Dear visitors, the session has started. You may submit your questions now. Thank you.
IslamOnline.net Live Dialogue Editor
Name
Mark
- Australia
Profession
Question
Look at what Muslims did to Nick Berg in Iraq in the name of "Allah"! Is that what your religion teaches you? To slaughter people like that?
Answer
Killing and slaughtering innocents is not an Islamic teaching. Contrary to this, Islam teaches us to honor the human being, regardless of his faith. In the Glorious Qur'an, Allah says, "We have honored human beings". Therefore, killing innocents and slaughtering them is not of our teachings.
Additionally, we cannot prove that Muslims have killed Nick Berg and we have our evidence for this. The reddish-orange suit worn by Berg in the video is similar to that worn by the Guantanamo inmates, and those who are sentenced to death.
We do not know where those who killed Berg got this uniform, because it is not our tradition to dress prisoners in it. Rather it is the policy of the occupiers to do this. For this reason, we point accusing fingers at unseen forces who aim to distort the image of Islam.
Additionally, no Islamic group has claimed responsibility for this action.
Furthermore, if this situation did in fact occur, why do we not at the same time take into consideration the daily inhumane occurences which befall Iraqi prisoners and non-prisoners? Crimes which the American forces daily carry out against Iraqis.
These inhumane occurences do not represent your beliefs and values. Thus, you should not blame Islam for the actions of a few individuals.
On a further note, what was Berg doing in a country occupied in the name of freedom and democracy?
Why do you continue to view us as lesser beings, belittling your crimes and exaggerating our mistakes?
We hope that you are just in your judgement, and that you do not blame Islam for an action which it does not condone.
Name
Mokhter
- Bangladesh
Profession
Faculty
Question
What are the Ethics of War in Islam? What were the treatments of the Prophet (sm) with the POWs throughout the battles during his life-time? please give me specific account.
Answer
There are three main principles for the ethics of war in islam. The first principle: The basis for the Muslims' relationship with others is peace. We do not attack anyone who does not start by fighting us. As the Qur'an teaches, "If they choose peace, then you should choose it."
Therefore, if an opponent wants peace and ceasefire, then we must take this path. We do not fight them unless they begin by attacking us and fighting us.
This is apparent from all of the battles during the life of the Prophet (saaws). He did not pick a battle with his tribe of Quraysh. Rather, it was they who persecuted him and his companions, confiscated their wealth and expelled them from their homeland. That is when the Prophet (saaws) responded.
Regarding the Jews of Medina, they were the ones who reneged upon their contracts with the Prophet. The Jewish tribe of Banu Qaynuqaa attempted to attacke a Muslim woman and to dishonor her. The tribe of Banu al Natheer tried to assassinate the Prophet saaws. And the tribe of Banu Quraytha joined the polytheists and the Prophet's enemies during the Battle of Ahzab, reneging upon their pact to serve with the Muslims.
The second principle: The importance of justice and removal of oppression. The first Qura'nic verse which allowed fighting was, "It has become lawful for those who are oppressed (to fight)." Thus, the permission to fight was given as a means of removing oppression and spreading justice. Islam does not permit us to perform aggression against others, nor to initiate and attack against them.
The third principle: War in Islam is a 'clean war, ' which does not permit the killing of civilians, whether they are children, women, elders, or others who are not fighting.
It does not permit the killing of monks, priests and those who have given their lives for worshipping God. Nor does it permit destroying infrastructure. For this reason, the Prophet (saaws) and his Caliphs advised their armies, "Do not kill an elder, a woman, nor a child. Do not destroy a tree." He would also say, "You will pass by a people who have isolated themselves in their places of worship. Do not attack them." These are the most important principles of the Ethics of War in Islam.
Regarding how the Prophet (saaws) treated POW, he embodied the verses of the Holy Qur'an: "They give of their food (even though they desire it) for the poor, orphans and prisoners." For this reason, he commanded his followers to treat POWs with kindness and gentleness.
Abu Aziz, a witness who was a polytheist and POW during the Battle of Badr narrates, "They (the Muslims) ate bread and dates, and they would divide their food with me. They would prefer me to themselves, giving me the dates and eating the bread. I would return the dates to them, out of embarrasment of their actions, but they would insist that I eat them.
The Prophet (saaws) did not have special prisons and concentration camps for his POWs. Rather, he would hold them in the corner of the masjid, and personally feed them and bring them their drinks.
History does not record any incidents of prisoner mistreatment during the life of the Prophet (saaws) nor during that of his Caliphs. Their is another interesting anecdote which occured during the rule of Caliph Umar (raa). A Persian prisoner was brought to him, shivering from fear. Umar asked that some water be brought for him. The prisoner told him, "I will not drink of it, unless you swear that I will be safe until I finish drinking this water." Umar promised the prisoner that his wish would be upheld. The prisoner poured the water on the floor, did not drink it and stated, "You swore that you would not do anything to me until I had drunk this water. I did not drink it, and I will not drink it, and you must keep your promise." Umar kept his promise and freed the prisoner.
