Islam forbids using Weapon of Mass Destruction

[Light]

In light of the recent development where Iran is enriching uranium for their purpose of generating electricity.

And also the recent fatwa by the Supreme Council in Iran where it states that Weapons of Mass Destruction is HARAAM.

I would like to know what other Muslims opinion on this? If possible references to Hadith and Quran that relates to this topic.

Ma'asalama.

 

[pharma4ever]

In light of the recent development where Iran is enriching uranium for their purpose of generating electricity.

And also the recent fatwa by the Supreme Council in Iran where it states that Weapons of Mass Destruction is HARAAM.

I would like to know what other Muslims opinion on this? If possible references to Hadith and Quran that relates to this topic.

Ma'asalama.

i think it's not forbidden
nothing in Quran nor sunnah mentioned that it's forbidden
on the other hand,in Quran 8:60
(Against the make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.)

 

[Light]

Pharma4ever,

i think it's not forbidden
nothing in Quran nor sunnah mentioned that it's forbidden
on the other hand,in Quran 8:60
(Against the make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.)

You have a point there and it is a valid point as this act as a deterrent to aggressor. However, here is my viewpoint on why it is forbidden...

Sura 002.190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

The above verses specifically command Muslims to fight in the cause of Allah to those who fight them. In my understanding this means that the enemy must be the one who present clear and present danger to us. Not the nation but the individual soldier if you like and the military installation. As long as its purpose is to oppress against us, it is our duty to defend. In that context, using of WMD is not appropriate because these weapons does not have eyes or judgement to decide where to detonate. Its main purpose is to hit the target regardless if there is any woman, children and the disabled member of the community nearby. Thus, its use will incur more casualty not on the oppressors but the innocent life who is unfortunate to be in the vicinity of the explosion.

Further to that... in the subsequent verses

Sura 002.191
YUSUFALI: And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
Sura 002.192
YUSUFALI: But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
Sura 002.193
YUSUFALI: And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
Sura 002.194
YUSUFALI: The prohibited month for the prohibited month,- and so for all things prohibited,- there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.

Here Allah command us to exercise compassion to the enemy as clearly stated in verses 192. If the enemy surrender, it is our outmost duty to give them the best treatment and compassion. How can we then become compassion and service for greater good as commanded by Allah if all that we can and would like to help are wiped out by the use of WMD.
It is true that in war it is very hard to action these teaching especially when the enemy have incur great affliction on us. This remind me one story of the companions of Muhammad s.a.w where he has shown a greater sacrifice in battle. This is when he has subdue one of the infidel and he was about to kill him when the infidel spat on him. Due to that he restrain himself and let the infidel go. The infidel asked why have he not kill him. His answer is simple, showing his strong faith. The companion said before he ( the infidel) spat at him, he was ready to kill him. However, when he (the infidel) spat, the companion became angry. Because of anger, he restraint from killing the infidel because if he had done so, he would have killed him (the infidel) due to anger and not for the cause of Allah and that would be a sin. This is a great sacrifice by the companions whom totally reject the norm of war and let go his enemy just because he obey the command of Allah and his messenger. Because of his actions, the infidel realises the nobel character of the companion and embrace Islam. Restraining ourself from transgression is best according to the above verses.
If such anger has to be curb in war during prophet's time, so as to protect them from Allah's anger (and in fact they have the best Iman compared to us), what would we have caused by using WMD with all the reasons I have put above. Can we justify our actions to use WMD. What will we answer in judgement day for our actions?
I agree that we can have these weapons, but it is more as a deterrent and not as a threat. We cannot follow the infidels who boast about their military might to oppress the weak. As Allah have revealed in the Quran, He will dealt with those who transgress with humiliating punishment.

Sura 005.087
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! make not unlawful the good things which Allah hath made lawful for you, but commit no excess: for Allah loveth not those given to excess.
Sura 004.014
YUSUFALI: But those who disobey Allah and His Messenger and transgress His limits will be admitted to a Fire, to abide therein: And they shall have a humiliating punishment.

To surmise;
1) Use of WMD cause greater affliction to the opponent and disregard the distinction of one who we are fighting against and the others whom we are not.
2) It does not provide us with the opportunity to show compassion to our enemy. (Because they will be dead already)
3) It creates more problems after the war. Such as removing the radiations/toxic chemical that was used.
4) WMD use as deterrent helps in avoiding conflict.
5) Using WMD is closer to transgressing limit that Allah has forbidden.

