Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Jihad versus State Terrorism

Expand Messages
  • ummyakoub
    Jihad versus State Terrorism Yamin Zakaria cdlr.net One of the defining and a peculiar characteristic of a secular society is the absolute denunciation of any
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 2, 2004
      Jihad versus State Terrorism
      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 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, inherent prejudices and
      self-righteous arrogance. 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 Muhammad'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, 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

      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 the overwhelming majority Muslim countries.
      Even Satan-worshippers are still in Iraq!! (Remember the forced
      conversion of pagans to Christianity in "Christian" Europe!)

      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: (1) to convey
      (not to convert by force) Islam to non-Muslims and (2) to bring human
      beings under a just and equitable system of government, 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 Israel, the cancerous
      Zionist entity in Palestine, 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 'regular'
      bombing 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, equitable and balanced
      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 the necessity of reason, a fortiori, 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 and/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 wasp Americans (wasp = white anglo-saxon
      protestant) 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 enforced 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'.


      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 from position of power and influence.

      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

      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 great country. In the same
      light peace cannot be expected from mass murderers and war criminals
      like H. Kissinger, H. Truman, W. Churchill, A. Hitler, D. McArthur,
      Bush (senior), Bush (junior) and Blair.

      Yamin Zakaria

      London, UK




      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.