veiled4allah: Islamic non-violence veiled4allah: Islamic non-violence1. For Islam, the problem of violence is an integral part of the Islamic moral sphere. 2. Violence, if any, used by Muslims must be governed by rules prescribed in the Qur‘an and Hadith.As this list makes clear, the authors particularly focus on using non-violence as a tactic where violence cannot be used without violating the Islamic rules of war. The particular example given is nuclear weapons and other modern technologies of war (the book was written in 1986) but it can be applied more broadly. For instance, if suicide bomb attacks on civilians are the only means of armed resistance open to the Palestinians, they must remain true to Islam by turning to non-violence instead of using tactics that God has forbidden.
3. If violence used cannot discriminate between combatants and noncombatants, then it is unacceptable in Islam.
4. Modern technology of destruction renders discrimination virtually impossible at present.
5. In the modern world, Muslims cannot use violence.
6. Islam teaches Muslims to fight for justice with the understanding that human lives — as all parts of God’s creation — are purposive and sacred.
7. In order to be true to Islam, Muslims must utilize nonviolent action as a new mode of struggle.
8. Islam itself is fertile soil for nonviolence because of its potential for disobedience, strong discipline, sharing and social responsibility, perseverance and self-sacrifice, and the belief in the unity of the Muslim community and the oneness of mankind.
All comments are copyright their authors
Here's who's pinging me:
The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in veiled4allah as of Mar 02, 2006:
View a list of all entries in veiled4allah
This entry has been tagged as covering the following subjects: fiqh nonviolence. The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs that share any of these tags:
A semantic analysis of this entry also suggests the following keywords to search for related content on: originally posted, western civilization, allah swt, modern world, fear west, violence, war, islam, muslims, israel, Muslims, Islam, Israel, weapons, civilians, people, because, think, fear, modern, world, palestinians, Palestinians, cannot, must
What links here: View a list of other entries in this blog (if any) that link to this entry
Or look generally for informational pages on my website tagged with fiqh, nonviolence
A semantic search of Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs suggests the following as the ten entries most closely related to this entry:
Check out other web pages (if any) that I've bookmarked via del.icio.us that share the same tags: fiqh, nonviolence
Explore reference materials from Answers.com about these subjects: fiqh, nonviolence
Read news stories at Common Times about these subjects: fiqh, nonviolence
View search results at gada.be metasearch service for these subjects: fiqh, nonviolence
Find books at Amazon.com on these subjects: fiqh, nonviolence
Check Waypath for blog entries generally related to this entry, or Technorati or Bloglines for blog entries that link to this entry.
Technorati tags: View blog entries, bookmarks and photos tagged by others with the same subjects as this entry: fiqh nonviolence
For external resources on the topic of this entry, you can run a search for its title islamic non-violence (Google, DayPop, Feedster) or keyword(s) fiqh nonviolence (Google, DayPop, Feedster). DayPop is a search engine similar to Google that focuses on searching news sources and blogs. Feedster searches blogs via RSS feeds.
Can't stress enough the real meaning(s) of "jihad". The non-Muslim/Islamic West has reduced it to such a tabloid term that we cannot be reminded too much that it's 1- not ony about "war" and 2- but one of many ethical tenets of the religion/culture/civilization.
Can't stress enough, indeed. Enough to close "the non-Muslim/Islamic West"'s eyes to the fact that "jihad=expansion of Islam's dominion by any means necessary" is the meaning that matters most.Terrorism is only part of the problem. Shari'a intoduced by means of gentle persuasion (yeah, right) still implies the death of the Western civilization. Well, I happen to be of the conviction that it is worth fighting for.
Reminds me of when Gandhi was asked for his opinion on Western civilization: "I think it would be a good idea."
Anyway, I'm thought I'd seen a post on Wahhabism not being the same as bin Ladenism -- can anyone point me to it?
Ths "drlhrb" gk rlly mss m....ll ths prn bt th "ftr f wstrn cvlztn" blh blh blh hw chldshly nrtc cn y gt.
f y'r wrrd bt th "ftr f wstrn cvlztn" rcnsdr nd qt cmmttng cts f stt trrr whch brd trrrst rtltn. Hw bt fxng yr wn "dmcrcy" whl bmbng thrs t sppsdly prmt t ? Frthng plgsts fr mpr lk y r th prblm, prmtng vlnc nd trrr whn t sts yr dsgns, scrmng lk btch whn y'r n th rcvng nd.
