A Brief Moment in My Thoughts

Some questions that have been nagging at me of late.

1.     Does Israel have the right to defend itself and its people?

Certainly Israel has the right to defend itself and I fully support that just as much as I support the right of people who comes into your home, claim that it that it belongs to them, forcefully evict you, build walls around your home to keep you out, kill you, your women and your children, and then demand that you do no harm to them whatsoever, to defend themselves from your wrath. Recently, a certain local political prostitute (note that I am only using this label because members of his political party has demonstrated that it is an appropriate term to use against someone with whom you do not agree) publicly said that he supported the right of Israel to defend itself and when criticised, some of his supporters chided back that what he said was proper and Israel did indeed have that right. In the light of that logic, I submit that Hitler was acting quite rightly when he gassed innocent men, women and children, tortured them, robbed them of their belongings and ran a genocidal campaign against the Jews of Europe, because he was “defending” Germany from these people.

2.     Is it proper to support ISIS?

A certain beloved leader of ours expressed admiration for the “heroes” of ISIS. I balked at the suggestion when I heard it. Other have suggested that we should be angry, disgusted and outraged at the actions of these followers of a self appointed caliph.  Personally, I base my judgment on a simple comparison. When Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him / Sollallahu alaihi wasallam), led his followers into Madinah (Yathrib at the time) and established the first government of Islam there, he called all the leaders of the Yathrib including the Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and whoever else who was there to the Masjidil Nabawi.  There they held a conference for three days and three nights, and this led to the formation and signing of the Madinah Accord.  Under that accord, the Christians, and the others too, thrived and prospered. Later. He led the Muslims back to Mecca and took it over.  There too the non-Muslims prospered but of course, there were those who were unhappy which is expected.  If you look at the history of Islamic governments after the death of Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him / Sollallahu alaihi wasallam), particularly those of the khulafa ur Rasyideen, you will find that they upheld his code of conduct.  It was only under the later caliphs that things sometimes did not follow this code.  Then again, we need to also realise that the establishment of the Umaiyyah empire which began when Muawwiyah appointed his son, Zayid as the caliph after him, is itself questionable but that is subject to another lengthy argument. But, I digress.

Some claim that there was unfairness in subjecting the non-Muslims to Jizyah. I am of the opinion, following the opinion of numerous historians and experts of Islamic legislature, that the jizyah is really little more than a way to differentiate the taxes: the zakat for the Muslims and the Jizyah for the non-Muslims.  One speaker I heard argued that the amount was in fact more or less the same.

In short, they were treated as fairly as possible.  The Kafr Zimmi was accorded the same protection as the Muslims, for example, in that the penalty for killing a Kafr Zimmi was the same as killing a fellow Muslim which is death unless you are spared with the agreement of the family of the deceased, in which case you will probably have to shoulder the responsibilities of the deceased.

Compare these historical instances with what happened in Mosul, just this one place for now so that comparison is easier, and we can clearly see that whatever code of conduct ISIS followers embrace, it is not that of the Prophet Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him / Sollallahu alaihi wasallam). On this count alone, I would say that it was a grave error to regard the ISIS fighters as models of good conduct, or any other kind of conduct for that matter.