|
In The Name Of Allah Most Gracious Most Merciful
Assalaamu alaykum wa rahmatuallahi wa barakatuhu
Inside the Mind of a
Suicide Bomber
– Part 1
By
Yamin Zakaria
“Terrorism is a reaction to STATE TERROR.” States keep
pushing the people, until the people join and push back. Hamas was born
after 1948, Hezbollah was born after 1982 and Al-Qaeda was born after
1991, undoubtedly effect always follows the primary
Human instinct leads us to find fault in others before we admit to our
own; this is particularly true between two conflicting parties. Likewise
we tend to exhibit envy and greed when looking at those who are more
fortunate than us, instead of feeling grateful by reflecting on those
who are less fortunate. Prophets of God throughout human history have
provided guidance to channel and control human instincts, by inculcating
higher ideals. The battle between these ideals and the debased desires
of Kings, Pharaohs and other forms of tyrants, are narrated all the way
through the Old Testament (Torah), the New Testament (Injeel) to the
final revelation - the Holy Quran.
However, we live in a peculiar age where the tyrants present themselves
as Prophets. They advocate instinct-based-behaviour, wrapped with words
like ‘freedom’ and ‘free market’, as higher forms of ideals. They
promote libertarian sexual practises, to resemble the beasts in the
jungle; this is espoused as an expression of ‘freedom’. Similarly,
instead of judiciously nurturing the human desire to generate and
distribute wealth fairly, they encourage the society to operate on
individualism, i.e. sheer greed; by creating the profit-maximising
free-market economy, where individual human desire is paramount.
The tyrants continue the deception by obfuscating the merits of other
civilisations with a thin layer of International law (as long as it
serves them) and military aggression. A militarily powerful nation such
as a superpower does not automatically possess the qualities of being a
leading civilisation. Such powerful nations often impose an order
through use of brute force, hypocrisy, and arrogance, rather than by
projecting and applying higher ideals consistently. This is why modern
day tyrants and their accomplices hypocritically pour scorn on the
weapon (‘suicide’ bombings or martyrdom operations) of the weaker party
fighting for survival – knowing that the weaker party does not have
access to regular high-tech weapons.
When the armies of the tyrants pulverise humans and houses, with their
missiles and bombs, it is called hunting ‘terrorists’ with an undeclared
level of collateral damage, another word for dead women and children.
When the oppressed retaliate with martyrdom operations, it is called
terrorism. Exactly who is terrorising whom? Who lives in fear and terror
- the inhabitants in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan or those in the US,
UK, Italy and Australia? Who is delivering more terror, those dropping
daisy cutters, cluster bombs and Napalm, or those shooting with outdated
RPGs? Not only do the tyrants attempt to portray themselves as Prophets,
full of virtue but the most powerful ones go even further, as they
expect the world to see them as innocent victims, while in reality they
kill hundreds of thousands, rape and plunder distant lands and litter
the world with their military bases, and they are the innocent ones?
Then, the invading tyrants have the audacity to question the morality
and the courage of the martyrs (cowardly, weak etc), who died defending
their homes and families. How is it that invading soldiers, protected in
their tanks and high-altitude planes, are absurdly portrayed as upright
and courageous heroes? How is that courageous label reconciled when they
are killing women and children, from inside armoured vehicles or 2 miles
up in the cockpit of a $40 million jet fighter? The oppressors, from a
safe distance, are using far more powerful (500lb, 1000lb etc) bombs,
that are just as indiscriminate, as the little bombs (10lb, 30lb) used
by the ‘suicide’ bombers? It is the masses in the West that are being
brainwashed to believe it is morally acceptable to kill women and
children with cluster bombs from F16’s, calling it collateral damage,
yet it’s outrageous and immoral when death visits in a ‘suicide’
bombing?
Most certainly, there is an intense drive to project ‘suicide’ bombings
as anything but retaliation; otherwise the West is in danger of
confessing their crimes. Hence, they have resorted to a two pronged
strategy; the first of which is to hire Muslim moderates who will issue
some kind of dubious legal opinions (will be covered in Part III) with
one track condemnation of martyrdom operations, secondly, they attribute
martyrdom operations as entirely an internal phenomenon, totally
unconnected to resisting foreign occupiers. Thus, they raise the
following questions, to misdirect the public from the real causes of
martyrdom operations, in an attempt to escape their own guilt:
1) Which Imam was responsible for brainwashing
the bombers?