Wht hypcrt.
ts clld prn. "Drlhrb" snt cncrnd wth th "ftr f wstrn cvlztn," f tht trlly ws th cs, h wld b cllng fr srl t b bmbd t kngdm cm. Ths s bt kllng y-rbs fr thr prcs rsrcs nd mntnng glbl dmntn. Kp n mnd thy r th ns prmtng th "clsh f th cvlztns" ln t jstfy thr ggrsn gnst wk, mpvrshd thrd wrld ntns. Thy fndshly cll t "fll spctrm dmnnc."
Whts rnc s tht th mjrty f wht cnstts "wstrn cvlztn" s gnst mrcn stt trrrsm, nstd w hv mrdrs rght wng fntcs cstng thmslvs s "vctms" s thy "shck nd w" ntr ntns nt sbmssn. Thy r th tr htrs f frdm. Y Mslms cn cntn t bnd vr bckwrds cndmnng yrslvs fr ccptnc frm ths thgs, bt ssrd tht nthng y'll d s ngh fr thm. Dnt dld yrslvs nd mk stnd gnst th fscst scm.
Anyway, I'm thought I'd seen a post on Wahhabism not being the same as bin Ladenism -- can anyone point me to it?
It was actually something that I posted in a comment not a blog entry. Here's the link.Firstly, Islam came to shape the world, and not be shaped by the world. Hence the clash of western and capitalist ideology, is by its nature inevitable, (infact if you studied issues of creed in socialism, then you should know that clash of ideologies are inevitable). Take for example, the islamic economic system, if this alone was implemented correctly, it would lead to the downfall of not only American, but the whole stock market, free market, capitalist system. So we must also accept that this is the reality that we live in, and that there is a clash on both physical and mental level between the propogators (note, not ordinary non-muslims but the propogators) of kufr and the propogators of Islam. This is natural.
However, the American government along with British and other western and other governments have clearly shown their willingness when defeated in an intellectual battle, they will resort to brute force. An example of this is the arresting of non-violent dawah carriers in Egypt as well as Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and even on its own soil. But not only that but they declare openly war on many fronts, e.g. Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Palestine and Afghanistan.
From our ideology, we have been given a source for our actions in such circumstances, and even in every circumstance. We must go back to the Quran and Sunnah. And our prime example in lands like Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan should be referred to example of Badr, Uhud, Khybar and such like. And for places like Egypt, Pakistan, USA, we should refer to the Sunnah in Mecca (before hijrah)
now to say that "In the modern world, Muslims cannot use violence." is not in adherence to the islamic ideology but acceptance of defeat (i.e you have accepted a different reference point for your actions other then islam,, a similar statement may read "Muslims cannot pray because the moder world does not like prayer"), because we do not refer to the reality for our actions, rather we seek to understand reality in order to apply the correct rule from our reference point for our actions (Quran and sunnah)
To carry on with the same argument, my extended family membershe says muslim women should not wear the veil but hijab alone is sufficient because it looks scary to non-Muslims. On this point i would agree with her but not for the same reason she would give. Her argument is "let the reality decide which part of islam we carry and which we reject", however, the argument should be "is this fard, recomended, or a matter of choice".
To say that non-violence is the best method, is again, without any linking of the hukm to the relevant reality, is totally wrong. Otherwise anyone can say anything. To say that modern weapons cannot be used as it fails to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants,, Again we must refer to the example Khybar, when a seige was laid to the city. Just like the siege of Kybar, if a non-combatant wanted to save his family and himself he would be mroe then welcome to come out, but that descision lies with the non-combatant, not the army laying siege. (The descision of the army laying seige is what to do with the non-combatant if he decides to leave the area of war)... So in Israel to say there is such thing as "non-combatant" is to be absent-minded of the reality of the settlers who have full knowingly went into a land of war and even instigated it by destroying the houses of the local inhabitants. And then after that to say that a kid is killed due to a suicide bomber, and it is the bomber's fault is absurd, Rather the parents who have ample money and means are more responsible, then one who has no choice, as it has been forcibly been taken from him
Can't stress enough, indeed. Enough to close "the non-Muslim/Islamic West"'s eyes to the fact that "jihad=expansion of Islam's dominion by any means necessary" is the meaning that matters most.
Says you.But then, who are you, except an anoymous coward, Muslim-baiting paranoiac?
Whats ironic is that the majority of what constitues "western civilization" is against American state terrorism, instead we have murderous right wing fanatics casting themselves as "victims" as they "shock and awe" entire nations into submission. They are the true haters of freedom.
...And they will use their narrow definitions of Islam and Muslims as the scapegoat for "Western civ's" own internal failings. Hypocrites to the core.
A request: Can we keep the comments in this thread mostly on the topic of Islam and non-violence, please? Darulharb can be infuriating, and it's hard not to respond to him, but I'd like to leave discussion of him for a more appropriate place (maybe he needs his own blog). Thanks
You are absolutely right al-M I apologize, since I have been one of the main people taking pot-shots at darulharb (he makes it so easy! :])About Bacha Khan, I missed that thread and am glad for more info on him. Particularly current in light of what is going on in NWFP right now also. A note about history and how it records non-violence and Islam - Gandhi and Nehru we know, Bhutto we know and Jinnah we sometimes hear about once in a blue moon, but not so much about Khan. I wonder if it's because he ended up more on the Soviet side (we never learn much in the US about those persons)? or if Islamic non-vlolence (also in the person of post-Hajj Malcolm) simply gets underreported and the bin Ladens, Farrakhans and al-Hamza's sell more tabloids?
You have also still missed a point that I tried hard to stress. This is a question of tactics in legitimate struggles. Why are you so sure that violence is the only tactic that is allowed or acceptable? Do you think nothing can be accomplished except that way? Why are you unwilling to employ any other tactics?
Once more, try to actually read what I have written instead of responding to what you think I said.
What we are saying is that Allah SWT has set limits on the use of violence in the Quran and in the hadiths. And in our judgment certain types of attacks (I have chosen to focus on attacks that target civilians) or weaponry (they have chosen to focus on modern weapons and weapons of mass destruction) violate the limits set by Allah SWT. In order to avoid something we believe will lead to doing what Allah SWT has forbidden, we choose to refrain from using those types of attacks and weaponry or advocating their use.
You may disagree with our interpretation that these type of attacks involve violating the limits of Allah, and that is your right. But I don't see how you can deny that these limits exist, or why you are angry at us for advocating what we believe is the best way to avoid what Allah SWT has forbidden.
I want to say something else. I'm sure that you oppose the way that U.S. attacks on Iraq are killing innocent civilians. The U.S. is not in most cases deliberately targetting civilians, it is just that their weaponry is not precise enough to avoid hitting civlians when attacking military targets, or to avoid missing the military targets and hitting civilians instead.
If the use of this type of weaponry is immoral when America does it, it is immoral for Muslims to use it. If it is wrong for America to kill Muslim civilians, it is wrong for Muslims to kill American civilians.
Or conversely, if it is OK for Muslims to kill civilians, then it is OK for America to kill civilians. If it is OK for Muslims to use these weapons, it is OK for America to use these weapons.
Otherwise you are holding America to a higher moral standard than you demand of Muslims. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
I cannot think of how I could state any more clearly than I did in this blog entry that I renounce and condemn all violence against civilians and indeed all unjustified violence. I have further stated that it is possible to interpret Islam so as to support this position. Yet darulharb keeps insisting that all Islam is a threat and an enemy that must be defeated. It is completely beyond me how my words present a threat to anyone; therefore I can only assume that darulharb thinks that I am lying to hide my "real" intentions to destroy Western civilization. What basis he has to think that I am a liar, I don't know but I am getting sick of dealing with this attitude from him.
Now, now. What I said is that imposition of Shari'a would be the death of the West (and I stand by those words), not that you personally were getting secret directives from Riyadh to that effect. And I do not qualify Islam "as a whole" as the enemy, despite the unceasing drive of so many of its ostensible adherents -- like this "Umar" charmer here -- to prove otherwise with their words and actions.
"Driver": you are the one who's frothing and writhing, not me. Eliciting such a response from someone like you is a reward in itself.
"Laura": your GRAD SCHOOL-educated worldliness has dazzled me into complete reevaluation of my views. Not.
"Laura": your GRAD SCHOOL-educated worldliness has dazzled me into complete reevaluation of my views. Not.