This is in contrast to what our prisoners at Abu Ghraib are facing today. Where 97% of them (according to American standards) are innocent. According to our standards, all of them are innocent.
Editor's note: We apologize for the delay in answering your questions as the electricity has been cut in our Baghdad office.
Name
Naima
- Pakistan
Profession
Question
As-salamu Alaykum
Since it is totally forbidden for women to join men in war, according to Islam,what would you say about the women suicide bombers in Palestine? Some of them actively participate in their ongoing war against Israel, along with men. Is it sanctioned in Islam?
Thankyou and Allah hafiz
Answer
There are two kinds of fighting in Islam. One type is “fardh 'ayn”, i.e. obligatory on each individual. The other type is “fardh kifayah”, i.e. obligatory on a group in the community. When the fighting is “fardh kifayah”, (i.e. the number of fighters in sufficient to keep back the enemies and defend the Muslim country and Islamic principles), then women are not required to fight. But if the number of fighters is not enough, and Muslim nations face the threat of occupation, then the Muslim nation becomes in need of the help of women fighters. This is what we would consider “fardh 'ayn” (obligation on all individuals).
Thank you.
Name
Suhaib
- United Kingdom
Profession
Question
In reference to Palestinian body-bombs, which sometimes target public places such as restaurants, many Muslims point to the ruling against harming women and children. Some scholars use the ayah - {And if you punish them, punish them with the same by which you were punished} [16:126] - as evidence for this being allowed, yet this is a concept difficult to accept.
Could you please enlighten us as to how Palestinian martyr operations match with the Islamic rules of war, which we are proud to declare to this world of injustice.
Answer
The martyr operations in Palestine are a special circumstance. Palestinians are facing an occupation of their homeland which aims to eradicate their presence from their own land, and which falsely claims that the land is theirs. All citizens of this occupying force, whether they are male or female, are trained to carry arms and fight. And all of them (Israelis) serve in their army, in one way or another. Therefore, all of these individuals are considered enemies who are fighting the Palestinians. And all of Palestine in currently considered a war-zone.
Furthermore, we find that the Israelis are in no way hesitant to kill children and to destroy homes for weak reasons. Thus, Israeli women share in the crime of fighting Palestinians. And Israeli men, women and children share in the crime of stealing a homeland and evicting its people from it. Currently, there are more than 4 million Palestinian refugees living in camps after being thrown out from their homes.
UN resolutions passed in 1948 and 1967 call for respecting the right of return for these refugees, to their rightful land. But Israel as a nation and government attack this right and refuse to grant it to its people.
Presented with this unfortunate circumstance, Palestinians have neither power nor weapons available to remove these occupiers from their lands, except to use their own bodies and souls to fight their enemies.
They do this with the hope that they will be able to regain their rights as members of this humanity.
Name
Isabelle
-
Profession
Question
I read on this website an article about the ethics of war in Islam and I have a question regarding something. In the article, it is stated that soldiers are not allowed to cut trees or kill non-combatants. How is this possible in today's world of weapons that destroy indiscriminately? Does this mean that Islam is idealistic and not meant for all times?
Answer
The applicability of Islam for all times is not based upon a situation as specific as that you refer to-war. War is a very rare situation, where we know that basis for relationships between nations and peoples is peace and not war. During times of peace, Islam serves to build an ideal society and is meant for all times and all places. During times of war, modern weaponry is indiscriminate in those it kills.
This is only in ‘war of streets’ or wars inside of cities. But this is not true regarding wars which occur in the battle field, away from the cities. During this type of war, only soldiers from either side are killed. In the case that the battle enters the city or where people reside, then a percentage of error must occur. For this reason, Islam avoids ‘street war’ (i.e. wars inside of cities), and if it must, it calls upon the citizens to leave the city. Perhaps weapons will become more advanced, to the point that their accuracy is 100%, and we can avoid killing the innocent.
Name
Aminah
- Egypt
Profession
Question
Salam
Please clarify this matter for me. I might sound offensive, but I do not mean to be so. I just need your answer in order to clarify this point to others who have given me this commentary.
I was told that the abuse that took place with the Iraqi prisoners is something normal and that in all wars things like that would happen and that Muslims themselves used to do worse than that through out history and an example of that was what the Islamic civilization during the Ottoman reign and others used to do to their enemies of men who became slaves and how Islam deprived them from their sexual abilities through the process of castration.
Thank you and please clarify what right had Muslims have to do such a brutal act...
Answer
During ancient history, (Ottoman and pre-Ottoman times), it was a general practice to enslave POWs and to treat them in such manners as you mentioned. It was a widespread practice in the Roman, Persian and other civilizations. Enslaving POWs in Islam is allowed if the enemy enslaves our POWs. But Islam does not condone any such inhumane acts as you mentioned. If it is true that the Ottomans did carry out such acts, then this is a result of their ignorance of Islam.
