Peace and War
[This was submitted to me some months ago for correction. Despite the garbled text, bizarre grammar, fantastic spelling and questionable logic it contains many interesting points. For this reason I lay it before you aimable lecteur.]
The Choice open to Thinking Men and Women:
The unfettered, total, barbaric, mutilating, torturing, devastating, democratic wars of the 20th and 21st C. or the contained, legal, just and compassionate rules of combat according to the faqih Ibn Juzayy al-Andalusi in his Qawaneen al Fiqhiyya
‘Each time they kindle the fire of war, Allah extinguishes it’, Qur’an, The Table: 64
Until it lays down its burdens? War destroys entrenched customs, lets other patterns arise.
Jihad does not refer to war as understood in the media, has nothing to do with the internet war games relayed from the front for the entertainment of a bored world. Jihad is primarily a matter of the establishing of or pursuit of justice and occurs within the rigorous framework of law. It is subject to the general injunction of amr bi’l-maruf, in other words the enemy has to be invited to Islam – and the Islam which is generally available in the media is incomprehensible. War, just as the collection of the zakat can only be legitimately engaged upon by the Amir-Leader who is himself legitimate and not a khaariji from the Khawaarij, not from the ahla’l-takfeer. ISIS is top-end gaming or reality show unbound by irksome constitutional gaming laws. At the end of the Bidaya al-Mujtahid wa nihaaya al-Muqtasid in which Ibn Rushd demonstrates that the various sunnas of the Messenger are not dry abstract laws but rather manifestations of the fitra of man, the natural, balanced state of man, he states that the phenomena of war is to be located within the Qur’anic term ‘adl – justice: ‘for in this is pursued the right of retaliation, wars and punishment’. Neither he nor we then deny the existential reality of war as part of the condition humaine. All media hypocrisy arises from the refusal to accept this: war is to assert hegemony and to take booty. The kuffar maintain nowadays that it is to establish democracy but we know historically that they do not open hostilities in poor insignificant lands but rather ones with wealth or those of strategic importance – the oil of Irak and the geopolitical position of Afghanistan unleashed the latest hostilities in these two territories; unwelcome Governments are constantly being changed through force in the name of democracy or in order to bring inflexible despots to heel by war or to foment internal strife. This is not fantasy or ‘conspiracy theory’ but grisly fact testified to by history and by themselves, openly, by their own statistics. Despotic governments however which are deemed of use – like those of the Arabian Peninsula – are officially tolerated [while simultaneously mildly castigated in the popular press] and often supported. Earlier, as in the case of colonial Britain, Portugal, France, Germany, Russia or Spain, war was waged ‘to bring civilisation to the natives’; in fact it was for land or trade possibilities; and nowadays in order to test military equipment or make geological surveys prior to the commercial exploitation of the mineral resources by the previous aggressors
D’amokcrisy as it is spelt by one West African blogger – and a not unsuitable spelling at that: amok for the ever present disgruntled crowds of the losing party and hypo-crisy of the nation charged with monitoring – their presence there only attributable to the local uranium deposits – is the ideology of tolerance par excellence which however only tolerates what is deemed tolerably tolerable. It is in fact a business, a branch of the market forces of capitalism, like any other enterprise. The cost of an election in one African country equaled the average income for every single average inhabitant over ten working days – and was paid for by donor countries, amounting to millions of pounds. One has to ask whether this sum in such countries would not have been better spent in education or health care. Afghanistan’s on-going election debacle has cost the economy 5 billion dollars so far according to its finance minister. Deadlock, hung parliaments, fraudulent counts, ‘legal’ bribes are not exceptions to the rule but occur with ever increasing regularity in such a system. A less than fifty per cent vote is not uncommen – this means that if this one party is elected on the basis of its winning 50 of this vote – also not uncommon, only 25 per cent of the voters have voted for the governing party
Clausewitz’s has said ‘War is the continuation of politik by other means’. Politik may be variously translated as ‘policy’ or ‘politics’. If the politik of a particular country is trade, for example, then war will be waged to protect that trade or expand that trade. That this is a reality in our time is clear in the language of war used in trade – note ‘aggressive sales tactics’ demanded by all global corporation when seeking out their personel. If the politik of the country is capitalist financial technique, then the war will be to back up currency manipulation, or casino-like stock exchanges and markets. Clausewitz’ work remains curiously untouched by real criticism and highly esteemed all over the world as does, the The Art of War by the high-ranking military general, strategist and tactician, Sun Tzu, while the legal term jihad has so many portmanteau media meanings that its reality as a legal system has been distorted or lost. The rhetoric of the United States of America is – in line with their declared ‘democratic principles’ – that they do not in fact wage war. However existentially the opposite is true for one’s sees a militancy which is unparalleled in history: from the ethnic cleansing of the red Indians, to the use of the atom bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki [which is not so much ‘war’ in the legal sense we are considering but rather mass impersonal extermination through technology], to the chemical extermination in Vietnam, then on to Afghanistan and Iraq where the ground fighting is reduced to a minimum and robotic killing machines are employed instead; and given the historical precedent it is clear that should ever a functioning Islamic society arise again then it will be eliminated by an atomic bomb – any collateral deaths of non-Muslims will be deemed acceptable. Moreover militancy is not confined to foreign affairs: vicious riot control of the blacks and Hispanics or the annihilation of the Waco community in Texas are modern examples of what awaits any of its citizens if they demonstrate ‘otherness’ in any real way. And if torture is outlawed in a particular democracy, then it is outsourced – as in the policy of ‘rendition’. There has been an ongoing war to ensure the dollar reigns supreme. One must remember that democracy, as one leading historian has said, is demonstrably the service entity of the bankers – responsible for ensuring the continuation, administratively speaking, of the national state, the creation of the national debt, the transfer of the national debt to the next generation – if this generation cannot pay – and the admission of guilt on behalf of the party currently in power if the economy goes haywire. There are as many kinds of democracy as there are so-called democratic nations – from the authoritarian Leninist/Stalinist versions through to the monarchical and then the ‘mature’ liberal -constitutional. One must not forget that Hitler was elected democratically. The ‘wrong’ choice in his election on the part of the voters was the direct cause of countless millions of civilian and military deaths. The People’s Republic of China, a product of Mao’s ‘new democracy’, is a favoured major trading partner of all the other democracies and global corporations. Occasional mouse-like squeaks are heard from them regarding the oppression in Tibet but silence reigns with regard to the ethnic cleansing of the Uighurs and their enforced sinicization. Even if the slaughter of the Muslims on a daily basis receives hardly any media coverage, the official announcement last Ramadan of the ban on fasting must be indication enough of the degree of suppression in all other activities.
Of course, nowadays democracy is only tolerated as long as the people make the ‘right’ choice: if the media are not successful in persuading the people to choose the bankers’ man, then the army moves in and annuls the vote – for this ‘reason’ or that. The idea is not new. The administrative cost of democracy as we have mentioned is very high and many countries, accused of irregularities, are forced to accept outside regulators, which in turn erodes their sovereignty. Already the financiers in Jack London’s Iron Heel over a hundred years ago had this weapon ready to hand, as Mr Wickson comments ‘What if you do get a majority, on election day?’… Suppose we refuse to turn the government over to you after you have captured it at the ballot-box’. Note the case of Algeria, note Egypt, note numerous other cases where the result was annulled by force. Note Palestine where the democratically elected government was refused recognition. This is not to condone such governments but to demonstrate that if democracy doesn’t function ‘as it should’, then it is dispensed with. Democracy is not shy of dirty tactics: note the proven activities of agent provocateurs in numerous ‘mature’ democracies, for example Germany’s V-Leute in the last decade. According to latest government statistics there are now on average three attacks on mosques per month in Germany [http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/brandanschlag-auf-mevlana-moschee-in-berlin-kreuzberg-a-988388.html]. And hew far back is one allowed to go – should one go – with respect to the crimes of a country which is now democratic, but which committed the first holocaust upon the Nama and Herero peoples of Southern Africa?
So called democratic allies are in fact constantly on the verge of war with each other: look at Russia and the Ukraine. Despite the rhetoric they deeply distrust each other, spy on each other: look at the USA and Europe. Divide and rule has always been a tool of war but now democracy is also a weapon used to divide a country: first a seemingly homogenous population is ‘raised’ in awareness such that each ethnic group is taught to claim its rights, and each is given a candidate. Then the target group in any given sector of the society is raised to prominence and instigates civil war: this was done in Iraq where the Shia were raised to prominence resulting in the war waged against the Muslims. In the name of democracy a minority wage war in Syria against the majority Muslim population.
In the face of such hypocrisy, such aggression, such failure to attain even the minimum goals of their rhetoric, it would be specious to argue that the Muslims have no right to apply their laws and regulations regarding war – which are not bureaucratic regulations invented by man but part of the revelation from the Lord of the Worlds.
There are many reasons for war other than those mentioned above: defence of territory, expansion of one’s territory, need to test weapons, need to divert attention from the home front, need for internal wars between the police or army and the people themselves to keep a myth alive that total surveillance in any given country, like ‘the war on terror’ is always the surest policy. ‘But why the fuss, have you got anything to hide?’ On occasion it is the whim of the nafs of a dictator, the need to aggrandize his standing. One is reminded of the words of the Messenger, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him who told his followers returning from a military campaign: “This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad,” meant returning from armed battle to the great battle – to overcome the fantasies and whims of the self.
Orwell in 1984 cites another reason: ‘In the past, also, war was one of the main instruments by which human societies were kept in touch with physical reality… in philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics two and two might make five but when one was designing a gun or an airplane they had to make four. Inefficient nations were always conquered sooner or later and the struggle for efficiency was inimical to illusion….War was a sure safeguard of sanity.’
The USA has regularly gone to war ‘to ensure democracy’, ‘ to stem communism’ or ‘to defend the rights of its citizens’. Democracy claims that we are progressing to a golden age in which wars shall no longer have a place, ideally the global state, with one global bank one global army. But this is pure rhetoric. Wars belong as much to the system as the near ‘sacred’ vote: never have their been more wars than in the ‘democratic age,’never so many killed. There are in the usa almost ninety military schools or academies teaching the art of war – besides of course the training programmes in the army,navy and airforce themselves. The maintaining of democracy and tolerance demands their be the champion of democra and the entity which tolerates. War is inevitable Human rights are not divine immutable natural laws but merely man made laws which suit capatilism and the enslaved proles. For eamplej sexual freedom is the reward for those who prefer slavehood to freedom and discrimination.
We know from the Quran that war is a fact of life: Allah does not declare that the phenomenon will ever end but rather indicates that it must be accepted as part of the condition humaine and that ti must be regulated: in this respect the Quran and the sunna contain detailed instructions. For example Women and children are not to be killed according unless they are fighting . Monks are not killed, nor the inhabitants of monasteries, nor very old men, unless one fears harm from them or that they will scheme against you. The insane or demented are not to be killed nor the blind, the chronically sick, War is like the other bête noir of democracy slavery. Nowhere does Allah and his Messenger command us to abolish it – because like war it is part of the lot of mankin- but rather it must be regulated – and this is a far more human way than the slave ‘refugee’ camps housing tens of millions all over the world, the slave labour camps of the gulf states, the slave sweat shops of Asia or the more benign state of the millions of American and European workers effectively enslaved to the public and their own personal debt. According to the global slavery index of last year there existed almost 30 million slaves.. No one can argue that slavery is not part of modern life According to the UNHCR there were over 50 million regugess globally last year, 36 million according to the latest Global Slavery Index – living in conditions which would not be permitted in the Islamic form of slavery which determines that the slaves live within the community in which they find themselves and eat of the same food as their master. According to a report on human trafficking recently presented by European Commissioner for Home Affairs Cecilia Malmström, there are more than 23,600 victims in the EU, and two-thirds of them are exploited sexually. Here we are only talking of the victims not the actual numbers involved. As one commentator of cool judgement remarked: What you pay for you take care of.