Many are accusing the Imams of brainwashing youth to undertake martyrdom
missions. So ridiculous is this hysteria, you would think that they are
confusing the Imams, with the mythical characters from fairytales,
possessing magical lamps and flying carpets with the ability to
hypnotise people! Imams are the most apolitical group in the Muslim
community. They do not even refer to local political matters, let alone
international affairs. If anything it is the mafia like Mosque
committees, who have the power and persuasion; they function to stifle
open discussions, many Mosques carry the usual sign “no political
discussion or meeting without authorisation”, unless of course you
happen to be a government representative on an election campaign
wondering into the place.
Rationally, it is difficult for anyone to lecture others to engage in a
martyrdom mission, as it is reasonable to suppose that the candidate
must ask themselves why this person is not leading by example. Also, the
sacrificing of ones life has such a complete finality, that it will
always be an individual’s decision, therefore it can only be conducted
by those who volunteer willingly.
2) Is it due to alienation?
People who are alienated do not blow themselves up along with others. It
is the majority community that has deliberately constructed the problem
of alienation to aid the assimilation of minority communities. The
Muslims and the mainstream society will be alienated from each other,
since the two communities adhere to different values and norms. This is
mutual alienation is natural and expected. In any case, the idea that
alienation would drive anyone to commit martyrdom operations is overly
simplistic, defies human nature and commonsense. However, the sly,
Machiavellian politicians and journalists are peddling this in
desperation, again, to avoid discussing the real causes behind martyrdom
operations.
3) Is it due to the promised virgins (‘Houris’)?
If a man wants to satisfy his carnal desires he is more likely to engage
in self-indulgence rather than self-destruction. For a devout Muslim,
this means getting married rather than get himself fitted for an
explosive belt. There is no shortage of virgins in the Islamic world,
where it is a virtue and not, as it is in the west, a source of shame.
The point being that Muslim youth do not need to become martyrs to find
virgins. Furthermore, translation of the word Houris is not the virgin
women on earth, pleasures of heaven are described in the worldly
language: nobody knows how literal or metaphorical these are. These are
promised to all who enter paradise and martyrdom is not the only route
to acquire these pleasures.
Such distortion of the terms and the facts by vicious Western media is
also partly due to envy, as they cannot find virgins in their own
community. It also shows the subconscious problem with their own
sexuality, as according to their own religious beliefs sex is a
necessary sin, but their desire is to practice it in excess, showing an
ongoing internal conflict. So in describing Islam, they have transformed
the Harems into brothels, Houris into lustful virgins. They see the four
wives only in terms of sexual pleasures, ignoring the legal
responsibility that comes with it, reflecting their sexually obsessed
mindset, everything has to be analysed for its sexual utility. Also,
making such accusations helps them to hide a collective guilt, as
hypocrisy through adultery and pre-marital sex is rife, as monogamous
man, like virgins, are a rarity.
4) Is it due to the indoctrination of hate?
Any physical resistance is terrorism and any intellectual resistance is
now classified by another one of those politically charged terms, that
are loosely defined - hate. As if the West was full of love and mercy,
with their genocidal sanctions (1/2 million dead Iraqi babies) to the
“shock and awe” campaign against a nation who had done no harm to them.
Let us be more precise, Muslims exhibit anger but not hatred, in
contrast it is the West that exhibits hatred but not anger. Anger will
always be expressed by the victims, and will be absent in the aggressor.
What else does the West expect from those who they have orphaned,
widowed or made childless? Such anger is a moral virtue; it is an outcry
against, injustice and the initial aggression by the real mass
murderers.
In contrast, hate is the result of inculcating ideas that are rooted in
for example one group’s racial identity, and not a reaction to any
political events. Societies built along racial identities lead to
Xenophobia, Nationalism, Nazism, Racism and Fascism. This is why the
foreigners are always hated, and it is this deep rooted hate, that
caused the extermination of other races, something that was, and
continues to be integral to the colonial West. Just ask the Aboriginals
and the natives of South, Central and North America for verification of
this truth. Ask the South Africans, who until recently, were under the
yoke of White racial superiority, from Europeans and their descendents.
And it is this hatred for others that caused the unprovoked abuse and
torture in Abu-Ghraib and other US-run prisons.
