Muslim stance on nuclear war

Madina Archives


Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board

Muslim stance on nuclear war
Anonymous
11/27/01 at 22:23:38
My name is Tim Dixon and I am writting a research
paper for the University of Pittsburgh.  The subject
of the paper is the major world religions and their
stances towards nuclear warfare.  If you know any stances on the use of
nuclear warfare or know
of any in the Muslim community, i would love to
include these in my paper

Re: Muslim stance on nuclear war
kareema
11/28/01 at 02:42:18
Hello, I don't know of what the muslim community's stance is, but here is what I believe to be an Islamic viewpoint on Nuclear weapons.:Nuclear war is illogical for an Islamically done war. Since Muslims are barred from killing civilians, as many sayings of our Prophet indicate, an nuke could only be used on some secret base located in the middle of nowhere.

Nuclear weapons are so expensive and hard to obtain that it would only make sense to use conventional weaponry in such a case.

Other than their super indiscriminate nature, the lasting effects and fallout are also to be of concern. Even if our theoretical military base was nuked without the death of non-combatants, the fallout may very well spread and affect nearby population centers, so I see the usage of Nuclear weapons as pretty much disallowed in Islam.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are condemned for this reason. It should be noted that conventional firebombing actually killed and displaced more people. I find it hard to accept US arguements that a bloodier war of soldiers was ended by the incineration of some many people at one time.
NS
Re: Muslim stance on nuclear war
NewJehad
11/28/01 at 05:38:51
First use of nukeler weapons is harram for the above mentioned reasons. but it is farrad to obtain the weapons because it is farrad to strike fear in to the hearts of the enemy. if japan had nukes america would never have nuked it, cause america would have known it would get back what it gave.
so to protect our selves from nukeler attack we must have them.
Re: Muslim stance on nuclear war
Barr
11/28/01 at 08:40:19
Assalamu'alaikum :-)

I agree with Kareema and Jehad.

I also heard in one of Sheikh Hamza Yusuf's tape about we are not allowed to fight and attack with fire or smt along those lines? Does anyone have the hadith?

Plus, nuclear atrocities also has its side effects on the health of the future generation and unborn children... these are against the rules of engagement in Islam.

Hope you'll do a good paper. All the best :)

Allahua'lam :-)
Re: Muslim stance on nuclear war
se7en
11/28/01 at 10:29:19
as salaamu alaykum,

I think this is a good synopsis:

[color=black]Jihad basically means striving and refers to the unceasing effort an individual must make towards self-improvement and self-purification. It also refers to the duty on Muslims, at both the individual and collective level, to struggle against all forms of evil, corruption, injustice, tyranny and oppression whether this injustice is committed against Muslims or non-Muslims.

Jihad is to promote justice. This cannot be done without strength and power. Notions of equity without power to enforce it has no practical value.  

A Muslim, according to the well-known saying of the Prophet, has the duty to try to put down an evil with his hand, that is, with physical force. If he cannot do so, he must combat it with his tongue by campaigning against it. If he cannot do so, then he should at least hate it in his heart - this last represents the weakest manifestation of faith.

Muslims are not permitted to allow themselves or others to become or remain the passive victims of others' injustice or aggression. It is not natural that people should accept humiliation and so:

"Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is wrongfully waged, and verily God has indeed the power to succour them: those who have been driven from their homelands against all right for no other reason than their saying, "Our Lord and Sustainer is God.

For, if God had not enabled people to defend themselves against one another, (and monasteries and churches and synagogues and mosques- in all of which God's name is abundantly extolled -would surely have been destroyed.

"And God will most certainly succcour him who succours His cause, for verily God is most Powerful, Almighty, (well aware of those who (even) if We firmly establish them on earth, remain constant in Prayer, and give in charity, and enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong. And with God rests the final outcome of all events." (22: 39-41)

The above verses imply that the defence of religious freedom is the foremost just cause for which arms may and indeed must be taken up, otherwise according to another verse "corruption would surely overwhelm the earth".

Linked with advice of the noble Prophet quoted above, we can see that the Muslim is thus not only required to give assistance to the victim of tyranny but to stop the one who is committing it in order to bring about the rule of righteousness, freedom and justice for all people.

Islam itself signifies peace and the relationship between the Islamic state with other peaceful states is devoted to the exchange of knowledge and the furtherance of mutual benefits.

With aggressive powers, the duty of the Islamic state is:

1. To repel hostility by all peaceful means if possible: "And if they incline towards peace, incline also to it." (8:61)

2. If peaceful means do not succeed, war becomes obligatory: "If anyone makes war on you, make war upon him in like manner." (2:194)

3. The State may conclude peace only after aggression has been repelled: "And fight them until oppression ceases and all religion is for God alone. But if they desist then let there be no enmity except against the wrongdoers." (2:193)

War is thus justified only as a means of upholding the right and repulsing the wrong and not the sake of greed or false pride. This is the meaning of Jihad "in the way of God".

