behaviour can only be expected
from bloodthirsty criminals and state terrorists. So examine
the history of who has used such weapons and pronounce your
judgement.
In contrast the war waged by the US, Europe and the Zionist
entity are primarily against defenceless civilian populations.
Palestinians have no state or an army. Economic sanctions and
the needless massacre of a retreating army and civilians on
the road to Basra, during the first Gulf war are clear war
crimes. Hiroshima and Nagasaki qualify as the apex of state
terrorism, as is the bombing of Dresden and Tokyo. Where
populations were burned alive using incendiary bombs, as
opposed to the gassing of civilians by the Nazis.
Further evidence of the war mongering nature of the West is
the recent announcement by Bush to acquire mini-nukes and
deploy ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons. Bear in mind, only when
these weapons are in non US/US-sponsored hands, do they become
WMD. We find the US proclaiming peace and attempting to disarm
other nations selectively. In addition US bases are dotted all
over the globe, this is being sold as ‘defensive’ measures.
This is clearly indicative of US state terrorism increasing in
the future.
Defensive Jihad
As for defensive wars, which is the case in places like
Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Iraq. Which is a right
that is recognised universally, as well as in Islamic law.
Even under such circumstances the Muslims are not
automatically allowed to retaliate against non-combatants
(civilians) except in just retribution. If the US is bombing
our cities, than the Islamic state or the Muslims reserve the
right to hit US cities in just retaliation. The non-combatants
(civilians) within the US must move to halt the crimes of its
government. Otherwise they become complicit by their silence
and inaction.
If Iraq, ruled by an unelected dictator could be punished
collectively then by greater reasoning, any democratic states
can also be punished collectively for the crimes of their
government. Therefore, the inhabitants of Basra has every
right to drop cluster bombs on the UK in retaliation, as the
war has been proven to be based on clear lies or faulty
‘intelligence’. Similarly, the Japanese have the right to nuke
the cities of the US for their war crimes in 1945.
The Western intelligentsia must move on from its infantile
moaning about 9/11. Its claim of being an innocent victim is
far from the truth. The eminent journalist, John Pilger
referred to this point the day after 9/11. The casualties are
insignificant in comparison to those inflicted upon the
Islamic world prior and post 9/11. The inherent racist nature
of the West and in particular the US causes them exclusively
to focus on white American lives. Therefore, the civilian
casualties in both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being
totally ignored.
9/11 was clearly a retaliatory response to the crimes
committed by the various US regimes and its forces, during the
last fifty years. This has been repeated once again by the
fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Even at individual
levels, soldiers are committing all sorts of brutality and
oppression. Only recently a CNN video showed cheering US
soldier shooting a wounded Iraqi man. So much for the bravado
of ‘the all American hero’.
Conclusion
An ongoing war would only harm both parties (Islam and the
West). The West has the resources and the ability to examine
the current conflict objectively but that can only be achieved
by removing the wall of prejudice that it has built up over
centuries. In addition, all the racist and moneymaking war
mongerers posing as neo-cons or hawks should be removed.
The West cannot continue to pretend waging defensive wars
whilst its military bases are in the Islamic world. If the US
truly seeks an understanding with the Islamic world, surely
the removal and closure of these bases should be a start. This
is not rocket science, as even a school child knows
instinctively not to pick a fight with the strongest boy in
the class, unless he is compelled to do so for sheer survival.
Today, the Palestinians are suffering horrendous casualties
from the heavily US-armed Zionist Jewish forces, this scenario
is repeated through out the Islamic world. Perhaps Americans
should bear this mind when they ask “why”, after 9/11. The
West must face up to its crimes against humanity, recognise
its duplicity of lecturing the world about its higher ‘moral’
principles, which it does not uphold itself. Bush’s rants
about democratisation sit uncomfortably with his own
‘election’ results! Common sense dictates you cannot expect
adulterers like Clinton and Major to teach others about
morality. Nor can you expect chicken hawks like Bush, Rumsfeld
and Wolfowitz to demonstrate bravery and courage. Most
certainly it does not befit America to have such people
running its country. In the same light peace cannot be
expected from mass murderers like H. Kissinger, H. Truman, W.
Churchill, A. Hitler, D. McArthur and G. Bush.
The writer is a Technical
Director and a Graduate in Chemistry from London University.
He is currently based in the United Kingdom.
© 2004 Yamin Zakaria
|
![PakistanTimes [PakistanTimes.net]](times2_files/sidelogo.JPG)
