Mass killings of pagans, Western genocides, and Islam

[Northwest]

^ Based on the above, I decided to start a separate thread that concerns the mass killing of pagans—that is, religious people who are neither atheists nor Ahl al-Kitāb—in time(s) of war. Throughout history, various factions of Ahl al-Kitāb, including (self-declared?) Muslims, have sanctioned mass killings or even so-called “genocidal” actions vs. entire pagan societies. For example, the Catholic Inquisition and some Muslim rulers sought to forcibly convert or exterminate Indian Hindus, including women and children, on religious grounds. Even today Takfiri militants—sponsored by the West via the GCC, Turkey, and Pakistan—specifically target Hindus, to not mention Buddhists, Yazidis, and other “pagan” groups. Typically the aggressors undertake indiscriminate rather than selective actions, e.g., burning of crops, elimination of cattle, rape, use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), destruction of entire populated areas, etc. For example, the Christian Americans dropped napalm (“fire-bombs”) on populated areas of Shinto Japan during World War II (the nuclear weapons were dropped on Christian areas of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). I might also note American colonists’ use of WMD vs. the native “pagan” Indians (smallpox etc.)

Even if Islam condones offensive action vs. pagans after a “grace period,” in such a situation does it allow the use of indiscriminate tactics in wartime that it would otherwise not permit vs. Ahl al-Kitāb? Is one allowed to use, say, WMD vs. pagans, even if it is prohibited vs. Ahl al-Kitāb? How does the status of being a pagan affect the conduct of warfare by an Islamic power, once the war is actually declared? (Here I am not talking about preliminaries such as prewar negotiations, conditions, etc., but about the methods of warfare that are to be deployed once the war is initiated.) I am asking because a lot of Ahl al-Kitāb throughout history have argued that tactics that would be impermissible vs. other Ahl al-Kitāb would certainly be allowed vs. pagans, including, presumably, the use of chemical, nuclear, and biological warfare, along with other “uncivilised” means. Groups such as ISIS, al-Qaida, etc. have certainly had no qualms about using WMD in Chechnya, Syria, and elsewhere. They would probably claim that it is “acceptable” to use such weapons vs. “Devil-worshipping” (in their minds) Yazidis and similar groups. European colonisers used similar justifications vs. “pagan” Africans, Chinese, and Amerindians.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Northwest

[Ashvazdanghe]

8 hours ago, Northwest said:

Even if Islam condones offensive action vs. pagans after a “grace period,” in such a situation does it allow the use of indiscriminate tactics in wartime that it would otherwise not permit vs. Ahl al-Kitāb? Is one allowed to use, say, WMD vs. pagans, even if it is prohibited vs. Ahl al-Kitāb? How does the status of being a pagan affect the conduct of warfare by an Islamic power, once the war is actually declared? (Here I am not talking about preliminaries such as prewar negotiations, conditions, etc., but about the methods of warfare that are to be deployed once the war is initiated.

Hi this is totally against Islamic teaching whether by Sunnis or Shia muslims which this dirty tactics are just distortion of Islamic teachings by cursed Ummayads & Abbasids which groups likewise Daesh/ISIS al-Qaida, etc  see themselves as inheritors of cursed Ummayads & Abbasids so then their distortion .

[Ashvazdanghe]

The main text of the statement on the leader's website in March 2011 (Farvardin 1389) and in his message to the first international conference on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation is as follows: "We believe that in addition to nuclear weapons, other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical weapons and biological weapons, are also are considered a serious threat against humanity. The Iranian nation, which itself is a victim of the use of chemical weapons, feels more than other nations the danger of the production and accumulation of such weapons and is ready to put all its resources in the way of dealing with it. We declare using these weapons  forbidden, and we consider it everyone's duty to protect human beings from this great calamity.

The leaders of revolution also said in 2010: "According to our beliefs, our religious foundations, the use of such means of mass killing is absolutely prohibited, it is haram; this is a wasting of earth and generations, which is forbidden by the Quran; we do not pursue this. .

 

Can the fatwa of the leaders of revolution be changed?

Reza Azad, PhD in Islamic Studies and Political Science and one of the experts in political jurisprudence, says that it is true that the conditions of time and place have an effect on fatwas, but from a scientific point of view, we need to see what exactly was the reason for the fatwa of revolution leader? He has said in his various speeches that the main reason is to destroy earth and generation.

Azad goes on to say: In general, in Shia jurisprudence, anything that causes massacre or mass killing is haram, for example, pouring poison into the water of a city and the like is also haram. And this is not something that changes with the passage of time and change of place.

Ahmad Mubaleghi, a member of the Council of Leadership Experts, also mentions 3 reasons in explaining the reasons for this fatwa:

First, the bearer's rule

According to the rule of the bearer "and no bearer shall bear another’s burden" the scope of the punishment should not be extended beyond those who deserve it. In other words, no one should suffer from the consequences of evil caused by others.

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/6:164

 

Second, the rule of trying to corrupt

The noble verse, " If he were to wield authority, he would try to cause corruption in the land and to ruin the crop and the stock" is the source of this rule. Taking any path that ultimately ends in corruption on earth is an example of trying to corrupt and the subject of this rule, and as a result will be condemned to sanctity.

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/2:205

The third , rule of sin

According to this rule, if the sin - that is, sin, ugliness and filth - in an action is major and greater than the benefit and profit of that action, it is sanctioned. Nuclear weapons are an example of this rule. These weapons clearly do more harm than good. The idea of human involvement in a nuclear war is so terrifying that it leaves no room for doubt in the application of the mentioned rule. It is certain to recognize the ugliness and filth of using nuclear weapons by the judgment of the wise and to receive the stamp of approval from the human conscience.

These three rules are not rules that change over time. Therefore, it is not possible to change the fatwa when the reason for sanctity is fixed.

https://www.farsnews.ir/news/14001116000486/آیا-حرمت-سلاح-هسته‌ای-قابل-تغییر-است

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

https://www.farsnews.ir/news/14001116000486/آیا-حرمت-سلاح-هسته‌ای-قابل-تغییر-است

https://farsi.khamenei.ir/newspart-index?tid=3745