Is it allowed to use nuclear weapons?

Society Religion & Philosophy
21

[quote]
Originally posted by Akif:
**What is a WMD? Weapon of Mass destruction.

Now how do you define Mass? Anything more than one is mass in this case. So when you lob a grenade, since it doesnt just kill one person, it can be termed as a WMD.**

During war, you don't throw grenades at "civilians", "public" but on army. Grenade attacks are usually done at opposing armies, while "WMD" are thrown in/around cities where majority of population is civilian.

Anything other than a single shot gun is a WMD. Even a machine gun is a WMD. So where do you draw the line?

I do not agree with this definition. You don't open fire at civilians using machine guns, when you do it is considered as "civilian massacre".

**Is it ok to kill 10 people in one shot, but not ok to kill 100,000 people in one shot?

There is no defined criteria here. The fact is, jis ki laathi, us ki bhains. US makes all kinds of weapons, and classifies them as necessary. And when some other country makes the same weapons, those countries are termed as renegades.

This is in no way comparable to targeted killing of civilians, something which is beind done in Palestine, or in several instances in Israel etc.**

The discussion here is not saying that US can have it or not, or what can/should US do.... but its about Muslims using/having WMD.

[/quote]

May Allah SWT guide us all towards right and help us follow the right

22

Changezlike.

You can also throw a nuclear bomb on a military establishment, and well, forget about where it expands to. Sames the case with a grenade, or any bomb larger than that. Take a missile, or a daisy cutter.

Bottom line, and the basic point is, there is no weapon in this world that ensures that it will not hit civilians, intended or unintended. Weapons are the same across the board. Blame the users, not the weapons.

23

[quote]
Originally posted by Changez_like:
****so it is okay for us to change definitions to get what we want?
Think about "Dacoits", we call them dacoits whoever takes your money/wealth using a weapon, right? now Dacoit can justify his means by saying that he is fighting against injustices of the society? would that be okay with you?

Whatever is "wrong" is "wrong", whoever is "non-combatant" is "non-combatant".**
[/quote]

You are stretching the definition too far. We are talking about war and use of weapons. We are not talking about dacoits. Re-read my post again to see the difference in definition of non-combatants.

**
[quote]
What about when government lies to its people to gain support? who would be responsible? should we wipe out that nation because they supported their government's wrong actions??? This has happened in America, and I beleive that it is still going on. American government does not tell its people the TRUTH just to gain their support. Now according to definitions provided here American people should also be wiped right??? I don't think so.**
[/quote]

Without naming countries, I think there are a lot of misleading statements being made. But today, there is information available and can be understood by a sizable majority. If the people choose to discredit anything against the government's line, they choose to agree with the government. I am sure you will agree that these are people who are non-combatant, but equally responsible.

On this very forum a gentleman comes with 'madrasah phobia' and is not prepared to listen to anything. Is he not making a choice to oppose Muslims and classify them as terrorists?

**
[quote]
Weapons of Mass Destruction are wrong, they can be kept as 'show-case' pieces to tell the enemy that they have the ability as well.**
[/quote]

WMD will only be used as a detrent or to stop an army more tahn twice the size that wants things to happen only for its benefit.

**
[quote]
Brother AKIF gave example of "Daisy Cutter". Bro Akif, who says that Daisy Cutter is permissible? There is no weapon of Mass Destruction which can be used "smartly", "responsibly", they are designed for "mass destruction" so they will destroy masses whenever used.**
[/quote]

But these were used by America against the Taliban who were much less equipped. In fact, the way they were used was sadistic. If Pakistan uses WMD against India, it will be defensive, and not even offensive.

**
[quote]
Only "guns", "anti-tanks", "anti-air craft" type of weapons can be used "smartly", "responsibly" so we should have them, develop them etc.**
[/quote]

You have to be better, or as well equipped as the enemy. To develop only what you profess will result in an unbalanced war like in Afghanistan.

Rabbeshrah lee sadree; wa yassirlee amree; yafqahoo qaulee.

24

If we did not have the Nuclear Weapon, believe me, India would have had taken its chance to save their religious terrorist government by attaking on Pakistan. It is the Nuclear Weapon which we have is having indians stay where they are, otherwise the situation could have been different.
Anyway, The question of the thread is, Islamically, should we use the WMD?
As I wrote before
Prophet Muhammad (SAW), his companions (RTU) and the true followers have HAD and USED the best of the available weapon of time to save them from the enemy's attack.

Allah Knows better

[This message has been edited by Qaasim (edited January 11, 2002).]

25

salaam all,
I think Pristine has fallen in the same tap as the political scientists of the constructive school of thought. If the issue is about numbers of fatalities and injuries then one needs to consider the genocieds of the 18/19/20th centuries. They were committed by 'conventional' weapons. So the same question can apply here: Are conventional weapons allowed? I think Pristine will have the desired answer for this. If we consider the number of casualties that conventional war has produced adb compare it to the nuclear option, I think we will see that the nuclear option is safer.

