Knowing the use of a nuke would cause countless innocent deaths, would Islam permit their use?
According to the fuqaha within the bounds of fiqh and usool this masail is in the realm of ishqaal and therefore further ijtihaad needs to be done. The falsafa and mantiq would make it highly makrooh except for defai umoor.
hope that helps.
Not really since you basically said your not sure.
Anyone else?
No I didn't. Read it again.
Re: Does Islam allow the use of nuclear weapons?
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by underthedome: *
Knowing the use of a nuke would **cause countless innocent deaths*, would Islam permit their use?
[/QUOTE]
Did you not just answer your own question?
The Islam portrayed in Fox news would allow nuclear weapons, but the one practiced by the Muslims, does not allow anything to cause the death of innocents.
The Qur'aan is very clear about this.
Answer given, case closed.
Unless there's a 'but' somewhere in the equation.
then the enemies of muslims can have nukes and we cant? it would make all wars useless as we will be endangering our civillians for no reason as anytime we start winning the war the enemies use nukes against us cuz they know we cant use it against them. nukes are allowed as long as our enemy has them. was not the catapult the “nuke” of its time? rasul :saw: used it didnt he?
I know exactly how it would and could be justified.
During the siege of Taif, to attack the city's walled defences, the Prophet (saws) authorised the use of catapults, powerful siege weapons that would hurl massive boulder to smash through defences. Catapults are also very inaccurate and the use of them against this military target would certainly entail civilian casualties from overshots that landed in the city. Yet the Prophet (saws) did not object.
This is why I never criticise the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hiroshima was a staging area for the Japanese Army and Navy, as well as containing many industrial plants that were vimportant to Japan's ability to wage war.
Wiping out Hiroshima had a tremendous effect on the capability of Japan's military forces. The hundreds of thousands of civilians had to die in order to do so was, to me, merely unfortunate.
Nagasaki too, contained two armaments factories, steel works, and naval shipyards of great importance to the Japanese Navy. Indeed, many of the torpedos used by the Imperial Japanese Navy, including those used in the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbour, were made in Nagasaki.
Again, the elimination of the city's military facilities through the A-bomb was a powerful blow against the Japanese armed forces. It was sad that so many civilians had to die, but war is never nice.
There is no evidence that civilians were the target of the A-bomb. Japan's most populated city was never on the A-bomb target list, whilst cities with military significance were prioritised instead.
Ah but there is a big issue of the protection of civilians in Islam is there not?
So MS, Islam allows the mass killing of innocents as long as the main goal is to damage the enemy rather than the innocents, is that correct?
so islam allows millions of our civillians killed because we are engaged in the debate about legality of nukes while enemies know that we wont use nukes on them in retaliation for their nukes? please have some sense. we cant win the wars by being nice. we cant tell our enemies that ok no nukes in war. if the enemy starts loosing it WILL nuke us if they have them and especially if they know that we dont have nukes. answer this dilemma...how do we save our self from being nuked except with a nuclear deterrent and if u can answer it then i guess we would have your option.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
So MS, Islam allows the mass killing of innocents as long as the main goal is to damage the enemy rather than the innocents, is that correct?
[/QUOTE]
didnt ur americans bomb them with the same logic? how come islam is the one getting blame when we havent use any nuke at all...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
So MS, Islam allows the mass killing of innocents as long as the main goal is to damage the enemy rather than the innocents, is that correct?
[/QUOTE]
No. The deliberate killing of civilians is clearly forbidden.
On the other hand, the unintentional death of civilians whilst pursuing a military objective is regrettable, but I do not believe it to be forbidden.
To use 20th century example:
Bombing Guernica in 1936, where the German goal was simply to demonstrate the power of Franco's coalition through eliminating a town, something that is clearly forbidden
Bombing Birmingham in 1940, where the German goal was to bomb British war industry, but where this could not be done without civilian casualties, is something that i do not hold to be forbidden, from the analogy of Taif.
A nuke is little different from a carpet bombing raid except having greater power and long-term effects.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
No. The deliberate killing of civilians is clearly forbidden.
On the other hand, the unintentional death of civilians whilst pursuing a military objective is regrettable, but I do not believe it to be forbidden.
To use 20th century example:
Bombing Guernica in 1936, where the German goal was simply to demonstrate the power of Franco's coalition through eliminating a town, something that is clearly forbidden
Bombing Birmingham in 1940, where the German goal was to bomb British war industry, but where this could not be done without civilian casualties, is something that i do not hold to be forbidden, from the analogy of Taif.
A nuke is little different from a carpet bombing raid except having greater power and long-term effects.
[/QUOTE]
awesome man, your point is proved even for those are are secular minded, ppl should see the reasons now...wallah o alam
Unfortunately, I cannot compare catapults and nuclear bombs in the same equation.
War is decreed in Islam in self defense:
“To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily God is most powerful for their aid.” (Al-Hajj:39)
Islam never fought nations but fought only despotic authorities. Islamic war was one of liberation and not of compulsion. The freedom of the liberated people was to decide their religion and it was to ensure this freedom that Muslims fought. When Muslims fought the Romans in Egypt, the Egyptian Copts sided with and helped Muslims against the Romans who were Christians like them. This was because Christian Egypt was suffering religious oppression by the Christian Romans to compel them to adopt their religious beliefs.
Fighting should be directed only against fighting troops, and not to non- fighting personnel, and this is in compliance with the Qur’aanic verse that reads:
“ Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not, aggressors.” (Al-Baqarah: 190)
Additionally, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, used to instruct his commanding chiefs saying: “Fight in the cause of Allah. Fight those who deny Allah; Do not be embittered. Do not be treacherous. Do not mutilate. Do not kill children or those (people) in convents.”
