Mujaheddin Theologically Justified Using Nuclear Weapons On United States

20130720-125658.jpg

The Islamic stance on the usage of weapons of mass destruction against Non-Muslims” has just been published in English for why the use of catapults allow the use of nuclear weapons to defeat the United States. Welcome to the justification of mass genocide by Taliban and Al-Qaeda Islamist thinkers of up to ten million Americans.

The writer is Saudi based scholar Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad al-Fahd who has form here. Though this fatwa is from 2003, the translator of the English edition on 20 July 2013 makes clear how to use the publication right now:

I believe this book will be an eye opener for many as to how and why certain practices in Islamic warfare are permitted and demonstrate that Al Qaeda is indeed on the method of the majority of eminent scholars of the Ummah.

All subsequent quotes are al-Fahd.

At the outset the use of 20th century weaponry does not mean we look at 20th century thinking about the use of nuclear weapons, or just war ethics of doing so. The concept of international law does not matter – only sharia, Koran and Hadith. Great play is made of castle siege warfare that justified scorching the earth and poisoning the water well.

Welcome to the problem of using 7th/8th century thinking for first strike use of nuclear weapons. There is no mention that mutually assured destruction would be the response. No mention of how the United States would respond at all. The assumption seems to be that to use such a weapon will mean total victory. Al-Fahd claims the west uses WMD only in context of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

They ignore the use of the term Weapons of Mass Destruction by the Archbishop of Canterbury to describe the aerial bombardment in the Spanish Civil War in 1937. Or the more recent use of the term for the pressure cooker device used in the Boston bombing. To the writer a catapult = WMD therefore a nuclear weapon is equivalent. Numbers of people killed over time are morally the same as numbers killed instantly for al-Fahd. Even the unintentional killing of women and children is justified at one point by looking at an inability to wash appropriately in a verse.

Note this is not just about expelling invading forces from the land. It is also about destroying the culture and ideology of the non believers.

Sometimes against the Kuffaar in order to defend Muslim lands and stop the spreading of the evil of the Kuffaar, there is no choice but to impose mass destruction on them. Therefore if in this situation the leaders and think tanks of the Mujahideen decide that in order to get rid of the evil of the Kuffaar the only way is to use WMD then in the light of advice of experienced Mujahideen the use of such weapons will be permitted.

How many can they justify killing in a single attack?

Therefore if a bomb is dropped on Americans which kills 10 million of their people and the area of their land burnt is equal to the area of the lands of Muslims that was burnt, so it will be permitted and for its evidence one does not have to look further than “Ma’amla bil mithl”. Further evidences will be needed if we wish to kill Americans more than this figure!

In case anyone is in doubt that the book only advocates use of WMD if Muslims are threatened with mass ethnic genocidal cleansing:

Therefore in the problem being discussed here the same principle will be applied, that is if the Mujahideen reach this conclusion that without the use of WMD it is not possible to get rid of the problem of the Kuffaar, then the use of these weapons will be legal, even if in doing so all the Kuffaar are killed (meaning those whose intentional killing is permitted and also those whose killing is in reality forbidden).

In short if the ideas, belief and ideology could only ever be countered by use of nuclear weapons so be it – let alone opposing armed forces. No discussion is made of how to negotiate a just peace, or what options should be considered first. Once decided only way to victory is to deploy nuclear weapons than to fulfil jihad it is a duty to obtain such a weapon.

The war tactics that we have mentioned here are also for the same purpose…so as to break the enemy’s strength and resolve. To adopt these tactics is to fulfill the orders of Allah and not to go against them. Hence all these actions are a means to take revenge from the enemy and it is a source of reward.

Can two wrongs ever make a right? Here is some mischief to explain:

The second answer could be that all the jurists have a consensus on this rule: “When there is no choice but to adopt one of two creators of mischiefs then the lesser mischief is to be committed so that the bigger mischief can be avoided.” Since the greater cause for mischief, in the opinion of all the jurists, is that the Kuffaar staying on their Kufr and not coming under the Islamic Government as compared to their areas getting destroyed, hence the opinions of the jurists are in agreement over this point that when the Mujahideen do not have any other means to gain victory over the Kuffaar except the use of a method in which their women and children are killed with them, then it will be permitted.

However under normal conditions the prohibition of killing women and children will hold. This order is with regards to offensive Jihad and we have already quoted the Ahl e Ilm on this in the third chapter. The thing to ponder is that if just the Kuffaar’s holding onto their Kufr is worse cause of mischief than the destruction of their areas, then what will be the stance of Shariah on those Kuffaar who are not only firm on their Kufr but are also after the Muslim’s lands, their religion, their honor and their life and property!? The Ummah also has a consensus on this that the obligatory nature of defensive Jihad is much greater than offensive Jihad, therefore what is permitted in offensive Jihad is permitted due to the higher rank in defensive Jihad.

This is their jihad and killing anyone can be justified;

We have been ordered to do Jihad, to prove its obligation we have solid evidences and Muslims have fulfilled this obligation in successive eras, therefore we have to do Jihad either way. Now since it is unavoidable that some Muslims be killed along with the Kuffaar while the Kuffaar are targeted, hence it is permitted and Jihad will not be stopped due to fears of laying waste some Muslim lives.

David Cameron all the best negotiating with the Taliban – the end game is clear enough for the likes of them, Al-Qadea and those that agree with this Islamist theological thinking.

The picture is available for free download here.

ADDED: hat tip FJ @godleszyndicate

Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

Follow @JPSargeant78

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under British Politics, Philosophy, Religion

2 responses to “Mujaheddin Theologically Justified Using Nuclear Weapons On United States

  1. I have slightly edited the post as originally posted to include the translators quote, and because the edits were making the post look patchwork. This is how it originally read:

    The Islamic stance on the usage of weapons of mass destruction against Non-Muslims” has been published today as a book for why the use of catapults, snakes, scorpions, firestones and arrows justify the use of nuclear weapons to defeat the United States. Welcome to the justification of mass genocide by Taliban and Al-Qaeda Islamist thinkers.

    [Update: the writer is Saudi based scholar Sheikh Nasser bin Hamad al-Fahd who has form here]

    It gets stranger – the unintentional killing of women and children is justified at one point by looking at an inability to wash appropriately in a verse.

    At the outset the use of 20th century weaponry does not mean we look at 20th century thinking about the use of nuclear weapons, or just war ethics of doing so. The concept of international law does not matter – only sharia, Koran and Hadith. Great play is made of castle siege warfare that justified scorching the earth and poisoning the water well.

    Welcome to the problem of using 7th/8th century thinking for first strike use of nuclear weapons. There is no mention that mutually assured destruction would be the response. No mention of how the United States would respond at all. The assumption seems to be that to use such a weapon will mean total victory.

    They ignore the use of the term Weapons of Mass Destruction by the Archbishop of Canterbury to describe the aerial bombardment in the Spanish Civil War in 1937. Or the more recent use of the term for the pressure cooker device used in the Boston bombing. To the writer a catapult = WMD therefore a nuclear weapon is equivalent. Numbers killed over time one way are the same as numbers killed instantly.

    Note this is not just about expelling invading forces from the land. It is also about destroying the culture and ideology of the non believers.

    Sometimes against the Kuffaar in order to defend Muslim lands and stop the spreading of the evil of the Kuffaar, there is no choice but to impose mass destruction on them. Therefore if in this situation the leaders and think tanks of the Mujahideen decide that in order to get rid of the evil of the Kuffaar the only way is to use WMD then in the light of advice of experienced Mujahideen the use of such weapons will be permitted.

    How many can they justify killing in a single attack?

    Therefore if a bomb is dropped on Americans which kills 10 million of their people and the area of their land burnt is equal to the area of the lands of Muslims that was burnt, so it will be permitted and for its evidence one does not have to look further than “Ma’amla bil mithl”. Further evidences will be needed if we wish to kill Americans more than this figure!

    In case anyone is in doubt that the book only advocates use of WMD if Muslims are threatened with mass ethnic genocidal cleansing:

    Therefore in the problem being discussed here the same principle will be applied, that is if the Mujahideen reach this conclusion that without the use of WMD it is not possible to get rid of the problem of the Kuffaar, then the use of these weapons will be legal, even if in doing so all the Kuffaar are killed (meaning those whose intentional killing is permitted and also those whose killing is in reality forbidden).

    In short if the ideas, belief and ideology could only ever be countered by use of nuclear weapons so be it – let alone opposing armed forces. No discussion is made of how to negotiate a just peace, or what options should be considered first. Once decided only way to victory is to deploy nuclear weapons than to fulfil jihad it is a duty to obtain such a weapon.

    The war tactics that we have mentioned here are also for the same purpose…so as to break the enemy’s strength and resolve. To adopt these tactics is to fulfill the orders of Allah and not to go against them. Hence all these actions are a means to take revenge from the enemy and it is a source of reward.

    Can two wrongs ever make a right? Here is some mischief to explain:

    The second answer could be that all the jurists have a consensus on this rule: “When there is no choice but to adopt one of two creators of mischiefs then the lesser mischief is to be committed so that the bigger mischief can be avoided.” Since the greater cause for mischief, in the opinion of all the jurists, is that the Kuffaar staying on their Kufr and not coming under the Islamic Government as compared to their areas getting destroyed, hence the opinions of the jurists are in agreement over this point that when the Mujahideen do not have any other means to gain victory over the Kuffaar except the use of a method in which their women and children are killed with them, then it will be permitted.

    However under normal conditions the prohibition of killing women and children will hold. This order is with regards to offensive Jihad and we have already quoted the Ahl e Ilm on this in the third chapter. The thing to ponder is that if just the Kuffaar’s holding onto their Kufr is worse cause of mischief than the destruction of their areas, then what will be the stance of Shariah on those Kuffaar who are not only firm on their Kufr but are also after the Muslim’s lands, their religion, their honor and their life and property!? The Ummah also has a consensus on this that the obligatory nature of defensive Jihad is much greater than offensive Jihad, therefore what is permitted in offensive Jihad is permitted due to the higher rank in defensive Jihad.

    This is their jihad and killing anyone can be justified;

    We have been ordered to do Jihad, to prove its obligation we have solid evidences and Muslims have fulfilled this obligation in successive eras, therefore we have to do Jihad either way. Now since it is unavoidable that some Muslims be killed along with the Kuffaar while the Kuffaar are targeted, hence it is permitted and Jihad will not be stopped due to fears of laying waste some Muslim lives.

    All the best negotiating with them David Cameron – the end game is clear enough for the Taliban and those that agree with this Islamist theological thinking.

    The picture is available for free download here.

    ADDED: hat tip FJ @godleszyndicate

    Article written by John Sargeant on Homo economicus’ Weblog

    Follow @JPSargeant78

    [Updates since publishing: improved link to book, name of author and added mention of Al-Qaeda for al-Fahd is justifying either them or Taliban may use nuclear weapons. He has made such Fatwas before in 2003 but this book has been translated into English 20 July 2013]

  2. someone

    It is a strange fantasy for people who can not build a decent school, car, aircraft, or oil well on their own to become a nuclear threat. If they want to end their backward “civilization” that would be one way to do it. There would be no “mutually assured destruction.” The US would of course be facing a terrible tragedy – while the people who did it would be facing complete annihilation. That would be the end of naive tolerance for Islam in the US, and likely the entire western world they depend on. We can figure out ways to drill for oil under their flattened/melted homes after it is over.

    Knowing only a small amount of the Taliban’s brutal history, it makes me ill to think any western country would do anything but shoot Taliban representatives and supporters on sight.

    Also this Saudi based “scholar” (using the term loosely) tells us what country should have been pounded in retaliation for 9/11. Maybe next time we will wise up??

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s