26

[quote]
Originally posted by Akif:
**I dont think its fair to associate deformities or crop destruction with nuclear weapons alone.

Fact is, any weapon out there is capable of inflicting the kind of damage that a nuclear weapon can. With a nuclear weapon, you kill 100,000 people in one shot, and with a pistol, you kill 100,000 people with 100,000 shots.
**
[/quote]

there is difference between a normal bomb and nuclear bomb. difference is that in nuclear bomb u not only kill the people alive, but also ruin future generations. radiation will not decay for centuries and babies that will be born their in future will have deformities, people will die of cancer and other radiation related diseases and so on. their will be radiation clouds which will rain at places u cant predict etc.

thus it does not make sense to say that nuclear bomb is just like a large convensional bomb. US's 'daisy cutter' kills everyone between 2-3 kms. that will be same as hiroshima bomb. difference is that people in nagasaki still suffer while future generations in afghanistan are safe,

27

http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif

I don’t think I have an answer for this. This is probably the first time in the history of Islam, that an Islamic government is in a realistic position of using a nuclear weapon on its opponent. I believe such an issue is worth an intellectual debate on the permissibility. Ofcourse, I don’t know if any of the policy planners in Pakistan will be reading this thread to form a decision.

In any case, I agree to those who say that nuclear weapons are different from other conventional weapon, however horrible they may be. For one, as pointed out, nuclear weapons destroyt the future generation, which in my view is akin to giving punishment to the son for the crimes of the father. I have read that this is strictly forbidden in Islam, where the jurisprudence says that the person who committed the wrong should be the one who receives the punishment. And not his relatives and future generations.

Secondly, while its true that any weapon is only as good as to how you use it. However, with nuclear weapons the potential to wildly kill a large number of people within a specified area (which is usually larger than any conventional weapon range), makes it a suspect wepon, as far as Islamic jurisprudence goes. The argument that the Prophet (SAWW) and his companions (RA) always used the most advanced weapons may not hold true. Its one thing to develop and keep such weapons as a deterrance to the enemies of Islam, but using them on innocent civilians of the enemy state, may raise more than a few questions.

As the debate here shows, there seem no easy answers to a contempranous issue of very valid question.

28

[quote]
Originally posted by ZZ:
**there is difference between a normal bomb and nuclear bomb. difference is that in nuclear bomb u not only kill the people alive, but also ruin future generations. radiation will not decay for centuries and babies that will be born their in future will have deformities, people will die of cancer and other radiation related diseases and so on. their will be radiation clouds which will rain at places u cant predict etc.

thus it does not make sense to say that nuclear bomb is just like a large convensional bomb. US's 'daisy cutter' kills everyone between 2-3 kms. that will be same as hiroshima bomb. difference is that people in nagasaki still suffer while future generations in afghanistan are safe, **
[/quote]

It all boils down to 'personal interests', which define how you look at casualties.
In Afghanistan, daisy cutters have destroyed entire families, thus putting an end to their family trees once and for all. A nuclear bomb will result in deformed babies perhaps. Its pretty hard to decide which is worse, isnt it? Would you rather deform someones future generation, or would you rather eradicate it?

Death is death. There is no good way of doing it. Its all murder. You cant sugarcoat it.

29

As far as I know, even small nuclear bombs will kill a large number of people, AND deform the future generations of those who survive. Is that not so?

I agree that to this date the only real-life examples of using nukes occured on civilian population of Japan. However, if there is a way to smartly use nukes as a targetted weapon only on military facilities, then there will not be much debate. Ofcourse this does not mean that no civilians will be killed, but they should not be the primary target.

The problem is, that by definition, a nuclear weapon is supposed to be used to obliterate entire cities and populations, and that is why they are WMD and are feared. If you intend to destroy a military cantonment, or enemy lines, there are many different kinds of bombs you can use. Why use nukes?

30

[quote]
Originally posted by Akif:
** It all boils down to 'personal interests', which define how you look at casualties.
In Afghanistan, daisy cutters have destroyed entire families, thus putting an end to their family trees once and for all. A nuclear bomb will result in deformed babies perhaps. Its pretty hard to decide which is worse, isnt it? Would you rather deform someones future generation, or would you rather eradicate it?

Death is death. There is no good way of doing it. Its all murder. You cant sugarcoat it.**
[/quote]

But we have guidance from Allah SWT, that only the 'miscreant' must be punished, not his family. If someone kills, he can be killed if the victim's family so desires but we cannot kill miscreant's son, grandson. Beleive me, it is not question of "personal interests", "which way you think".... we have clear rules/guidance from Allah SWT. But so far we have chosen to astray, therefore we donot get any help from HIM, we get all the "paid in $$$" leaders.

Until we improve at all levels in terms of faith, imaan nothing good can come our way unless we are 'beloved and chosen one' by Allah SWT.

May Allah SWT guide us all towards right and help us follow the right