It's the nature of Humanitiy to engage in--or indulge in--war. The unfortunate side of war today, worse seemingly now than ever before, is the limitlessness of (defined as at risk) combatants and other 'enemies.' War isn't any longer a physical and emotional contest between competing groups of men, nor even a sweeping plague of murder and enslavement: today war is total-- it is genocide. The traditional three days of robbery, rape, and murder has given way to extermination of populations now that primitives have modern weapons and technology. They just don't stop. And we revolutionaries of Modernity, we are faced with a faceless and primitive hoarde rivalling the Huns. We do not exterminate the populations we conquer. We don't even conquer nations anymore. Ours is a sentimentalist's approach to war, to win hearts and minds through foreign aid packages and containment and pacification of hostile elements. Ours is the road to oblivion--ours,not theirs.
The writer below is an Iranian, a clever and insightful man who sheds more light on Western foreign policy than does any politican in Washington today. Of course, our politicians ignore him. But someone in a position of influence had better start listening and reading the works of intelligent and insightful people before it comes time that our furious backlash is so horrible that we are forced by fact of our own survival to strike at Islam itself with modern technological fury that will wipe out a billion people who truly have no crime to pay for other than that of their cultural insanity, a fine-point we won't bother considering in the heat of murdering them, of fulfilling the death-wish of modern Islamic culture.
Below is an example of how insane Islam is. We commit a serious crime ourselves when we engage in rational debate with irrational people. We do not gain by rationally discussing crazy issues with insane people. Their lives are at risk, and when we indulge in debate with them on their terms we lose sight of the basic insanity of their positions, of the ground of their illogic, and the irrationality of their axioms. There is no discussion to be had. There is only force, one side or the other prevailing. And dhimmi sentimentality is the crime we commit by pandering to the insanity of the suicidal. It is our moral duty to grab them from the ledge and retrieve them and sedate them and re-train their children, to turn them by force and slavery into modern revolutionaries like ourselves, men and women free to think rationally if we so choose. Anything lesser course is murder.
The average Moslem adult has a right to commit suicide, and who really cares? The problem is in Moslems raising their children to commit suicide. Parents do not have such a right. Cultures and nations do not have such a right. And we do not have a right to ignore it. We have a duty to stop the breeding of suicide-culture.
We, as enlightened Modern revolutionaries, inheritors of the Renaissance, the Age of Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, the American Revolution, the French Revolution-- we Modernist Revolutionaries-- have a duty to stop the mass suicide of Islamic peoples. Our dhimmi governments will not intervene effectively. We must rid ourselves of our leaders and find new leaders who grasp the importance of the lives of individuals world-wide, Moslems or others, leaders who will act in defence of Humanity at large, and who will unleash the next phaze of our Revolution to free the rest of the world from the evils of pre-modern life. We must have progressive leadership in the West if we are to survive ourselves and free at the same time the remaining people of the stalled Western revolutions of Modernity. It is our position that the best way of doing so is to encourage free men and women to colonize the world in the name of American Triumphalism, men and women armed and powerful who will colonize, live in, and become natives of other lands as we do in America. We must follow the path set by William Walker, being free men and women set on conquest and the expansion of our Revolutions and the spread of the beneifts of Modernity for universal Man.
To succeed in permant conquest of other lands we must organize ourselves into parties of professional revolutionaries in the same way V.I Lenin formed his party; and with the same ruthlessness that Stalin transformed in his land, we must show the world that Modernity is here to stay and that it is triumphant. We must send our emmisaries to other lands with ultimatums demanding their surrender and their submission to slavery, regardless of the face of our demand's absurdity. And at the first sign of rejection, the first hint of the refusal to submit to our Melian Dialogue, then we must conquer those lands of the primitive and subdue them forever.
Those who resist the spread of Modernity are those who are the children of Sawney Beane. If we refuse to invade Sawney Beane's Islamic cave now we will be forced later to exterminate the whole brood of them. As Jabotinsky points out too obviously for us to ignore, it is the only moral position moral people can take.
In the sad case of Iran, the Iranian people are slaves of the fascist Islamic Force that they will only rid themselves of by Violence and the Sorelian Myth of the General Strike. We cannot reason with the fascists of Islam. They must first be crushed by Violence. They must be enslaved. It is our only moral option.
Below we see the mind of Islam at work. It is insane. It is suicidal. We must stop them from killing the Moslem world at large.
TO KILL OR NOT TO KILL
Jun 11, 2005
An obscure Arabic word is making a comeback from centuries of oblivion to dominate the debate about whom Muslims are allowed to kill in the service of political goals.
The debate has been triggered by the killing of large numbers of Muslims, including women and children, by Islamist insurgents in Iraq. Are such acts permissible? Judging by fatwas (religious opinions) and articles by Muslim theologians and commentators, the Islamic ummah (community) is divided on the issue.
Those who believe that killing innocent people, including Muslims, is justified in certain cases, base their opinion on the principle of tattarrus. The word, which originally meant "dressing up," was first used as a religious term in the book "Al-Mustasfa" ("The Place of Purification") by Abu-Hamed al-Ghazali (d.1127), to mean "using ordinary Muslims as human shields for Islamic combatants against infidel fighters."
In the 13th century, the theologian Ibn Tayimiah wove a whole doctrine around the term to justify the killing of Muslims while combating Mongol invaders. By century's end, however, the concept had fallen into disuse and a new consensus developed against the killing of noncombatants.
But in 1995 Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian mentor of Osama bin Laden, used the concept in his book "The Rule for Suicide-Martyr Operations." Arguing that the ends justify the means, al-Zawahiri insisted that the killing of Muslims, including women and children, was not a sinful act provided the combatants were fighting "the enemies of Islam."