Just my viewpoint, and hope this open up a more fruitful discussion and insight on this topic.

Everything that is in error is from my own ignorance while anything that is beneficial is from Allah s.w.t

May Allah reward us justly in our efforts. Insyallah.

 

[pharma4ever]

Pharma4ever,



You have a point there and it is a valid point as this act as a deterrent to aggressor. However, here is my viewpoint on why it is forbidden...



The above verses specifically command Muslims to fight in the cause of Allah to those who fight them. In my understanding this means that the enemy must be the one who present clear and present danger to us. Not the nation but the individual soldier if you like and the military installation. As long as its purpose is to oppress against us, it is our duty to defend. In that context, using of WMD is not appropriate because these weapons does not have eyes or judgement to decide where to detonate. Its main purpose is to hit the target regardless if there is any woman, children and the disabled member of the community nearby. Thus, its use will incur more casualty not on the oppressors but the innocent life who is unfortunate to be in the vicinity of the explosion.

Further to that... in the subsequent verses


Here Allah command us to exercise compassion to the enemy as clearly stated in verses 192. If the enemy surrender, it is our outmost duty to give them the best treatment and compassion. How can we then become compassion and service for greater good as commanded by Allah if all that we can and would like to help are wiped out by the use of WMD.
It is true that in war it is very hard to action these teaching especially when the enemy have incur great affliction on us. This remind me one story of the companions of Muhammad s.a.w where he has shown a greater sacrifice in battle. This is when he has subdue one of the infidel and he was about to kill him when the infidel spat on him. Due to that he restrain himself and let the infidel go. The infidel asked why have he not kill him. His answer is simple, showing his strong faith. The companion said before he ( the infidel) spat at him, he was ready to kill him. However, when he (the infidel) spat, the companion became angry. Because of anger, he restraint from killing the infidel because if he had done so, he would have killed him (the infidel) due to anger and not for the cause of Allah and that would be a sin. This is a great sacrifice by the companions whom totally reject the norm of war and let go his enemy just because he obey the command of Allah and his messenger. Because of his actions, the infidel realises the nobel character of the companion and embrace Islam. Restraining ourself from transgression is best according to the above verses.
If such anger has to be curb in war during prophet's time, so as to protect them from Allah's anger (and in fact they have the best Iman compared to us), what would we have caused by using WMD with all the reasons I have put above. Can we justify our actions to use WMD. What will we answer in judgement day for our actions?
I agree that we can have these weapons, but it is more as a deterrent and not as a threat. We cannot follow the infidels who boast about their military might to oppress the weak. As Allah have revealed in the Quran, He will dealt with those who transgress with humiliating punishment.



To surmise;
1) Use of WMD cause greater affliction to the opponent and disregard the distinction of one who we are fighting against and the others whom we are not.
2) It does not provide us with the opportunity to show compassion to our enemy. (Because they will be dead already)
3) It creates more problems after the war. Such as removing the radiations/toxic chemical that was used.
4) WMD use as deterrent helps in avoiding conflict.
5) Using WMD is closer to transgressing limit that Allah has forbidden.

Just my viewpoint, and hope this open up a more fruitful discussion and insight on this topic.

Everything that is in error is from my own ignorance while anything that is beneficial is from Allah s.w.t

May Allah reward us justly in our efforts. Insyallah.

yes,but remember
1-we will not use nuclear weapon against the peaceful nations.
2-we will not use it for fighting in a normal war.
3-it's main purpose is for terror to make enemy frightened not for real use.
4-our real enemies have already nuclear weapons and are stronger than us,they have the ability to distroy us all ,and they have no religious teaching forbids that.
5-the aya 8:60 tells us to prepare the most we can of powerwith no limitation (but limitation must be present in use).
6-muslims will need it if the enemy started using it ,we then are allowed to do the same with him to force him to stop
aya 9:36 (....and fight the Pagans all together as they fight you all together. But know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.)
so,if they fighted all the nations killing every one in cities by nuclear bombing,we have the right to destroy their cities all.
7-muslims should be the strongest ,because we will not harm anyone
but if the other became strongest they will be enjoying killing for no reason
u can see what is happening in iraq and Afganistan by america..
8-so,our nuclear weapon will not be for bad use
they are for protect and defense(by frightening enemy to prevent him of starting the war)
and to allow fair to control the world..

 

[pharma4ever]

hey
i posted here
i don't know why my post didn't appear!

