do you know another hadith that once sahabas asked rasul :saw: about how do we ambush the war party at night when tehy might have “innocent civillians” with the soldiers and it would be hard to avoid them due to darkness. he said they are from them meaning when you cant distinguish civillian from soldier in an ambush u dont distinguish. and since ambush is a deliberate attack it shows that if we cant distinguish between civies and military, we dont distinguish…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *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).
[/QUOTE]
True. In this respect, Islam is no different from the principle as laid down in the Geneva convention, which allows for attacks which kill civilians so long as the intent is not civilian death.
pakistan rather use nukes than conventionally defeated ?
MS would your logic allow for the killings of those who fund the 'war infrastructure', namly the tax payers?
Every country that Hazrat Umar (ra) ordered to be attacked carried out acts hostile to Muslims.
Byzantium (Rum) executed a number of arabs on the fringes of its territory who accepted Islam, and thus deserved a Jihad for its injustice.
Persia too had killed some of its subjects who converted to Islam, and deserved jihad.
Egypt, whilst autonomous, was still a province of Byzantium, and was invaded in the context of being a land belonging to the enemies of Islam.
North Africa was conquered because its major coastal settlements were Byzantine, and seizing them was needed to weaken Byzantium.
The list goes on. Every area attacked during the era of the Righteous Khalifs did acts hostile to Islam.
Ethiopia, however, was a Christian Kingdom that never did any wrong to Muslims and was nothing but a friend - it was left alone despite its proximity to Arabia whilst hostile lands further away were conquered.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
MS would your logic allow for the killings of those who fund the 'war infrastructure', namly the tax payers?
[/QUOTE]
Taxes supporting the war effort are not something new. Taxes existed in Byzantine and Persian cities conquered by the Muslims under the leadership of the Companions of the Prophet (saws). These taxes were used to support the enemy army, but the populations were left alone.
When the best of Muslims laid down such as example, how can those of us today, but a shadow of what they were, even think of challenging it?
In short - tax payers existed back then, but were never legitimate targets. So they cannot be legitimate now either.
MS why didn't they attack the tax payers?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
MS why didn't they attack the tax payers?
[/QUOTE]
I can't speak for them, but it's kind of obvious to me....
b) Taxes can be used on many things - tax payers have no control, their government does. If taxes are being spent of waging war against Muslims, the government bears the responsibility.
If you're working in an arms factory in a time of war, the bullets you're making aren't exactly going to be used to feed cows. You know that what you're doing will lead to the death of people on the other side - the only thing more hostile than that would be pushing in the bullets yourself.
I'll reply back to any new posts in this thread in a while. This company's shareholders demand value and my time on GS this evening has denied them that - I need to deliver some results for them.