Usury Capitalism in refusing to face up the dual phenomena of war and slavery and ‘they being only temporary hiccups in the march of progress – has never been able to come properly to terms with them, cannot regulate them’. Historically speaking too one can see that war has always been a significant part of every culture and civilization. Man like most of the higher animals has the potential for agression, a sense of territory, an inclination to defend his territory. Although this is not the dominant characteristic of man to ignore this is to deny the reality of man and such animals. It is irrelavent whether one agreey with Lorenz’s On Agression or not – that it scientifically describes how man is and always has been is irrefutable. A positing of an ideal state contrary to it is possible and admissible in discussion but clearly not a very credible ideology. This is not however the dominant characteristic of man. Jihad is not the dominant aspect of the Muslim ethos. It does however exist for the same reasons that have been mentioned above. It exists in order to defend or the Imam sees the necessity of attacking neighbouring country because he is aware of its hostile intentions, its growing alliance, ist oppression of the Muslims, of ist citizens or in specific cases – not unlike non Muslim entities – if the politik of the particular Muslim entity is trade then war will be waged to protect trade routes, war wil be waged to expand and secure commodities . the reasons for going to war will be no more or less than the legitimate reasons of non-Muslims entities. To claim howevet that Muslims are more prone to war than non Muslims is merely a war cry of the latter.
In the quran war itself seven times, peace is mentioned 54 times. Although Islam obviously does not mean peace as some misguided commentators have claimed but rather submission to Allah and His Messenger, peace is the norm and basis of Islamic society and war is recognized as the exception and as such regulated. On greeting each other we say ‘peace be upon you’. Whe someone knocks at the door then we normally respond be opening the door without suspicion – trust is the basis of our social transaction. To greet each other with a smile of one’s face is sunna, the least of sadaqas. War as illustrated by the quran and the Messenger is essentially a fight between men. It is a test from Allah and while courage is required fighting is only carried out if one has a chance to win and no one is to ‘sacrific’ himself as in the case of the suicide bombers. Suicide is anyway illegal
In order to understand the restrictions imposed on the dhimmis and the people of the book when living under our jurisdiction – which of course is no wehre the case in the world at the moment and which are generally perceived in the media to be unfair and an infringement of human rights they must be seen in the light of the millions of slaves being traded in the world today, 30 million refuges incamps living in sub human conditions, 50 ,000 prostitutes – depending on the source statistics – being imported into Europe each year the restrictions imposed on the Muslims living under the hegemony of the kuffar: this is not a complaint but rather a recognition that the dominant order defines quite clearly what the Muslim may or may not do. it must be recognized that there tolerance of us is severely limited and on their terms: islam is defind popuoarly a a religion which it is not according to us or even according to their own academics. As a religion is it deined within a Christian framework in other words reduced to belief and concepts in the head without a relevant connection to real life. Islam as we know as do their acadeics is a way of life and not a brain based ideology with five prayers per day – wich is the only definition allowed. Any connection to power, finance, trade is annulled. Our children are forced – and this is not an exaggeration – to learn the ideology of them, they and we are coerced into accepting the dominant sexual code which is that anything and everything is permitted except – for the moment – sex with children and animals, we are coerced into paying double taxes – ours which is imposed on us by Allah and theirs in the form of income tax, death tax, value added tax etc. instead of our law which recognizes the differences our woman are existentially to remove as much clothing as possible to ensure any acceptance I society or the workplace and the men are if lucky reduced to perfoming the salat in the broom cubboard
War nowadays is not in the realm of military but rather computer and financial, and no one can wage war if their own rivers are polluted, their earth poisoned, pastures and trees almost non-existent, their meat is printed halal while their animals eat plastic bags, waste, rubbish and are fed on steroids and the drinking water smells so much of chlorine that it is not strictly speaking legal to use it for wudu.