Even as the bombs drop in the Islamic world, you do not see the Muslims
resorting to using the equivalent pejorative terms like “sand-niggers”,
“towel heads”, “rag heads” to demonise an entire community or
civilisation, because, their anger exists only against the criminal
aggressors. Like Osama Bin Laden said: “why do we not attack Sweden”.
Of course anger will at times lead to retaliation, but that will be
focused in terms of the time and place. We did not see martyrdom
operations in the Islamic world 100 years ago, nor is there any kind of
operation in the most densely populated Muslim countries like
Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Indonesia at present. This is clear proof that
martyrdom actions are not the product of the intrinsic values or
teachings of Islam even if it is permitted by Islamic law.
The real reasons
Martyrdom missions by their nature are the weapons of the weaker party
in the conflict, and the last resort, as the basic human instinct
dictates that we preserve life! Therefore, in most cases martyrdom is
used in defence/retaliation against the stronger enemy. It has to be
defence/retaliation, because a martyrdom operation, at most, may halt a
stronger advancing enemy. Martyrdom is not a tactic of an offensive
group, as you cannot conduct an offensive conquest while sacrificing
your soldiers, as you would soon run out of volunteers, and eventually
will have no soldiers to maintain the conquered territories.
Some martyrs may have drawn inspiration from Islamic texts, to commit
brave acts of retaliation against the aggressor. However, this
inspiration sets in, only if, the prevalent political conditions provide
the impetus to retaliate. I also use the word brave, not so much in
terms of praise, but as a description of courage, after all you would
have to have some level of courage to sacrifice your own life. Anyone
doubting this really lacks intellect and this is exactly the point that
Robert Fisk made, when the 9/11 pilots were described by Bush as
cowards.
Most conveniently, what many people forget is some of the people who
engaged in martyrdom operations, were not inspired by religion, but were
in fact subscribers of secular ideologies, so this is not exclusively a
religious phenomenon. One of the recent, but well-known Palestinian
‘suicide’ bombers was not a religiously devout woman. As an ambulance
worker she had first hand experience of seeing Israeli aggression, which
led her to commit a retaliatory action. The Syrian Socialist Party, a
purely secular group, conducted ‘suicide’ attacks against the Israeli
occupiers of Lebanon, as did the Tamil Tigers, in Sri Lanka, against the
Sinhalese majority. All of this emphasises ‘martyrdom’ operations, are
not the reserve of any specific religion, race or nation.
What impact images from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine have on
individuals, no one can accurately predict, every individual has their
own tolerance threshold; once crossed, this can drive people to
retaliate. In denial, the politicians and journalists are trying to
build another ‘missing-link,’ to mythical radical Imam as the
instigators of martyrdom operations, just like the missing-link found in
Blair’s ‘dodgy dossier,’ the 45 minute threat and the Niger link,
confirming Iraq’s mythical WMD’s prior to the war! Asif Hanif from the
UK, who carried out the martyrdom mission in occupied Palestine, was not
involved with any radical group and had no radical Imam lecturing him.
The real solution lies in addressing the primary cause, which is State
Terrorism of the colonial west. It is euphemistically hidden behind
terms like ‘foreign policy’. These states unashamedly use their position
and media spin, to label the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of
innocents, as just - “foreign policy”! Unfortunately many of the
headless Muslim moderates, have also adopted such terms like ‘foreign
policy’ blindly, to describe the slaughtering of Muslims, while they
resort to terms like murder for the 52 killed in the London bombings; Is
murder in a uniform not murder? Are all human beings not equal?
source
Inside the Mind of a
Suicide Bomber – Part 2
Targeting Civilians
Lies breed more lies; projecting falsehood as truth necessitates the
creation of more lies. For example, to support the primary lie of Iraq’s
WMD capabilities, layers of false information were generated by the
Anglo-US government. Similarly, to conceal their culpability - the
British, US and Israeli governments have tried to divert their publics
from the real reasons that shape the minds of ‘suicide’ bombers, through
propaganda and blatant lies. I exposed most of those well-known, lies
and propaganda in the previous article [1]. In this article, I will
analyse the more credible argument used against the ‘suicide’ bombers:
the indiscriminate targeting of civilians.
While, the actions of ‘suicide’ bombers are made gratuitously violent by
deliberately amputating them from their political and historical
context; concurrently, the actions of state terrorists are sanitised by
amplifying political and historical context, whilst marginalising the
sufferings inflicted upon their victims. Consequently this helps their
population to maintain their ‘conviction’ of innocence; and helps to
project ‘suicide’ bombers as mindless terrorists, ‘cannot be negotiated
with’, are ‘Islamo-Fascists’ etc. and state terrorism is justified as
simply a reaction to that.
Accordingly, when the British, Israelis or Americans are killed by
‘suicide’ bombers, they are ‘innocent’ victims of terrorism. The
killings of much larger numbers of civilians by an organised army in
occupied Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan are simply ‘defensive’
measures; their innocence is irrelevant, so shedding of their blood
needs no justification, no matter how many hundreds of thousands die.
This illusion created by the media is the exact opposite of reality
because ‘suicide’ (martyrdom) operations in almost all cases are a
response to the imposed wars and occupation by a more powerful enemy.
People understand that ‘suicide’ operations, by its nature are a
retaliatory measure of last resort, simply due to its finality. Thus,
the best efforts of the media and politicians have not been successful
in projecting ‘suicide’ bombings as an act of naked aggression. Instead,
the media has focused in demonising it for its usage against civilians
instead of confining it to military targets. Let us begin to analyse the
‘suicide’ operations in the context of war.
‘Suicide’ Bombings are Indiscriminate
This is an irrational argument, as all bombs are indiscriminate; in fact
the more powerful the bombs are, the more indiscriminate they are, ergo
the nation that has dropped more bombs than any other in history, the
US, is by definition the greatest indiscriminate killer. Bombs and
missiles dropped from planes have the explosive power of hundreds or
thousands of suicide bombers. Using ones body or a fighter plane to
deliver the bombs are just different delivery means, and there is no
inherent logic that dictates one method as more immoral than the other.
However, the masses are swallowing the logic that, the methods of the
‘suicide’ bombers are immoral even though they may be only detonating a
50lb bomb in comparison to the ‘moral’ methods of using planes, dropping
1,000lb plus bombs on people! This is how absurd the propaganda machine
has become.
Even if the dubious claims of using precision or smart bombs were true,
it would still be immaterial, because the pilots are usually neither
precise nor smart, when they unleash their bombs over Baghdad and Kabul
as shown by frequent reports of bombs falling on wedding parties,
families, civilian markets etc. They simply do not care and behave as if
they are playing a video game. One of the ‘achievements’ of using
high-tech weapons is that the soldiers are desensitised, being at a
distant as they do not see the sufferings inflicted on their victims. If
you desensitise soldiers who are already violent and xenophobic, the
consequence is likely to be horrific. Such a mindset that is far more
indiscriminate and insensitive to killings, at the wheel of a main
battle tank, piloting a fighter bomber or manning a machine gun at a
checkpoint, and is certain to be far more destructive than ‘suicide’
bombers!
We witnessed this murderous mindset during the 1991 Gulf War. The allied
soldiers resorted to an orgy of killings on the road to Basra; they even
fought each other to take pot shots at the retreating Iraqi civilians
and soldiers, who were complying with the UN resolutions. Also in the
recent war in Iraq and Afghanistan, frequent reports of coalition forces
wiping out entire families at check points, in their homes or wedding
parties, etc. But anyway, who cares, we are not in the business of
counting bodies, as has been said by a US General. The disgusting
brutality of the Anglo-US forces in Abu-Ghraib and other prisons
underline that indiscriminate mindset.
‘Suicide’ bombers mainly target innocent civilians.
Those who are constantly lecturing others about targeting civilians use
powerful munitions that are bound to have high civilian casualties!
Hence, there is very little merit in the claim by the Anglo-US-Israeli
axis that they do not target civilians intentionally, while they
continue using powerful indiscriminate bombs, that have resulted in the
killing of tens of thousands more civilians than all of the suicide
bombers combined. Indeed, such claims are not only laughable but one of
the greatest hoaxes of this age! If avoiding or minimising civilian
casualties was a genuine concern, nations would rush to prohibit the
production, development and usage of the most powerful and
indiscriminate bombs e.g. Nukes, Daisy Cutters, mini-Nukes, JDAMS and
their equivalent, but they do not.
The Western and Israeli forces kill civilians using their long range
weapons with ease, whereas the ‘suicide’ bombers cannot retaliate in the
same manner, lacking the weapons and resources. Since the two opponents
are not equal, the weaker party will be forced to be opportunistic,
seeking a variety of targets with variable results, including
unfortunately civilian casualties. The weaker and more resource hungry
party must do this for its survival, as the only other choice it has is
capitulation. So the methods of the ‘suicide’ bombers may seem to be
more directed towards civilians, but this is a consequence of their lack
of resources and not their intent, whereas the armies of the State
Terrorists have an abundance of resources, intelligence and weapons, yet
inflict far greater civilian casualties, by simple logic this imbalance
leads us to a truth about the murderous nature of these states and who
is the real culprit that targets civilians.
In fact, historically, the indiscriminate killing of civilians en masse
was introduced with the arrival of Air Forces, by the Western powers.
The needless destruction of civilian cities like Dresden, Cologne,
Hiroshima, and Nagasaki are some prominent examples. All the suicide
bombers combined, could not even match a fraction of the track record of
the Westerns powers. If anyone is guilty of targeting civilians and by
the quantitative measurement of the actual number of civilian victims,
it is the West and its client states like Israel, that are infinitely
guiltier than all the ‘suicide’ bombers combined, and that is FACT.
What constitutes military targets?
Now let us examine the distinction between military and civilian
(non-combatant) targets. Why should the armed forces be exclusively
targeted when it was the political establishment (civilians) in
collusion with the mass media that usually initiates and authorises war?
Even within the military forces, there are the soldiers sitting in their
barracks or on holiday, are like non-combatants. What about the
non-combat military personnel like doctors, cooks, cleaners, accountants
and nurses? What about the commercial firms that supplies the lethal
arms?
Therefore, the distinction between combatants and non-combatants is
blurred in the context of warfare, as substantial sections of civilian
life contribute to the war machine. Indeed, this was the conclusion of
Sir Arthur “Bomber” Harris (Dresden, Cologne, Hamburg etc), and Harry
Truman (Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo Raids) both targeted civilians en
masse to sap the front line enemy forces effectiveness and would shorten
the war, so this is very much a lesson learnt from the West.
It could be argued further, that if the legitimate political authority
can become target then so can the source of that authority. This is
especially true for democracy, as when it goes to war, that must be by
the definition of democracy be the ‘peoples’ choice and hence
responsibility. However, when the consequences of this choice visit upon
the democracy, there is an immediate divorce between the people and the
decision to go to war; suddenly the people are ‘innocent’.
In war, the entire nation is a legitimate target as they wage a war
collectively as a nation. However, civilians or non-combatants are off
limits only due to the nations accepting this convention during war.
Armies would only target combatants in the battlefields in the past,
away from cities and towns. That has clearly changed over the years
especially with the invention of air raids from the First World War
(WW1). Ironically the very nations that invented and practiced the
targeting of civilians, as part of their war strategies, are now
lecturing others about targeting civilians, of course that tends to
surface only when their own civilians have been targeted, as Iraqi’s,
Afghan’ etc do not count in their estimation!
Final argument for excluding civilians as a whole is that many of them
are opposed to the war. However, the same could be said for those who
serve in the armed forces, who are also opposed to the war. Thus, the
armed forces as a whole should also be excluded by the same argument
then you might as well surrender. Furthermore, why ignore those
civilians who side with the war and helped to prop up the democratically
elected governments who chose war. Could one not equally argue using the
same logic of including the whole based on some? So the right to target
all the civilians based on some who supported the war and re-elected the
same leader of war. When a bomb is dropped by an allied Plane, does the
bomb ask whether those underneath it are for or against the invasion,
and separate the respondents? Such absurdity is not entertained by the
West and neither is it entertained by those that resist them.
Are Civilians Innocent or Guilty?
It is argued that non-combatants in war should be avoided because they
are innocent. This is not true; civilians are only excluded by mutual
agreement between nations, like an international convention observed by
nations. Warfare by its nature is reciprocal, one nation cannot
unilaterally adhere to certain standards regardless of what the other
one does, especially a war that is fought in self-defence.
Even, the usage of the term innocent or guilty is misleading, because,
innocent and guilty is decided by certain laws that one is subject to.