 

[BlaznFattyz]

if a nation was truly a holy nation and people promised by god, wouldnt god be their king and trust? and wouldnt he step in with his hand and protect that nation, because of their belief in him?

 

[Light]

Yes, Muslims were taught to trust Allah. However, there is a difference in trusting without doing anything and trusting and be prepared the same time.

Muslims are taught to always prepare ourself to defend against aggression. If Allah is to keep helping Muslims, then Allah will not be The Just, which is one of His name. Reason being, if Muslims is defended all the time, then the infidel may claim that they are not treated fairly when their deeds is judged injudgement day.

Allah is Most Wise and thus Muslims cannot blatantly think that they can forgo the defense of the nation.

One simple example, if Muhammad (pbuh), who have been given prophethood by Allah, still have to go out to war to defend Muslim against aggression, it is the clearest example that we must always be prepared and make provision for any calamity or aggression.

 

[thipps]

The obvious but necessary point that needs to made here is that, in Islam, belief must be followed up by action. Lip service doesnt fly.

 

[Out There]

yes,but remember
1-we will not use nuclear weapon against the peaceful nations.

Assalamu'alaikum Warahmatullah,
CORRECTION. WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IS ABSOLUTELY HARAM IF IT IS TARGETED AT AN AREA POPULATED BY CIVILIANS. WHETHER A NATION IS PEACEFUL OR NOT, THE USE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IS ABSOLUTELY HARAM. REMEMBER THAT THE PROPHET AS RELATED IN SAHIH BUKHARI STATES THAT ONE IS FORBIDDEN TO EVEN DESTROY A TREE WHEN ATTACKING AN ENEMY'S LAND. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PERMITTED COLLATERAL DAMAGE IN ISLAM.

 

[Out There]

6-muslims will need it if the enemy started using it ,we then are allowed to do the same with him to force him to stop
aya 9:36 (....and fight the Pagans all together as they fight you all together. But know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.)

Before you quote from the Qur'an it is imperative that you are actually familiar with the asbabul nuzul pharma4ever. You can't just quote a verse out of context to support your views without considering the reason behind their revelation. In the case of Surah At-Tawbah, verse 36 it is not talking about fighting JUST ANY pagan, in which case the Prophet would have commanded Muslims to fight the Chinese too(Taoists) and would not have asked them to "seek knowledge even unto China". The verse and in fact the whole surah is in referrence to a particular time in Islam when it was at war with the Pagan Quraisy. It is refers to the Pagan Quraisy who wanted to decimate Islam and its followers from the face of the earth(harbun kuffar/musyrikeen) not just any unbeliever.

"Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to frighten the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom you may not know, but whom Allah does know. Whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and you shall not be treated unjustly. But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is the One that hears and knows (all things). Should they intend to deceive you, verily Allah is sufficient for you: He it is Who strengthened you with His help and with the Believers. He put affection between their hearts. If you had spent all that is in the earth, you could not have produced that affection, but Allah has done it: for He is Exalted in might, Wise. O Prophet! Sufficient unto you is Allah, and unto those who follow you among the Believers." (al-Anfal:60-64)

Islam does not limit the use of weapons in wars to that of swords or guns but it is definitely against the use of mass desctruction which if used would probably injure and kill non-combatants and civilians both of which are not to be harmed as stated by the Prophet "Do not mutilate anybody, nor kill any minor or woman…" and Abu Bakr used to say "Do not mutilate, do not kill a minor child or an old man of advanced age or a woman, do not hew down a date-palm nor burn it, do not cut down a fruit tree, do not slaughter a goat or cow or camel except for food. May be you will pass by people who have secluded themselves in convents, leave them in their seclusion…”

Allah condemns those who make mischief in the lands by destroying tilths and living beings : "And among the people there is the type of person whose speech about this world's life may please you, and he calls Allah to witness about what is in his heart; yet he is the most contentious of enemies. When he turns his back, his aim everywhere is to spread mischief through the earth and destroy crops and cattle. But Allah loves not mischief” (al-Baqarah:204-205)"

The use of weapons of mass destruction in an area dwelled by people alongside trees, livestock, shrines are forbidden to be tresspassed. Wallahu'alam bisawab.

 

[thipps]

"seek knowledge even unto China".