Islam has specific laws for the conduct of war. For example, these were the instruction of Abu Bakr, the first Khalifah after the Prophet, to a Muslim army:

"Do not be harsh on them; do not kill children, old men or women; do not cut down or burn palm trees, do not destroy fruit trees, do not slay a sheep or camel except for food. If you see people who have taken refuge in monasteries, let them be safe in their place of refuge."

In these instructions, we see the spirit of Islam which abhors aggression, destruction and bloodshed and enjoins justice, mercy and tolerance.

[/color]


As is mentioned in the article above, war has specific and clear rules of engagement, including a prohibition on indiscriminate killing of innocent people.  So I'm inclined to agree with kareema's stance on the issue.


[quote]we are not allowed to fight and attack with fire or smt along those lines? Does anyone have the hadith? [/quote]

It is in Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 259.  It basically says, "only the God of fire punishes with fire."


Re: Muslim stance on nuclear war
Mystic
11/28/01 at 10:51:09
[slm]
You know what Se7en? Your post (which by the way is awesome!) made me think of an old saying "When two rams collide head on"..its the grass that hurts the most :(:(:(

May Allah keep us Safeguarded and Protected during this time of Distress :-)

Maliha
[wlm]
Re: Muslim stance on nuclear war
explorer
11/28/01 at 18:27:02
The best way to avoid nuclear war is to have nuclear weapons. MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction served as a deterrent for decades from plunging this world into a nuclear holocaust.

Deterence is the key here. If your enemy is aggressively posturing towards you, nukes will enusre that is all they do - they will blink and back down.
Re: Muslim stance on nuclear war
MuslimaKanadiyya
11/28/01 at 22:42:09
slm,

It seems to me that everyone agrees that nuclear weapons are strictly forbidden.  Some, however, subscribe to President Roosevelt's policy of walking softly and carrying a big stick: this, in military terms, may be a good policy, but can someone please explain to me how this turns something that is haram (forbidden) into something halal (permissible) or as NewJehad tells us, fardh (required)?

In my somewhat befuddled mind this seems akin to saying that it is perfectly alright to buy bottles of wine and to store them as long as you never intend on opening them, and in the unlikely case that you find that you [i]must[/i] open them, it would only be to serve the alcohol to non-Muslims who have harmed you in some way.

Please could someone with knowledge tell me, with reference to the qur'an and sunnah, how this happens?  if indeed it happens at all. ???

wlm

Re: Muslim stance on nuclear war
bhaloo
11/28/01 at 22:49:22
slm

Here are what scholars said when asked this question.


As-Salam Alaykum, is using weapons of mass destruction permissible in Islam? What if the enemies (non-Muslims) are the first to use such weapons against Muslims?  


Wa `Alaykum As-Salaam Waramatullah Wabarakatuh.

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All thanks and praises are due to Allah and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear questioner, thanks for having confidence in us and we hope our efforts meet your expectations.

As regards your question, we would like to quote for you the statement made by Dr. Taha Jabir Al-`Alwani, head of the International Institute of Islamic Thought:

"It is a well established fact that Islam considers all humanity as one family. Their God is One; they belong to the same father and mother. Whenever there’s any conflict among the family members, they should and must find the best solution to settle their conflict. They don’t have the right to fight each other unless they can’t find any other solution. That means that war is an exceptional position. No party has right to kill the other; they are all members of the same family. Weapons of mass destruction like nuclear, chemical weapons, etc. are not permissible to be used against the other members of your family because by the nature of these weapons, you can’t differentiate between the innocent and the criminal. If we look at this, we wouldn’t allow any nuclear, chemical weapons, which would kill the innocent and the aggressor, especially from Islamic point of view. Allah says in the Quran: “Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, We have given his heir authority (to demand retaliation or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the law).” (Al-Israa’:33) When we agree that war is exceptional, that means we must look at it like medicine. You don’t have right to use more than the dosage prescribed by the physician.. If you take overdose, that may lead to another problem. This is why Islam has made forbidden for Muslims to kill women, children, religious people, the people who leave the war area seeking peace; protect the environment trees, water, animals, etc.

With this, we understand that possessing power and weapons of mass destruction is a test from Allah to humans, to see whether they will restrain themselves from using these weapons against innocent people who are also part of the human family.”

Shedding more light on this, Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi, deputy chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, adds:

We would like to say also that Islam cares much for keeping the environment clean and pure so that man can lead a better and healthy life free from any diseases or illnesses. However, in case these nuclear weapons are used against Muslims, it becomes permissible for Muslims to defend themselves using the same weapon.   This is based on the words of Allah:"If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted." (An-Nahl:126) Besides, reciprocity is surely a principle known to all members of the international community. Again, we stress the fact that all problems are to be solved in a peaceful way. Once we have no other choice but to fight, we are to defend ourselves, children, women and lands.