More recently, that view has been endorsed by Yussuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian sheik working in Qatar. Initially, al-Qaradawi had ruled that only three categories of unarmed individuals could be killed: apostates, who have turned their back to Islam; homosexuals, who "dirty" the pure society ? and Israelis, including unborn children, who could grow up to join the Jewish army.
Now, however, al-Qaradawi has expanded his doctrine to allow for the killing of innocent Muslims in Iraq. His argument is stark: What matters is the broader interest of the Islamic ummah which could, under certain circumstances, necessitate operations in which Muslim civilians lose their lives.
That position is supported by several Saudi theologians, including Hammoud al-Uqalla, Ali al-Khudhair, Nasser al-Fahd, Ahmad al-Khalidi and Safar al-Hawali. Their argument is that the broader interest of the ummah requires the expulsion of the U.S.-led forces from Iraq and that
the killing of innocent Iraqis in whatever numbers is of no concern to the combatants, whose place in paradise is assured.
Other Saudi theologians, including Abu-Muhammad al-Maqdasi and Abu-Basir al-Tartussi, go further and apply tattarrus to situations where no "infidel" troops are present. Thus they justify the killing of innocent Muslim Saudis in Saudi Arabia because, they claim, such actions could lead to the establishment of a "truly Islamic regime."
The starkest defense of tattarrus in its new sense has come from Abu-Musaab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda mastermind in Iraq. "Islam establishes a hierarchy of values in all domains," he wrote in a recent missive posted on Islamist Web sites. "In [that hierarchy], protecting the faith is more important than protecting the self. Killing the mutumarresoun [i.e, civilian Muslims who live under the control of the infidel] is necessary to prevent the faith of the infidel from striking root [in the land of Islam]."
The only point of dispute among supporters of tattarrus is related to procedural matters. Can Islamic combatants decide whom to kill and when or should they obtain a fatwa in every single case?
Showabel al-Zahrani, a Saudi militant and author of "Views of Theologians Concerning the Rules of Raids and Tattarrus" claims that what is needed is a "flexible understanding" of the concept. "To demand that a combatant get all his operations approved by a theologian in advance is a demand for inaction," he writes. "The better rule is to allow the combatant to do as he sees fit and have his actions approved afterwards."
Zarqawi, too, says there is no need for fatwas in each case: A fatwa issued by bin Laden in 1999 authorizing the killing of "enemies of Islam" is sufficient. It is up to the muqatelin (combatants) to decide who is an enemy of Islam.
Abu-Unus al-Shami, an insurgent leader killed in Baghdad last September, held a similar position. His claim was that the insurgents in Iraq had "permanent authority" to kill whomever they thought was necessary in order to "re-conquer Iraq for Islam."
Abu-Hufus al-Masri, the mastermind of the 2004 Madrid massacre, also claimed that the combatants had had the authority to decide when and where and against whom to strike: "We are at war against the infidel and its apostate allies," he wrote. "And in a war he who fights has the
authority to decide what action is best, leaving the final judgment to The Most High."
Sheik Muhammad Hussein Fadhlallah, the spiritual leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah, however, says that combatants do not have such authority and should refer each case to an authorized "mujtahid" (guide) such as himself. Fadhlallah is uncomfortable by the fact that the majority of
those killed by the insurgents in Iraq are Shiites like himself.
While the majority view among Islamist activists seems to justify tattarrus, many other voices are raised against it.
Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani, the primus inter pares of Shiite theologians, condemns tattarrus in its current sense as an "innovation" (bid'aah) and has called on Iraqi Shiites not to embark on revenge killings against Sunni insurgents.
Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, dean of Cairo's al-Azhar University, insists that Islamic law "rejects all attempts on human life and all attacks on civilians."
"Nothing in Islam justifies the deliberate killing of non-combatants," Tantawi says. "Tattarrus applies to collateral damage in a war between two regular armies, and not to action perpetrated by self-styled combatants."
Najih al-Ibrahim, another Egyptian theologian, also castigates what he terms "the abuse of tattarrus."
"No one can use tattarrus to justify the shedding of innocent blood," he says. "The only time that tattarrus is allowed is when Muslim combatants have to kill a fellow Muslim who is captured by the infidel and may, under torture, reveal secrets that could help the infidel against the true believers. Apart from that, shedding Muslim blood is the gravest of sins in Islam."
Yet another Egyptian theologian, Hisham Abdul-Zahir, says the insurgents' killing of Iraqi civilians is "totally unjustifiable under any circumstances."
"Tattarrus is relevant only in the case of Muslim women and children who are captured in a war by the infidel," he says. "In such a situation, it would be permissible to kill them to prevent them from being converted into other faiths by the infidel or abused by infidel soldiers."
Jassim al-Shamri, a Saudi theologian, rejects the authority of the "self-styled ulema" to reinterpret Islamic concepts for political goals.
"These gentlemen sit in air-conditioned rooms and drink iced mango juice and issue fatwas for indiscriminate killing," al-Shamri says. "We never see any of them or their children sent on suicide missions."
Sheikh Abdul-Muhsin al-Ubaikan, a Saudi theologian, has proposed "a theological summit" to discuss tattarrus and related issues.
"Is it enough for an individual to say he is fighting for Islam in order to claim a license to kill anyone, anywhere and anytime?" al-Ubaikan asks.
Amir Taheri, an Iranian author and journalist based in Europe, is a member of Benador Associates.
Chairman Mao pointed out that all political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Nothing has changed, and we are fools to ignore his insight. We must kill the criminal fascists of Islam, take over their populations, enslave them, and spread the revolution of Modernity to the entire world. It is our moral duty.