Dar-Darling - change your views, or don't change them. I don't care.I agree with you that Quran and Hadith has set limits on these and indeed it is in the Quran where i must take my opinion from that even killing one innocent is like killing the whole of humanity and hence the death of civilians in Iraq is same as killing those in Hiroshima.
re: "The U.S. is not in most cases deliberately targetting civilians, " I would disagree as clearly shown in al-jazeera, and the use of MOAB which clearly even by its name indicates that it is a WMD and hence civilian casualties are not only going to occur, but expected. as for wether i would allow Pakistan's army to use its nuclear missile on a US army, that would obviously depend on wether the situation demands it, and also the damage to civilian casualties,, if for example, the whole of hindu fascist malitia took over half of india, and the damage is only limited to say annihalting a portion of that. I would allow it because of the example of siege of Khybar. But in another example, the damage would exceed that, then it would not only be a waste but maybe classed as against islam.
so in a nutshell because jihad is a fard on the armies sorrunding israel, an obligation, i do not see how you can advocate staying away from it on the basis of "fear" or "feeling",, just like salah can not be left out of "fear" or "feeling" that it will not be not be accepted or that "fear" you may transgress in prayer into a haram matter. Though this fear may make the issue a dislikened thing (like divorce), it does not overide the responsibilty of an obligation, nor does it compel one to stay away from it. A good example is eating chewing gum, it is not haram for a person to eat a chewing gum even though their is a chance (i.e. the ingredients names are not cleasr) that it may have animal fat. It would simply be an encourageable issue that a person persues the meaning of the ingredients to ensure that it is not animal fat.
your advocating non-violence instead and above jihad ok,, "Muslims need to view non-violence as a tactic or method in a legitmate struggle not as defeatism or an admission that the struggle is not legitimate." ok and again " Hence, by definition, nonviolent action cannot occur except by the replacement of passivity and submissiveness with activity, challenge, and struggle." ok,, now to see which one is best in which circumstance, we should refer to the example of the Prophet Muhammad (saw). ghazwa Badr did not occur for as "non-violent action" and yet in Mecca the Prophet (saw) not only advocated non-violent action, but even forbade, and made haram the non-violent action. and here we have two different rules for two different situations. I would argue, that jihad (which is synonomous with war in the practical history of Islam and only recently jihad idea is explored in its literrary term rather then shari term to ensure no struggle at all against neo-colonialism and hence naturally the term is used by neo-colonialist regimes as "struggle" more,,, and the west colonial masters, it suits them to use the idea as in original sharii meaning which is very interesting)physcally is a must in lands of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan etc. but not applicable in Egypt or Pakistan (against the regimes from within the people themeself)
and yes the West (by West i don't mean Western people, but Capitalists) is at war with islam, and has openly declared it, and furthermore implementation of Islam would lead to a demise of Capitalism as many aspects of societies have already crumbled (and often the government must break rules of capitalism , without abondoning it totally, a bit like patching up a sick man without giving him a cure) and often the government needs to implement contrary rules to keep thing togather (however implementation of Islam would lead to destruction of not only the society, i.e. the society will look up to Islam inshAllah rather then capitalism, but also economically, in terms of judiciary etc).
I have stated my position as clearly as I know how. My best is clearly not good enough, because I am unable to put things in the right way for you to understand me. I feel bad about this. But I also don't know what I can say further. We can't have a dialog if we don't understand each others' position. You do not understand mine. When you write it back to me you do not represent it correctly, and you make a whole bunch of assumptions about what I do and don't believe and advocate based on this incorrect understanding.
I have said what I am going to say. If at any time you come to a different understanding of my words, then I would be glad to continue this dialog with you. Until then, my apologies for making you waste your time reading something that is not clear to you.
I didn't mention "fear of west" but "fear" in general,, and in the examples i gave, "fear of Allah" is what i referred to as an excuse to leave an obligation. of prayer. (that is what i meant when i said, that "not be not be accepted or that "fear" you may transgress in prayer into a haram matter." I was referring to fear of Allah)..I am sorry i didn't make that clear enough..(some one does not chew a gum, or not chew it, due to fear of west,, do they?)
i told you, different ruling apply in different situations, i didn't say there is no such thing as non-violence. only I pointed out that it has nothing to do with jihad, nor on lands of jihad (iraq, afghanistan, palestine etc). but ofcourse non-violence (resurgence, uprising, or dawah, whatever you call it) must be done all the time, irrespective.. and political revival using non-violent means is another important ruling in lands whch have been colonised (i know this last has nothing to do with what you said, but i add bits to clarify or deliver my complete understanding to you)
my writing style on internet is not a lot to be desired, i knew thats,, so i know when i ramble on (often emotionally), ppl don't understand, it is my weakness actually, but its my style/habit, .. i can't help it...
