Posted by Article on 2/10/2004, 20:09:54, in reply to "ZAKARIA: The Islamic Verdict On Hostages" External Factors Moazzam Begg, the British captive held at Guantanamo Bay, who was originally kidnapped from Pakistan by the US, has clearly stated in his letter about the use of torture, abuse, and other forms of violations. He has even witnessed the torturing of prisoners to death by the US authority. The Iraqis and the world have already witnessed the inhuman brutality of the US soldiers in Abu-Ghraib, where even young boys and girls were subjected to rape, sodomy, torture and other forms of sexual perversion that is definitely foreign to the Arab/Islamic culture. It certainly does not come from foreigners like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi! Seymour Hersh revealed that young Iraqi boys were sodomised and shrieking while they were being filmed as souvenirs for the friends and relatives back at home. This speaks volumes about these subhumans, exhibiting a behaviour that is worse than animals! When the Pentagon showed the pictures and videos, implicit references were made to executions and Necrophilia committed by the US soldiers. If this were not an American phenomenon, why else did Arnold Schwarzenegger recently abolish Necrophilia in California? The abuse is not confined to Abu-Ghraib. Recent investigations by American legal investigators [1] have once again showed that torture and rape is rampant throughout the U.S.-run prison system in Iraq. Such incidences are still occurring. Proving the point that Abu-Ghraib was only a sample of what was caught on camera, the real horror is much greater. Therefore, the Iraqis are entitled to inflict equivalent punishment on their prisoners in retaliation and as a means to deter the enemy from abusing their prisoners. Here too, the Muslims have excelled. Beheading a handful of captives is far less painful than being tortured to death as acknowledged by Nick Bergs father. Even the degrading sexual torture can be worse than beheading. However, that only applies to those who have some degree of self-respect and honour. Sexual abuse inflicted on Lyndie England is unlikely to constitute punishment but rather a kind of titillation. Indeed, such examples highlight that Islam is indeed very different from the secular fanaticism of freedom! The US forces have also used heavy weapons in civilian populated areas without any regards for their life. If the US truly wanted to minimise civilian casualties why could their brave and well-equipped soldiers not engage in hand-to-hand combat? Incineration and beheading by the use of high-tech weapons entitles the Iraqi resistance to behead and dismember the captives who are party to the conflict, directly or indirectly. Even if the US forces treated the Muslim prisoners well, the Iraqi resistance would be entitled to execute their prisoners or resort to other harsh measures as they have been invaded. Hence, it could be used as a form of deterrence and retribution. Furthermore, given the huge disparity between the US firepower and the Iraqi resistance, they are naturally entitled to use other means to defend themselves. In addition to common sense, there is general permission in Islamic law to widen the scope of permissibility in order to survive, providing it is a legitimate action of self-defence which is not disputed in the case of Iraq. Many have argued that politically and militarily, it is better to restrict the target to the combatants. Of course, nobody disputes this but due to the vast disparity between the Iraqi resistance and the US forces, their options are very limited. Status Of Non-Combatants This brings us to the final argument about who is a non-combatant. Some people have argued civilian contractors and charity workers are not legitimate target. Many of these people have entered Iraq under the flag of the US, who is an illegal occupier. Even the UN Secretary has endorsed this point as he admitted, that the war was a violation of the UN Charter. Thus, the non-combatants have entered without any covenant with the Iraqi people, as there is no legitimate Iraqi authority. If they have come under the US flag, they have come as part of the aggressor party. "In any case, most of these non-combatants are mercenaries not on charitable missions. Like vultures, they are making a quick profit in exchange for the stolen (mismanaged) Iraqi oil, Iraqi lives and their blood. They are helping the US forces directly or indirectly and are therefore part of them. The Prophet (SAW) took hostage a man from the tribe of Uqail because of his alliance with the belligerent tribe of Thaqeef. Even though Uqail was not a combatant. This is a clear evidence to show that allied nations or those assisting the combatants, even if it is indirectly are treated the same way. Finally, why should Muslims distinguish in taking only combatants when the Americans are clearly not doing this! The US has incarcerated many innocent civilians, including old men and children. Some were subsequently released as evidence of their innocence. Since, one is held without charge, it must be presumed that the detainee is innocent - that is if you believe another one of the masks of democracy innocent until proven guilty, which is a mask that is pealing off rapidly. At present, many Muslims and non-Muslims are exhibiting double standards, fostered by the mass media. So, they cant stomach the beheadings of a few hostages done in retaliation but they are ready to tolerate the beheadings, incineration and much more of thousands of Iraqis using high-tech equipments. Even the deliberate torturing to death of prisoners in US custody is somehow appears to be more palatable than beheadings! Footnote: (1)http://www.antiwar.com/orig/croke.php?articleid=3645 Copyright © 2004 by Yamin Zakaria.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread