Jihad versus State Terrorism
06-06-2008
By Yamin Zakaria
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 has 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 pillars is to abrogate Jihad. All the
Islamic conquests under the Prophet Mohammed’s (SAW) personal guidance
reinterpreted to purely ‘defensive’ operations.
Like the Qadianis, 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, this is not only the
apex of intellectual dishonesty but demonstrates utter stupidity, and lacking in
common sense. In any case, the distinction between defensive and offensive can
also be vague.
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 practicing 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 who have been
the victim of American aggression and hence in places like Latin America he is
popular. 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 judgment.
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. The populations were burnt alive by incendiary bombs.
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, this is the case in places like Palestine, Afghanistan,
Chechnya and Iraq. This 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’, more like obese cowards prefer
to shoot and bomb from a distance.
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 warmongerers 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.
Submitted by a Mujahid