This is their reasoning: The way that war is being made today (as we see with the U.S. in Iraq) necessarily involves the use of modern weapons. These weapons cannot be used without killing civilians because they spread destruction over such a large area. Muslims should not use weapons that will always kill civilians. Muslims should not engage in wars where they will be required to use these weapons. Since (and this is the key to the argument) modern wars cannot be fought without these weapons, Muslims can't engage in modern wars.
As I said, the key to their argument is that modern wars cannot be fought without these weapons. If this statement is not true, and it is possible to fight a war without the use of these weapons, then point 5 is no longer valid.
I don't know if their statement is valid. I think it is true that in order to win a war in the modern world, an army needs either to use these weapons or to engage in tactics like in Palestine which are also contrary to what Allah SWT has commanded (killing civilians).
I personally would not say that Muslims should avoid war entirely; I would say that they need to avoid certain tactics and certain weapons. I think this is a better way of putting it. The authors of the article believe that there are so many tactics and weapons that need to be avoided today that Muslims really have nothing left that is lawful for them to make war with, and that is why they make such a sweeping statement.
Again, if they are incorrect and it is possible to make war without using either forbidden weapons or forbidden tactics, then Muslims can make war.
Akhi, I think that you will get a better response from people if you use a less aggressive manner. It upset me when you seemed to me to be implying that I was making up rules out of fear of the West rather than trying my best to adhere to the Quran and Sunna. Any sincere Muslim would be upset at such a suggestion. Instead of making assumptions about what the other person believes or what their motivations are, ask questions to clarify your understanding first.
I truly believe that the first step to avoiding conflict is to understand each other. Because of this, I have come here to understand more about your beautiful faith that has persevered through the centuries. It is truly amazing at this time when so many are falling away from faith that so many are passionate about Islam.
My question is specifically regarding non-violence. You said that the Q'uran (I'm sorry if I misspell something.) condemns the use of violence against non-combatants, so where has the thought of violent resistance come from (we can't deny that it happens)? Is there actually text that would back this up? I'm curious about where the variation might lie. (Or is it, in your opinion, simply a misinterpretation?)
With regards text about not using violence against combatants, there are many texts, most notable for me is when the Qur'an says "He who kills one life, it is as if he has killed the whole of humanity" and another where it says "He who saves one life, it is as if he has killed the whole of humanity".Killing of innocent civilian life is murder. Any action which has been condemned and a punishment is mentioned for it in a definite text (either the Quran, or the authentic narrations about sayings, or life. of our Prophet Muhammad whom we refer to as an example or a role model). Any actions which has been condemned and a punishment mentioned in the definite text, then that action becomes forbidden totally without their being any room for interpretation. and their are many punishment in mentioned in the text about committing murder. Hence it is totally forbidden.
As for violent struggle, first you have to look who are these people, and why do they do this. There are valid reasons for struggle. Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan becoming targets of foreign invasion and occupation have become lands of struggle. Now physical Jihad which is allowed in this matter, because slaying an opposing army is not killing an "innocent" or a "civilian". And this lies in the resposibility of the capable armies. I do not accept there is such thing as a "Isreali civilian casualty" as the Isrealis come from area of stabilty like Russia, Lithuania, UK, and even USA to a land they full well know is in state of war i.e. Palestine. and they bring the children, and pretend they can have a normal life in land of war, in a futile attempt to prolong the war and support the war.
I think muhajabah would agree with me on all above points except the last about civilians. Hence our disagreement comes not from the text or its interpretation but our different understanding of reality about what is a non-combatant....But if this is the only disagreeing point ukhtee mujabah then I accept yours is a valid point. and i was wrong to argue with you earlier...
Umar, if there are no Israeli civilian casualties, does that mean there are no Palestinian ones as well? After all, they choose to live in a war zone. They could go elsewhere,to somewhere more peaceful. If they stay, they must be choosing to be combatants and therefore legitimate targets.Now physical Jihad which is allowed in this matter, because slaying an opposing army is not killing an "innocent" or a "civilian". And this lies in the resposibility of the capable armies. I do not accept there is such thing as a "Isreali civilian casualty" as the Isrealis come from area of stabilty like Russia, Lithuania, UK, and even USA to a land they full well know is in state of war i.e. Palestine. and they bring the children, and pretend they can have a normal life in land of war, in a futile attempt to prolong the war and support the war.
I don't find that a very palatable view. That would mean that there can be no peace, only one people's destruction or the other's.