If any citizen committed a crime, then only the criminal could be
punished not his entire family or tribe. In contrast, international
relationships between nations are dictated by mutual agreement and
conduct, not by any external laws. The use of the term “international
laws” is also misleading, as often these so-called laws flow in one
direction; used by stronger nations to subjugate the weaker nations.
Otherwise, the US and its partners would have been tried for war crimes
in Iraq by the UN.
Likewise on battlefield there is no principle that you seek the GUILTY
soldiers only, i.e. those who have killed your troops. If an army
approaches, you can pre-empt an attack by laying an ambush, kill all the
soldiers without giving them an opportunity and/or take them prisoner.
They can then be dealt with according to the prevalent international
tradition and/or interests of the nation; the entire army is liable to
attack anytime. The issue of innocence or guilt does not come into play,
in war. Each nation sees the other nation in its entirety as the
culprit, just as the allies did in WW2, the army is just the executive
tool of war; both nations are fighting collectively as a nation and
collectively they are a target, unless they have agreed to exclude a
certain section of their societies.
No doubt, a nation is like a legal entity, as it forms treaties and
contracts with other nations. Acts of the head of any state are binding
upon the nation. As the heads of nations wage war or sign contracts, the
entire nation are responsible collectively, it has nothing to do with
individual innocence or guilt. Responsibility is collective in war and
peace. Every citizen of a nation and every citizen of a member of an
alliance is equally responsible and liable for the acts of the
collective (nation or alliance), even if he was not involved directly or
did not act personally. Only those who object strongly and separate
themselves clearly are excluded from the collective responsibility.
Of course morally speaking, civilians and non-combatants should be off
limits, but those who are lecturing on this issue are the worst
violators, just examine their track record of civilian deaths! There is
a simple solution, if you do not want your own women and children to be
targeted, then don’t kill the women and children of other nations. It is
the nation who attacks the civilian population first that puts its own
civilians at risk, by making them a target of their victims. Clearly, it
is the British and the US governments that targeted the civilians in
Iraq first. As have the Zionists in occupied Palestine, and they still
continue to arrive from Russia, Europe and the US with a license from
‘God’ to aid the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. When its most
needed, that precious International ‘Law’ seems to have been misplaced,
conveniently for the West, law is sidelined when it comes to the mighty
oppressing the weak.
source
Is it Suicide or
Martyrdom? Part 3
In part-1 [1], the propaganda surrounding the mindset of a ‘suicide’
bomber was elucidated. In part-2 [2], the arguments related to targeting
combatants and civilians were examined. Let us now remind ourselves by
asking again: why ‘suicide’ bombing is a stigma now, even though it has
been used throughout history? What is so evil about ‘suicide’
bombers, compared to the iconic fighter pilots causing much greater
levels of carnage and destruction? So, the vilification of ‘suicide’
bombings has no relationship with the magnitude of death and destruction
it causes. It is demonised for political reasons, particularly by the
imperialist nations, because it is a weapon of the subjugated. Only the
ignorant and the bigots would deny this fundamental point.
Another method of attacking ‘suicide’ bombings has been more subtle. The
West is promoting the idea, that ‘suicide’ bombing is an act of suicide
within the Muslims; suicide is forbidden in Islam, all the schools of
thought (Madhabs) are unified on this. So they hire the confused Muslims
moderates and use Government scholars to amplify the ‘edict’ that
‘suicide’ bombing is an act of suicide, hoping at the very least to
deter the pious Muslims from undertaking such operations.
Now, is ‘suicide’ bombing an act of suicide? To answer this central
question, first we need to define the essential characteristics of an
action. Then compare the defining characteristics of ‘suicide’ bombing
to the characteristics of suicide; if they match, the two actions are
essentially identical, otherwise they are not. We can also examine the
criteria of success and failure of the two types of actions (‘suicide’
bombing and suicide) to asses if they are identical.
Characteristics of an Action
There are three components that characterise an action – the physical
act, the intention behind the action, and the circumstances surrounding
the action. People often categorise two similar actions or two actions
that have the same results as belonging to the same category. The
examples below clearly illustrates that it is incorrect to classify, as
the same, two actions based solely on the physical act.
a) Physical act and Circumstances ?