From the early days of Islam the sanctity of the medical profession was recognized. Christian and Jewish doctors were employed by the Islamic state since the days of the Umayyads, and some of them were even court and personal physicians to caliphs. Under the tolerant attitude of Islam, some of them got the chance to unfold their full scientific potential and thus contributed to the progress of medical knowledge.
Medical help was a right to all men in spite of religion or creed. That this was also extended to those amongst enemy. An example well known in the West is that of Saladin securing medical help to his opponent, Richard Lion Heart of England who was seriously ill during the Crusades. Saladin sent him his own doctor and personally supervised Richard's treatment until he became well. If we were to Nuke all the innocents then who would we offer the medical attention to and what would we say about the following ayat:
“Lo! the righteous shall drink of a cup whereof the mixture is of water of Kafur. A spring wherefrom the slaves of Allah drink, making it gush forth abundantly. Because they perform the vow and fear a day whereof the evil is wide spreading. And feed with food the needy wretch, the orphan and the prisoner, for love of Him. (Saying): We feed you, for the sake of Allah only. We wish for no reward nor thanks from you.” (Al-Insan: 5-9).
The Qur’aan made it a charity to feed the prisoners. ^
Finally, it will be good for our Muslim and Non Mulsim Guppies to note that for the first time in religious or sectarian history, Islam adopted an attitude of mercy and caring for the captured enemy. Unprecedented by previous legal systems, and long before the Geneva Convention, Islam set the rule that the captive is sheltered by his captivity and the wounded by his injury.
Previously, it was the custom for the captive to work for his food or get it through private means.
Yes sometimes when you see what's happening to fellow Muslims, it get tempting to wish Nukes on all the enemies of Islam, but in my eyes, No Nukes.
Just my humble opinion.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
No. The deliberate killing of civilians is clearly forbidden.
On the other hand, the unintentional death of civilians whilst pursuing a military objective is regrettable, but I do not believe it to be forbidden.
To use 20th century example:
Bombing Guernica in 1936, where the German goal was simply to demonstrate the power of Franco's coalition through eliminating a town, something that is clearly forbidden
Bombing Birmingham in 1940, where the German goal was to bomb British war industry, but where this could not be done without civilian casualties, is something that i do not hold to be forbidden, from the analogy of Taif.
A nuke is little different from a carpet bombing raid except having greater power and long-term effects.
[/QUOTE]
So my statement stands correct using your logic MS, Action which kills large masses of innocents (civilians) is allowed by Islam if the goal of that action is to damage the enemy (the war industry).
ultimatley human emtions and pride palys a role than religen
rather comit suicide than live with humilation.
sholay all is good in ideal world but how do you answer my question? protect muslim civillians from enemy nukes with out deterrent.
and please man, i dont see any comparison with camels and tanks, so we can only use camels for war. artilarry? what the hell, catapults it is. and guns are far too risky to non combatants, so only arrows with rubber at the ends so it only hurts and not kills…
and islamic war is not just defensive, why did omar 
invade all those countries? it was a war of aggression. we invade until the entire land is ruled under the law of allah, we dont convert by force but allow the ppl to see the just islamic law, and not allow them to be ruled under non islamic law no matter how loved that system is to those ppl.
Ok lets see, first off I find it quite interesting MS is justifying secular wars committed by 'western' powers from an Islamic perspective. I don't agree with it, I don't quite follow the reasoning.
Secondly warfare in Islam is a wholly defensive measure. 'pre-emptive' attacks would not be justified.
Within a broader perspective I think a conventional "islamic war" is unlikely. If there is any 'war' it would most likely be a war of ideologies.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sholay: *
Yes sometimes when you see what's happening to fellow Muslims, it get tempting to wish Nukes on all the enemies of Islam, but in my eyes, No Nukes.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure if this was directed at me or not, but I like to think that my views on nukes are independent of what happens to Muslims anywhere. Indeed, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with Muslims, and yet I have always been a strong advocate that nuking those cities was not a Wrong Thing.
Coming back to what you have wrote, regarding fighting only combatants, I read and agreed fully with a scholar (who's name eludes me) who argued that the nature of warfare has changed considerably in the past 1400 years. Now, those fighting against you are no longer just the people in the army on the battlefield facing you; the men and women working in the factories making tanks to fight you are waging war on you; the men and women casting the bullet to kill you are waging war on you, the men and women running the trains to take weapons and soldiers to the front line are fighting you.
In short, the scholar argued that the infrastructure of the enemy's war machine, which simply did not exist 1400 years ago, is now part and parcel of what constitutes those fighting you.
1400 years ago, when an army took to the field, it did not rely on supplies of bullets, supplies of fuel, transport, factories. 1400 years ago, armies subsisted on and survived on the rations they took to the field with and through living off the land. The scholar applied ijtihad to say that in the new situation, those people and buildings who were providing the capability of the enemy army to fight were waging war against you though they did not bear arms themselves.
The scholar was actually referring to attacks on Israel targetting non-soldiers, but his views were, to me, much more applicable to conventional warfare, since they justified the way war was fought in World War 2, Korea, Vietnam, and every other conventional war since.
To this end, I view any attack aimed at destroying the infrastructure enabling the enemy's armed forces to fight as completely legitimate, regardless of the effect on civilians.
I still view any attack aimed at killing civilians as being an abonimation.