People go to live where they choose, where they think they should, where they believe they have roots. To declare them combatants for merely doing that is to MAKE them combatants, and by default it is self-fulfilling. Bomb someone regularly and he will bomb you back or worse.
This is their reasoning: The way that war is being made today (as we see with the U.S. in Iraq) necessarily involves the use of modern weapons. These weapons cannot be used without killing civilians because they spread destruction over such a large area. Muslims should not use weapons that will always kill civilians. Muslims should not engage in wars where they will be required to use these weapons. Since (and this is the key to the argument) modern wars cannot be fought without these weapons, Muslims can't engage in modern wars...
I don't know if their statement is valid. I think it is true that in order to win a war in the modern world, an army needs either to use these weapons or to engage in tactics like in Palestine which are also contrary to what Allah SWT has commanded (killing civilians)...
Again, if they are incorrect and it is possible to make war without using either forbidden weapons or forbidden tactics, then Muslims can make war.
First, thanks for leading me to your comment about differentiating between bin Ladenism and Wahhabism.
Second, kudos for your excellent response to the question about whether there is one Islam for the past and another for the present. You made exactly the point that has been vaguely circulating in my mind; we are fighting different wars today than in the past and so our ethics and morality must evolve.
I posted recently on my weblog, disputing CS Lewis's views on Christian soldiers and how they should not be "long faced" about what they are doing if they are in a righteous war. What I forgot to mention in my post was that how modern war had changed what soldiers should feel.
In the old wars that were fought almost more like football games, with strong rules about what was fair and what was not, a soldier probably had no more reason to feel terrible about killing an enemy soldier than a football player should feel bad about bruising a player on the opposing team. Each side was equally outfitted and able to play fairly.
But now we are engaged in total war, where we must demolish not just the soldiers but the places where they might hide and their foodlines, etc. We saw this first, I think, in the U.S. Civil War, but even that did not prepare us for the kind of battles we had in WWII, as Germany bombed London and the Allies destroyed Dresden and nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
(T.H. White has a great discussion of the move from "foxhunting" war to total war in his Arthurian novel The Once and Future King.)
re@ I said that about foreignors, most Israelis are foreignors, All the jews living inside Jerusalem are foreignors.. Ariel Sharon is a russian, and all the presidents, of "isreal" are foreignors and have made consicencious descision to a land of war, where as the land belongs to the muslims who are being forcibly thrown out,, and hence them resisting and dying as a result is an innocent casuality
First of all, Ariel Sharon was born in Kfar Malal, in British Mandate Palestine, in 1928. Sharon BioWe could rehash history for a goooooooood long time here, but I don't see the point. I came to Israel as a child, and at the time I could visit Bethlehem alone, safely. I could buy from the merchants there, and used to send back gifts to friends that were made in an ancient and holy place. Since 1987, that has been impossible due to Palestinian violence and Israeli response.
We are in a land at war by the choices of both sides
And the sad paradigm of Israel:
If Palestinians were to put down their arms and declare peace, they would get the independence they desire.
If Israel were to put down it's arms and declare peace, within short order it would be a memory of a people that were pushed into the sea.
It saddens me that this is so, but the truth is evident in the speech and actions of all our neighbours.
To me a combatant is someone who is on active duty in the army. A person who has served in the past in the army but is no longer serving is not a combatant. A person who is in the reserves but has not done active service, only training, is not a combatant. This is the ordinary defintion of "combatant", I believe, and I have not seen any proof from the Quran or Sunna that another definition of "combatant" should be used instead.
Also, if the U.S. used such loose ways of defining "combatants", they could probably claim there have been very few actual civilian casualties in Iraq because most of those killed were "combatants". If Israel used that way of defining combatants, there would be no Palestinian civilians. Once again, I find it troubling that Muslims could hold America and Israel to a higher moral standard than they demand of other Muslims. What kind of thinking is that?
Fascinated from al-Quds, what you have said is a justification I have frequently seen for Israel's policies, namely that the Palestinian people as a whole are bent on the destruction of Israel and must be contained by whatever means are necessary. To be honest, I tend to be skeptical of claims about how an entire population "are". I don't see how anyone can make such a sweeping generalization. I also feel that if it were said about another group it would be thought racist or prejudiced, because sweeping generalizations about entire groups of people often are, and therefore it also smacks of racism to say it about Palestinians. Are there no other voices that are speaking up and its just that nobody is listening to them? Are there not people who don't speak up but they disagree with those voices that shout the loudest?