Salaam,
This is just a side-note and doesnt affect what you said. The part about going to china is not an authentic narration. It is famous yes but not authentic.
Regarding the 'hadith', "Seek knowledge even if it be to China" - al-Albaanee declared this hadeeth to be 'maudu' (fabricated). [Da'eef al-Jaami as-Sagheer, (no's 1005-1006)]
Ibn al-Jawzee quotes ibn Hibbaan saying, "invalid/rejected, it has no basis". [al-Mawdoo'aat, (1/215)]
That the hadeeth or part of it is either weak or fabricated does not negate the general obligation of seeking knowledge. The proven hadith is that which was narrated by Ibn Maajah from the hadith of Anas ibn Maalik, who said: "The Messenger of Allaah (pbuh) said: 'Seeking knowledge is obligatory upon every Muslim.' " [220. Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Sunan Ibn Maajah]
Just thought I'd mention it.

 

[Amica]

Salaam.

The use of wpd is haraam if one intends to destroy God's creations. I think who ever invented those weapons is a caller to Hell because nothing good will come of it. We've seen the Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These days the wpd are worse and stronger. Some of them can wipe out a whole country, not just a city. Those who are utterly evil would resort to such weapons. Isn't diplomacy and compromise the best weapon for all of us? These days so many countries have wpd that even those who do not like them strive to develop them for fear of being destroyed. I think that this may be the case with Iran. With Israeli hegemony in the Middle East and its arsenal of wpd it seems that everyone in the region feels threatened. At the same time you have a horde of non-Muslim countries hungry for oil and armed with wpd. Unless the oil disappears by a miracle of Our Lord Almighty, I think the threat won't cease. At the same time the determination of Iran is not weakening either.
I don't like it. I think it is extremely sad that humanity would want to have and use wpd.

 

[bananabrain]

amica,

i'll probably regret intervening here, but it is ridiculous to speak of an israeli "hegemony" in the middle east. hegemony means control and domination. i hardly think israel is controlling egypt, syria, iraq, iran, saudia arabia or jordan - in fact the current awful situations in lebanon and gaza is precisely because the governments of both places are either unwilling or unable to control the heavily armed militants firing rockets from civilian areas. (perhaps you think the israelis are firing rockets at their own cities? or perhaps i shouldn't be surprised, given statements like this http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/738332.html ) more to the point, if that were the case, i think that relations between these governments and israel would be a lot more friendly! the decline of the islamic world started long before israel existed and is due to many factors, not some zionist conspiracy. i suggest you read the eminent middle east expert bernard lewis' books "what went wrong?" and "the crisis of islam" which both discuss the problem in a clear and lucid style.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060516054/103-4772494-0718213?v=glance&n=283155

of course, if you'd prefer to believe that everything that is wrong in the middle east would be solved by the removal of israel, you are of course at liberty to do so, although i think you are kidding yourself and showing a distinct lack of belief in the capability and potential of the islamic world - which i think would be a terrible shame.

i also hardly need point out that even a small w.m.d. in the middle of tel aviv would also harm huge numbers of palestinians and israeli arabs.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Amica]

Salaam/Peace/Shallom

Hello bananabrain.

I personally feel that Israel dominates the region. I do not accuse all the Jews to support Israel's foreign/domestic policy because my religion teaches me that there are believers among Jews and I can't accuse them. I hold them in respect.

However, Israel is dominating the 'muslim' governments by its threats of having wmd and it seems anyone it does not like is a 'terrorist. One proof that Israel's foreign policy is not friendly at all is the fact that it did all it could to get the U.S. involved with Iraq. Of course the U.S. has its own interest, but as I recall Israel felt 'scared' that Sadaam will 'wipe it out.' Well, even though the Muslims in Iraq were chickens to get the tyrrant out of power, he did not have wmd. Guess Israel was wrong. What about Iran now? As soon as someone else in the region is only suspected of making a bomb, Israel has been screaming for help. I am not saying that what iranian president said was ok, because it was not--he is extremely determined individual in a possibly wrong way when it comes to Israel as his neighbor, but why can't a Muslim country in the ME have the bomb, if Israel has so many of them?

I get a feeling that Israel is going to spread to Syria, Egypt, Iran and elsewhere because it is so hungry. I am not saying all the Jews are striving to steal land from its neighbors, but unfortunately those in Isreal are the majority.

 

[bananabrain]

I do not accuse all the Jews to support Israel's foreign/domestic policy because my religion teaches me that there are believers among Jews and I can't accuse them. I hold them in respect.

with all due respect, amica, if the only jews you can talk to are ones who disagree with everything about israel you are going to be talking to a pretty small group. personally, i disagree with many of their foreign and domestic policies - but by no means all or even the majority.