Almighty Allah knows best.  
Re: Muslim stance on nuclear war
Saleema
11/30/01 at 00:11:00
In my somewhat befuddled mind this seems akin to saying that it is perfectly alright to buy bottles of wine and to store them as long as you never intend on opening them, and in the unlikely case that you find that you must open them, it would only be to serve the alcohol to non-Muslims who have harmed you in some way

Your analogy is way off, it's not a very good one. Please don't get me wrong, my intention is not to offend you.

First of all, how would buying bottles of wine be a defense against someone's aggression? In this case non-Muslims? If we give them alcohol to drink, they might attack us after they have drank too much, not much of a defense right? Exactly how does alcohol serve as a method of harming them? Are you talking about harming them physically, then wouldn't it be better to just have a fist fitht with them? In that case, why even bother to get them drunk, how about cursing at them or their mother, that would be enough to get someone angry. Spiritually? In war, the objective is not to harm your enemy spiritually, but rather to defend yourself.

If you know that your enemy doesn't have any weapons at all, not even a knife--forget about nukes, would you not fight or will you be scared? Of course you won't be scared, your enemy doesn't have anything. If your enemy uses nukes on you, what do you do? Sit and let them throw the second nuke at 4:00 pm too? Or if you have a nuke yourself, woulnd't you throw that at them also? See the thing about nuclear weapons is that if two parties have it then they won't use it, it's a deterance weapon. No one really wants to use it, unless provoked by the other person who uses it, do you see how it works? I can bet you a million dollars (oh wait, betting is haram ;)  ), that if Japan had a nuke they would not have backed down from their war with America, they would have thrown a nuke on one or two cities in the United States as well in retalliation of the US using nukes.

If the non muslims don't have nukes, then there is no excuse for Muslim countries to have it, but as long as non muslims have it, Muslims have an *obligation* to build nukes. Or, the non muslims need to get rid of theirs, the U.S. does't want to get rid of theirs (they only like to say it on paper, or otherwise they would long have gotten rid of them), no one else will either. they should hold themselves up to the standards that they expect from others.

Remember, Islam is flexible, it's not rigid with set rules for most things. It allows breathing space...

[wlm]
Re: Muslim stance on nuclear war
Anonymous
11/30/01 at 12:06:54
[slm]
I think the question being asked was when/how does something that would
be haram under most circumstances become halal.

We all know that the degree of permissability of certain activities
changes due to circumstances and that someone who is starving and has
access to no other food than pork is permitted to eat just enough of it to
survive.  This seems to be a better analogy for buying and keeping
nuclear weapons, if the argument is that the non-muslim nuclear powers will
kill us if we don't acquire such weapons as a deterrent.

However, I seriously doubt that the Americans, or anyone else for that
matter, has any intention to use these weapons -- it would be political
suicide. Who would want to deal with the backlash from the rest of the
world for unleashing such devastation on a land and its people?  If,
and please remember I said [i]if[/i], the threat of nuclear warfare is
not real, are we really justified in acquiring such weapons?
It seems to me that as more people have access to nuclear weapons, the
chance for accidents becomes much greater.  I think that we have to
assess the danger of keeping nuclear weapons and compare that to the
danger of not having them at all.  May allah guide us as we try to choose
the less dangerous of these two options.

[wlm]
Re: Muslim stance on nuclear war
explorer
12/02/01 at 08:39:17

[quote]I can bet you a million dollars (oh wait, betting is haram ;)  ), that if Japan had a nuke they would not have backed down from their war with America, they would have thrown a nuke on one or two cities in the United States as well in retalliation of the US using nukes.
[/quote]

Spot on. Deterence is what nukes are for.

Similarly if Iraq had nuclear weapons in 1981 Israel would have never attacked the Osirak nuclear reactor. In the early-mid 80's they also requested use of India's airspace to destroy Pakistan's nuclear plant in Kahuta yet India refused for fear of a retaliatory strike - they(India) were convinced Pakistan had an atomic bomb in its arsenal, contrary to reports they were yet to build one. Again, deterence played its role here.

Against overwhelming conventional weapons, the only way to avoid defeat is by avoiding the war in the first place through the perception of mutually assured destruction. This is why Pakistan is keeping its "first-strike" option against India.
Re: Muslim stance on nuclear war
Saleema
12/02/01 at 23:50:14
it would be political suicide. Who would want to deal with the backlash from the rest of the world for unleashing such devastation on a land and its people?


Two words--Hiroshima & Nagasaki
backlash from the rest of the world for unleashing such devastation on a land and its people?

Bombs and Airplanes may break my bones but words could never hurt me--Uncle Sam  


Did you know that the US dropped more than 200 tons of depleted Uranium on Iraq? And that it's going to take millions of years for its effects on the enviroment and people to go away? If Iraq had depleted Uranium to throw back at them, or lets say even in a terrorist attack in small doses--I'm sure the U.S. would have thought twice about it.

[wlm]


Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author.
The rest © Jannah.Org