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that you are literally correct, how much are their feelings due to Israel's policies of occupation? And if Israel stopped destroying homes, destroying crops and farms and livelihood, putting entire cities under strict curfew, making it impossible for people to travel without being humiliated at an endless series of checkpoints, and in general punishing the entire Palestinian people for the acts of someone them, not to mention constantly planting more settlements on Palestinian land and enforcing more military rule to protect those settlements, well maybe just maybe if Israel let the Palestinians have their basic human dignity, the Palestinians would stop hating them so much. Israel's current policies will never bring an end to terrorism. All they do is incite more Palestinians to become terrorists. It has not worked, it is not working, and it will not work. Hatred, violence, and terrorism are its only fruit.
Oh and Kate, people who have been oppressed and crushed down will tend to fight back in any way they can, even if they have to do something wrong in order to do so. And it's a natural human tendency to want to justify our actions as correct and as being in accordance with whatever principles we follow. That I think is where most of this comes from.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that you are literally correct, how much are their feelings due to Israel's policies of occupation? And if Israel stopped destroying homes, destroying crops and farms and livelihood, putting entire cities under strict curfew, making it impossible for people to travel without being humiliated at an endless series of checkpoints, and in general punishing the entire Palestinian people for the acts of someone them, not to mention constantly planting more settlements on Palestinian land and enforcing more military rule to protect those settlements, well maybe just maybe if Israel let the Palestinians have their basic human dignity, the Palestinians would stop hating them so much. Israel's current policies will never bring an end to terrorism. All they do is incite more Palestinians to become terrorists. It has not worked, it is not working, and it will not work. Hatred, violence, and terrorism are its only fruit.
Al-M, I agree with you on this point. Current Israeli tactics, especially since Sept 2000 are not solutions. They are Israeli responses to fear. In the short term they are dangerous, in the long term destructive. But we do not see room for another option currently.
The policies that you mentioned were all being either gradually reduced or stopped entirely in many areas of Palestinian population, as part of the ongoing peace process. Some governments pushed further on this, some wavered, but the direction was definite. And then, after what is, at least in Israel, perceived as being a very significant offer towards the Palestinians,i.e Camp David etc., Israel found itself under attack again. Not the sporadic terror of getting on a bus in Jerusalem and hoping it wasn't the one to explode, but the regular terror of massed, organized attacks commanded by the Palestinian leadership. A "Second Intifada". The past 3 years have pushed the majority of Israelis from moderate-left wing/center to center/moderate-right-wing, as is seen in both the polls and the elections.
The original Intifada forced Israel to acknowledge and deal with the Palestinians politically. The second one has forced Israel to the realization that while it has spent the past 13 years moving slowly, sometimes glacially towards peace, the Palestinians have not.
We don't know what to do about it, so we're fighting the war we're given.
As to your first point, Palestinian & Israeli are both political movements, which are generally characterized by common goals, actions and intentions, even if those do not represent all within that group. In the case of nations the characteristics are necessarily more diffuse then in specific political movements or individuals. The Palestinian consensus seems to be the destruction of Israel, as seen by the growing support for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP and genocide bombings in general. For an example, I believe saying "America is attacking/liberating Iraq" would be both a generalization and a true statement.
We could talk about how generous Barak's deal really was, and whether Israel's continued settlement building and other policies during the Oslo period gave the Palestinians any trust that Israel was genuinely committed to peace. We could look at how bad the second intifada was when it started and how much worse it has gotten over time; perhaps things might have gone differently if Israel had responded in a different manner at the start (obviously, things would have gone differently if the Palestinians had chosen a different course). And on a related note, what the views of the Palestinians were at that time and how their support for Hamas and its ilk then compares to the support now. Were the Palestinians (I mean the population as a whole) moderate at that time and have been driven to extremism by Israel's harsh policies? You seem to be assuming that they felt that way all along and were just hiding it before. That is not my sense of it.
We could also talk about whether Israel's actions are purely in response to Palestinian actions or whether at times Israel takes a provocative action when there has been relative quiet and provokes a new bombing. I have come to believe that there are extremists on both sides who will do anything to sabotage the peace process; it is not just the Palestinians.
And there are many other topics as well. This debate is endless.
P.S. "Genocide bombing" is a new one. I assume that it differs from other types of bombing because of the presumed genocidal intentions of the bomber. I prefer to stick with the term "suicide bombing" which differentiates it on a purely factual basis, that the bomber kills himself as well as his victims, whereas regular bombers kill only their victims. At least it's better than "homicide bomber". All bombers are attempting to commit homicide. Duh.
srl s trrrst stt, wth th 6th mst pwrfl rmy n th wrld, wth stckpl f vr 200 nks, s whs gng t psh thm nt th s, Plstnns wth stns nd scd bmbrs ?! n bsrd nd dctfl myth prmtd by nrtc jws nd thr spprtrs n rdr t jstfy vr 5 dcds f wrs, hmn rghts vltns, lnd grbs nd nnxtn ncldng thr prxy wr gnst rq. t s clnl sttlr stt wth n cnstttn r dfnd brdrs, whch blvs n "rtz srl" cncpt f xpnsn.....thy r thrt t wrld pc nd stblty.
vry dg hs ts dy, nd thrs wll sn b vr.
Israel is a terrorist state, with the 6th most powerful army in the world, with a stockpile of over 200 nukes, so whos going to push them into the sea, Palestinians with stones and suicide bombers ?! An absurd and deceitful myth promoted by neurotic jews and their supporters in order to justify over 5 decades of wars, human rights violations, land grabs and annexation including their proxy war against Iraq. It is a colonial settler state with no constitution or defined borders, which believes in "eretz israel" concept of expansion.....they are a threat to world peace and stability.
Driver, you just said it. "Neurotic Jews - a threat to world stability - their day will soon be over" (to paraphrase) -- if many held views like that about you, wouldn't you be neurotic??Every dog has its day, and theres will soon be over.
Al-M, the topic is indeed endless and can end up being discussed in a loop. "We did, therefore they did OR they did, therefore we did". I can just try to listen to your views and try to show you my viewpoint, so at least one can separate how I think from the mythology of "how Israelis think". I do agree that there are extremists on both sides. I think ours work on the basis of procedural impediments of peace rather then direct violence, due in part to having to conform to Israeli society which would find personal violence an unacceptable option.
Bombers - they choose targets by numbers not military value, the more civilians the better, and if they could get them all they'd by overjoyed. So I feel the appeallation is appropriate.
To tell you the truth, Fascinated, I'm of two minds about your apparent patience in dealing with that loathsome "driver" piece of garbage. On the one hand, I sort of admire your sangfroid. On the other hand, I can't help thinking that "being winked at" is hardly an appropriate response to such a disgusting America-, Israel- and Jew-hating worm.
Something tells me I might be censored, though... So I guess, you do your best, considering the venue.
I've noticed that all your comments so far are attacks on Israel and on some Israel-supporters in this thread. Do you have something to say about any of the other issues we've discussed here? About the original topic of this thread: Islamic non-violence.
Oh, and darulharb, you've only been "censored" once and believe me you're the person I would most like to ban. The post that was deleted used obscene language. Everything else you've written has remained, no matter how offensive I think your ideas are. So let's cut the whining, OK?
Responding to hate with hate is unproductive. I can & will defend myself and my people as necessary, but see no need to lower myself to the level of insults.
Anyway, why get angry when you can laugh?
I wonder if non-violence is effective if your opponent knows that you are not holding violence in reserve as a tool.
To clarify: suppose two countries each have a nuclear weapon. However, one country is strongly committed against using the nuke, and there is a movement to dismantle it. Does knowing this put the other country at an advantage?
I saw Sen. Kerry speak last night, and he defended his decision to vote for the resolution authorizing force last fall on the basis that Bush needed to have the resolution to pressure Saddam to disarm. (I have my doubts that anyone ever believed in peaceful disarmament to begin with -- considering the bizarre way sanctions were imposed and enforced, with no punishment of companies/ governments that sold weapon-making materials to Iraq -- but let's pretend that they did believe in it.) Can a nation or a people that is known to be committed to nonviolence achieve its goals in this world?
Can a nation or a people that is known to be committed to nonviolence achieve its goals in this world?
I do not know of any that have so far. Unfortunately, modern politics are still largely the politics of force, which is one of the reasons the US is so mighty in the world. They have been inculcated with the need to project power worldwide and have the will & money to do that.Even the Swiss, the classic neutrals, rely on their army and militias and the training they have given every adult male for the past 800 years to uphold their neutral status.
I'm honored.
There's also the question of whether you've got the weapons to say "I can defend myself if you attack me" or whether you're using them to back up your demands to somebody else to do something.