However, Israel is dominating the 'muslim' governments by its threats of having wmd

this is sloppy thinking. domination implies the use of coercion and israel is hardly in a position to coerce, say, the saudis. wmds may protect you against wholesale invasion and other wmds, but they clearly don't protect against rockets, kidnappings and suicide bombers. israel is the country that is continually singled out for censure in international institutions - but is not allowed to sit on any human rights commissions, unlike, say, iran and syria! there are many different forms of coercion. what is OPEC for?

it seems anyone it does not like is a 'terrorist.

rubbish. the israelis don't like the british at all but they don't call them terrorists. however, it seems pretty clear that hamas and hizbollah are both terrorist organisations. i take it you agree with that.

One proof that Israel's foreign policy is not friendly at all is the fact that it did all it could to get the U.S. involved with Iraq.

the "fact"? how is it a "fact"? this is just the usual conspiracy theory paranoia. of course israel had plenty of reason to want saddam gone (like how he was paying the families of suicide bombers $25,000 each whilst his own people were starving and how he launched scud missiles at israel during the first gulf war, which israel wasn't involved in) but it is hard to see how the current state of iraq helps israel!

Well, even though the Muslims in Iraq were chickens to get the tyrrant out of power, he did not have wmd.

of course, it's terribly convenient for you to forget that wmds are not just nuclear, but CHEMICAL and BIOLOGICAL as well. and those saddam definitely had. and that *is* a fact. we know because he used them? remember that? halabja, 1991? the kurds, the marsh arabs and the shi'a in the south? ring any bells? and, of course, he would have had nuclear power already if it weren't for the fact that someone - ooh, that's right, it was the israelis again - took out his reactor in 1981, paid for by our great friends the french.

let us not forget, however, that i am not accusing saddam of having wmds out of islamic conviction - as we all know, there is very little of islam about him. he simply uses islam when it suits him to do so, like many of the other leaders in the middle east.

As soon as someone else in the region is only suspected of making a bomb, Israel has been screaming for help. I am not saying that what iranian president said was ok, because it was not--he is extremely determined individual in a possibly wrong way when it comes to Israel as his neighbor, but why can't a Muslim country in the ME have the bomb, if Israel has so many of them?

no president or prime minister of israel has never threatened any muslim country in the terms with which ahmedinejad has threatened israel. let me ask you, amica - in israel's situation and given what ahmedinejad said and the fact that iran sponsors hizbollah and trains its people to become anti-israel suicide bombers - what on earth would you suggest would be a reasonable response?

I get a feeling that Israel is going to spread to Syria, Egypt, Iran and elsewhere because it is so hungry. I am not saying all the Jews are striving to steal land from its neighbors, but unfortunately those in Isreal are the majority.

amica - this is just utter paranoid fantasy. you have absolutely no idea what the israelis want. hasn't the government of israel just withdrawn from gaza under the aegis of none other than the arch-expansionist ariel sharon? don't you know that the present prime minister's party was elected on a platform of UNILATERAL WITHDRAWAL from the west bank? didn't israel give up the whole of the sinai peninsula (including its only oil wells) in exchange for peace with egypt? didn't they pull out of lebanon unilaterally under the barak government?

add all of those things up together - does what you just said make ANY KIND OF SENSE AT ALL? unfortunately i fear that this way of thinking is all too current in the islamic world - and it is utterly, utterly wrong. i am not saying that israel is perfect and never does anything wrong and of course there must be an equitable solution for the palestinians, which is why the present government was elected - but ask yourself this:

WHY are there still refugee camps for palestinians in lebanon, jordan, egypt and syria, 60 years since the foundation of israel? where is the islamic, or even arab desire to absorb or help their so-called brethren? haven't they in fact, used the palestinian cause as a way of distracting their own populations from the fact that they are a bunch of repressive dictatorships? my palestinian friends certainly think so.

if you are so keen to help the palestinian refugees recover what they feel (rightly in some cases) was stolen from them, do you think anything should be done to restore what was stolen from the jewish citizens of iran, iraq, syria, egypt, lebanon, libya etc when they were kicked out of their countries after 1948?

a true solution will be fair for BOTH sides, not just a chance to give the zionists a kicking.

was-salaam/b'shalom

bananabrain