Jihad versus State Terrorism
- Jihad versus State Terrorism
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
"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
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
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.
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.
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.
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW