Monday, July 19, 2004

Thinking the Unthinkable

I have recieved an enormous amount of e-mail the past few days and i thank all of you who have taken the time to comment--whether you agree with my analysis or not(except the death threats-which of course prove how mad some of you are).  Here's another excerpt from a MEMRI article that shows how Islamists are actually dicussing what many in America find unthinkable.  A much longer article is at
Special Report 25 MEMRI
 
 
VI. The Annihilation Will Be By Weapons of Mass Destruction
One means suggested for annihilating the Jews, Christians, Israel, and the West is through nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Sheikh Nasser ibn Hamed, a well-known Saudi cleric associated with Al-Qa'ida, wrote 'A Treatise on the Ruling Regarding the Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction Against the Infidels.' The treatise came in response to a question that came in the wake of media reports regarding Al-Qa'ida's intention to use weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. The question, on its part, was aimed at clarifying Islamic law's view of the permissibility of using weapons of mass destruction in the framework of Jihad, and specifically whether such permissibility would be inclusive or limited only to hour of need. The following is one chapter of Sheikh Hamed's lengthy response; the chapter is called 'Proof that the Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction Is Permissible.'
In this chapter of his response, Sheikh Hamed stated that it was permissible to use weapons of mass destruction against 10 million Americans specifically, and against infidels in general, and that support for their use could be found in Islamic religious sources. The chapter was divided into two parts.
The first part discussed the legitimacy of the use of weapons of mass destruction within a particular time frame against a particular enemy "such as the case of America at this time." According to Sheikh Hamed, it is permissible to strike America with weapons of mass destruction in order to repay it in kind. As evidence, Sheikh Hamed cited three Qur'an verses: "If you desire to exact retribution, then adjust the penalty to the wrong you have suffered" [16:126]; "Those whoso transgress against you, you may exact retribution from him in proportion to his transgression" [2:194]; and " The recompense of an injury is a penalty in proportion thereto " [42:40].
After citing the Qur'anic verses, Sheikh Hamed wrote, "Anyone who looks at America's acts of aggression against the Muslims and their lands over the recent decades will permit this [the use of WMDs] based only on the section of Islamic law called 'Repayment in Kind,' without any need to indicate the other evidence.
"Some of the brothers have counted the number of Muslims killed with their [i.e. America's] direct and indirect weapons, and this number has reached nearly 10 million. With regard to the lands burned by their bombs, their means of destruction, and their missiles, only Allah can count. The most recent case we saw with our own eyes is what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq without [mentioning] the fact that many Muslims became refugees.
"If a bomb was dropped on them [i.e. the Americans] that would annihilate 10 million and burn their lands to the same extent that they burned the Muslim lands – this is permissible, with no need to mention any other proof. Yet if we want to annihilate a greater number, we need further evidence."
In the second part of the chapter, Sheikh Hamed presents "the general evidence for the legitimacy according to Islamic law for an inclusive operation of this kind, in the event that Jihad for the sake of Allah requires it."
In his view, "[this evidence] is the texts according to which it is permissible to use this type of weapon in the event that the men of Jihad think it [necessary] for the commonwealth," and proves this with three different pieces of evidence.
The first piece of evidence is "texts that prove it is possible to carry out a surprise nighttime attack on the polytheists even if their offspring will be harmed by it." On this matter, Hamed wrote: "Although it is proven that the Prophet forbade the killing of women and children, [47] if you collect these Hadiths you will find that this is a prohibition on premeditated killing of them. But if their being killed is the result of a surprise attack and a raid, and an inability to distinguish among them [i.e. the enemy under attack] then there is nothing wrong with it, and the Jihad is not called off because of the presence of the women and children of the infidels…
"The second piece of evidence is "the texts that prove it is permissible to burn the land of the enemy…
"Ibn Omar's Hadith [48] proves that the Muslims must use any ploy against their polytheist enemies that weakens their power, thwarts their ploys, and facilitates the path to conquering them, such as felling their trees, drying up their water sources, and besieging them… This Hadith includes clear evidence that it is permissible to burn the land of the enemy if the fighting requires it."
The third piece of evidence is "the texts that prove that it is permissible to strike the enemy with a catapult and with similar things that annihilate them." On this, Sheikh Hamed wrote: "The clerics have agreed that it is permissible to strike the enemy with a catapult and similar things. It is known that the stone of the catapult does not distinguish between women and children and others; it is also [known] that it destroys any building or other thing that stands in its way. "This constitutes proof that it is permissible to destroy the land of the infidels and to kill them – in the event that the Jihad requires this and in the event that the men of influence from among the Mujahideen think so – as the Muslims struck these cities with catapults until they were conquered and it does not say that they ceased and desisted out of fear that the infidels would be annihilated down to the root or that their land would be destroyed."

|
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?