What is occurring in Abu Ghraib is completely different from this situation you mention. Firstly, international agreements which all countries have signed, do not allow enslaving POWs, and no country performs this. The last of these agreements is the Fourth Geneva Accords of 1949 for the Treatment of Prisoners. Thus, Americans cannot take this as an excuse, because it is a matter of the past.
Secondly, how can the 'cradle of civilization,' which has come to 'free' Iraq and to build a democratic and just society in the Middle East perform such acts? What kind of human rights allow these acts?
Thirdly, the state of war in Iraq ended when Bush declared its end on May 1st, 2003. Thus, Americans cannot consider this an act of war. Rather, this is a war crime. A war crime which was committed against innocent, weaponless people.
Name
Osman
- Sweden
Profession
teacher
Question
Asalamu aleikom wa rahmatullah
Dear sheikh, if aggression is forbidden according to islamic view of warfare, how do you explain the rapid expansion of muslim territory under the Prophet(saws) and his successors?
Answer
The rapid expansion of Islam during the early era did not include aggression. The evidence for this is abundant. Faith cannot enter the hearts of its adherents with such power as it did, and generation after generation cannot pass it down, if it is coerced upon them.
If we assume (this is only an assumption), that the Prophet (saaws) or any of his companions coerced a people to accept Islam, then we can believe that those people would act Muslim during the time of that leader. But after his death, they would abandon Islam. But in reality, Islam was deeply entrenched into the hearts of these people in all lands which Islam spread to.
In fact, the culture which grew in these lands and the civilizational achievements of these people indicates that these nations had chosen Islam with deep conviction. Such is the case with the Egyptians who chose Islam over the Roman form of Christianity being forced upon them.
Likewise, during the rule of Umar (raa), when the Muslims informed the people of Damascus that they were going to leave because they could not face a planned Roman attack, the Damascenes were saddened. They stated, "Even though your religion differs from ours, we prefer you to those Romans who share our religion."
This, and many other examples, proves that Islam did not aggressively spread. Rather, it spread by convincing its new adherents, entering their hearts before it entered their lands.
Name
Shon
- United States
Profession
Question
You made the following statement:
Why do you continue to view us as lesser beings, belittling your crimes and exaggerating our mistakes?
Is this not what the entire Arab world is doing to the U.S. as it tries to help the Iraqi people? Sure, mistakes have happened on both sides but the U.S. is hated regardless of what it does when in actuality Saddam Hussein murdered all types of people including Muslims. The U.S. has definately made foreign policy mistakes, but in the name of Islam the hijackers killed over 3000 Americans and it was celebrated in the Arab world and justified by Muslim clerics under jihad. The U.S. is going after the terrorists (not freedom fighters) who kill indiscriminately in the name of Islam. If the Arab world would take an active role in helping to apprehend these killers instead of blaming the U.S. and Israel for everything, real peace could be achieved.
Answer
First of all, it is a consensus amongst Iraqis that America did not come to help Iraq. What has occurred during this past year, of widespread destruction and lack of organization is evidence for this. Under international law, the US was supposed to protect Iraq and its safety. But the US destroyed safety in Iraq when it cancelled its army and police force and when it opened its borders for any and all who wished to enter. Terrorists entered, international spies and drug dealers entered our land to perform various acts which we will not mention here.
Secondly, if you agree to accept comparing the US to Saddam, and the American era with that of Saddam, then we ask that Bush, Blair and Rumsfeld be tried as war criminals, just as Saddam will be. For all of these individuals have performed war crimes against the people of Iraq.
Thirdly, just as Saddam's acts were not mistakes, those crimes committed by the US are not mistakes. Thousands of pictures made public by satellite TV showed us that these acts were not performed by one or two soldiers, and were not performed against one or two Iraqis. Rather, they were performed against thousands of them. These were not the only crimes carried out by the occupying forces. The crimes started when they arrested these people and humiliated them in front of their families and children.
They handcuff them behind their backs, cover their heads with trash bags, and place their heads on floor, stepping upon them. And all of this is based upon claims which are accurate in only 3% of these cases!
All of these situations prove that these soldiers have an egocentric, chauvinistic mentality which came to humiliate the Iraqi people and tell them that they were second-class!
Fourthly, Arabs did not celebrate when the 3,000 innocent people were killed. But America forces these attacks against its nation when it blindly supports Israel in all of its acts of aggression against Palestine and its people. Furthermore, these terrorists are of the doing of the US who supported them at one point, and is now facing the results of its actions.
We cannot blame Islam, with its 1.5 billion adherents, for the actions of individuals.
In fact, US policy must be condemned for creating its own enemies. As Arabs and Muslims, we do not blame the American nation for the mistakes of its government. We hope that they understand this.
We do not wish to be enemies with anyone, but Bush's government chose this path of enmity and aggression. As Bush made clear, it brought the war on terrorism to Iraq, to falsely protect its own territory, arguing that the ends justify the means. Iraq does not know terrorism or terrorists. It is the incorrect US policies, their unchecked use of force and their false promises which have created this state of violence and terrorism in Iraq.