Two physical acts may be identical but valued differently due to the
circumstances surrounding them. A clear example is of a man engaging in
sexual-intercourse with his wife and later a prostitute. The physical
act is the same, i.e. intercourse, but clearly they are seen as two
entirely different categories of actions. One is legal whilst the other
is usually illegal. This is because the circumstances surrounding the
two acts are very different. A wife has a legal relationship with her
husband that is recognised by the society, while the prostitute usually
has no moral or legal recognition. So the physical act may be the same
but the two are not in the same category.
b) Physical act and Intentions
Intentions clearly distinguish actions. Almost all societies distinguish
between murder and man-slaughter by establishing the intention of the
culprit. Another example is the physical act of worship. If the act is
devoid of the intention to worship a creator, then it is nothing but a
set of physical movements, rendered totally meaningless. References to
the importance of intentions being used to assess an action are also
abundant in Islamic texts; in some places it clearly states that, each
action will be judged by the intention. Hence, if the intention of the
one committing suicide and the ‘suicide’ bomber is not identical, then
they are not engaging in the same act.
Suicide
The meaning of suicide is pretty much consistent across all nations.
Essentially, it is someone who deliberately kills themselves usually due
to suffering some sort of physical or emotional pain. For example,
someone who wishes to terminate his life due to injuries sustained in
the battlefield. Another example is someone who has experienced such
emotional trauma due to major financial loss or loss of family members.
In some exceptional cases suicide is the result of being brainwashed by
some cult group e.g. Heaven’s Gate, Solar Temple.
Using the above mentioned criteria (a, b), the circumstance of the one
intending to commit suicide is usually due to suffering some sort of
physical or emotional pain. So the intention of the suicidal person is
only to terminate his or her own life, to the exclusion of everyone
else, it is personal in nature. There is no dispute amongst all the
Islamic schools of thoughts (Madhab) that suicide is clearly forbidden,
one of the greater sins.
‘Suicide’ Bombings
The bombers do not target themselves but instead target the enemy. The
intention of the ‘suicide’ bomber is to eliminate the enemy during the
course of which he or she may also be killed. Therefore, the intention
and the target of a ‘suicide’ bomber is the exact opposite of the one
who commits suicide. The body suffers only because it is used to deliver
the bomb, thus death of the individual is a by-product of the action and
unlike suicide it is not the central objective.
The circumstances of ‘suicide’ bombings are also totally different from
the normal act of suicide; the martyr seeks to sacrifice their life for
others usually during a conflict and not due to suffering some sort of
physical or emotional pain experienced as an individual. Therefore, the
actions of a ‘suicide’ bomber in terms of the circumstance, the aim
(target) and the intentions are totally different from the action of a
suicidal person. Also consider two further arguments in distinguishing
the two actions.
Success and Failure
Suppose a ‘suicide’ bomber survives a martyrdom operation, and all the
enemy targets eliminated. Would that be considered a failure? Certainly
not, because, the main objective was to eliminate the enemy. In fact
some would view it as a double success, the success of the operation by
eliminating all the enemies and the survival of the bomber. In contrast,
the act of suicide not resulting in the death of the individual would be
a clear failure, because the sole intention is to terminate the life of
the one committing suicide. Hence the criteria of distinguishing success
and failure of the two actions are different and hence the actions must
also be of two different categories.
What about Sacrifice?
The essence of the argument that suicide bombing is suicide - rests
primarily on the fact that, any act that led to one's death is
classified as suicide. Then the meaning of sacrificing one's life has no
value. So, in a sinking ship, it would be prohibited for the father to
give his life jackets to his children, as saving their lives would bring
death upon himself, committing an act of suicide and not an act of
self-sacrifice.
Conclusion
Finally, the distinction between suicide and a ‘suicide’ operation by
sacrificing ones life for others is clearly recognised by the West and
often praised. In numerous Hollywood films like Deep Impact, The Core,
Independence Day, the characters who sacrifice their lives to save
others are seen as heroes. Their actions are projected as noble not as
an act of suicide. Hence, the claim that ‘suicide’ operations are
suicide is false.
The only common feature is the death of the ‘suicide’ bomber and the one
who commits suicide. The physical act, the intended target, the
intention and the circumstances are not identical between the two
actions. ‘Suicide’ bombings can be the highest form of sacrifice to save
others. A martyr would argue that the blood sacrificed has saved others
by killing the enemy and deterring them from further actions against
them.
In the next part (part-4) I will discuss the Islamic evidences used in
assessing this legitimacy of using ‘suicide’ bombings.
|