When it is a clear tradition of the Prophet (S) to not kill by fire in war, why do Muslim countries want or have nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons are antithetical to traditional understandings of Islam.
After the battle of Uhud, a particular tribe of the Jews (I forget their name!) had planned to assassinate the Prophet (SAW)–albeit unsuccessfully–whilst in a truce with the Muslims. For their betrayal, the Prophet (SAW) told them to leave. However, they persisted in their efforts of not leaving Medina, and so the Muslims held them in a siege. However, the problem was, that the tribe was particularly ‘well off’ and had vast areas of date-trees and other food resources, and thought they could survive any siege. So the Prophet (SAW) instructed the Muslims to burn down the date trees despite the fact that he forbade us to use fire in warfare. This obviously implies that, given circumstances, we can over-ride particular traditions out of necessity. Nuclear Energy, in today’s society is a necessity for two reasons:
a) Nuclear energy is environmentally friendly and does not ruin the atmosphere
b) Nuclear weaponry is necessary for some countries such as Iran and Pakistan which are surrounded by other coutnries with Nuclear weapons (Israel and India respectively) for self defence.
Arguments like “Nuclear weapons are antithetical to traditional understandings of Islam” are not practical.
If the Prophet (صلي الله عليه و سلم) made an exception upon himself, that does not mean we can disobey his command. At best it means we could make the same exception. Or would you now authorize as legitimate more than 4 wives for men?
The prohibition *against killing with fire is clear* (not date trees).
Nuclear weapons kill and burn indiscriminately, which not only violates his command of not killing by fire, but violates killing the young, and weak and non-combatants.
Many may have thought that praying 5 times a day wasn’t practical either, but we do what we do based off of faith, not practicality.
Nuclear energy is not environmentally friendly. It creates waste that we still cannot properly dispose of. No one wants to live next to a Nuclear plant.
Carbon emissions are worse than Nuclear power. Compared to that, Nuclear energy is definitely a lot more environmentally friendly than any other forms of energy in the 21st Century. Even the Greenies cant deny that. There are hundreds of Nuclear power-plants in europe and north america that have been functioning properly, with no side-effects, for decades.
“Nuclear weapons kill and burn indiscriminately, which not only violates his command of not killing by fire, but violates killing the young, and weak and non-combatants”
Tell that to those who actually ‘have’ used nuclear power to kill the young, the weak and non-combatants: namely, Hiroshima and Nagasaki disasters by the US. No muslim nation has used nuclear power for want of political power. Having it and using it are completely different things. I feel countries like Iran and Pakistan need to develop it for defence & political purposes. At least this might work as a detterant for those wanting to use nuclear weapons on them. Dont get me wrong. I’m not trying to over-ride the Prophet’s commands. But self-defence is also allowed in Islam. So which option do we choose?
I think there is a greater need amongst the Muslim Ummah today to step out of our comfort zones and try to get a little more involved in the intellectual circles. If Nuclear power is islamically illegitimate, then there should be more Muslims trying to develop a form of energy that ‘is’ legitimate. We can criticize things all we want, but I feel this negativity does nobody any good. The great chasm between ‘religion’ and ‘education/science’ is growing bigger by the day, and we have virtually stopped to see any connection between the two. Sheikhs/Islamic scholars (most of them, anyway) know hardly anything other than their area of expertise; on the other hand, we have Muslim professors/engineers/wat-not, who know hardly anything about Islam.
I’m going off at a tangent here, so i’ll end by saying that, ok I get it: nuclear power is bad. But then wat should countries like Iran and Pakistan do? Sit there and read zikr? Do they have any other alternative? I’m seruiosly NOT undermining the power of zikr/prayer etc. But, see, the prophet (SAW) before the Battle of Uhud and Badr and Khandaq, didnt take all his companions and make zikr all night long. They also developed clever military tactics that were never before used in the ARab world. He (SAW) used to organise his army into straight rows subdivided into several sects, and their method of attack was about a gazillion times more organised than the Quraish, who simply attacked haphazardly. Basically, what I”m trying to say is that prayer isnt everything. We need to change ourselves before Allah (SWt) can offer any support. This is not a justification for developing nuclear power–its only said to suggest that there needs to be decisive actions taken before we can expect any miracles to happen. So in times of war, what is a Muslim nation to do? How do they defend themselves if bombs, guns, all other modern military weapons are prohibited? Swords arent much of a match against an f-16 bomber.
Carbon emissions are worse than Nuclear power. Compared to that, Nuclear energy is definitely a lot more environmentally friendly than any other forms of energy in the 21st Century. Even the Greenies cant deny that. There are hundreds of Nuclear power-plants in europe and north america that have been functioning properly, with no side-effects, for decades.
I said nothing about nuclear power being against Islam, just that I thought it was environmentally unfriendly as anything else.
Tell that to those who actually ‘have’ used nuclear power to kill the young, the weak and non-combatants: namely, Hiroshima and Nagasaki disasters by the US. No muslim nation has used nuclear power for want of political power. Having it and using it are completely different things. I feel countries like Iran and Pakistan need to develop it for defence & political purposes. At least this might work as a detterant for those wanting to use nuclear weapons on them. Dont get me wrong. I’m not trying to over-ride the Prophet’s commands. But self-defence is also allowed in Islam. So which option do we choose?
The self-defense option that is Islamic. Being a hair-trigger away from nuclear annhilation of innocents is wrong, Islamically.
I think there is a greater need amongst the Muslim Ummah today to step out of our comfort zones and try to get a little more involved in the intellectual circles. If Nuclear power is islamically illegitimate, then there should be more Muslims trying to develop a form of energy that ‘is’ legitimate.
Then step out. Again, I’m not talking about energy, I’m talking about weapons.
I’m going off at a tangent here, so i’ll end by saying that, ok I get it: nuclear power is bad. But then wat should countries like Iran and Pakistan do? Sit there and read zikr? Do they have any other alternative? I’m seruiosly NOT undermining the power of zikr/prayer etc.
The Prophet (Sallalahu’alaihewwassalam) and the Companions (R) started with a base of a pure belief. So yes, they should sit there and read zikr.
But, see, the prophet (SAW) before the Battle of Uhud and Badr and Khandaq, didnt take all his companions and make zikr all night long. They also developed clever military tactics that were never before used in the ARab world. He (SAW) used to organise his army into straight rows subdivided into several sects, and their method of attack was about a gazillion times more organised than the Quraish, who simply attacked haphazardly. Basically, what I”m trying to say is that prayer isnt everything.
You are wrong.
We need to change ourselves before Allah (SWT) (SWt) can offer any support.
EXACTLY. First we need to change ourselves, make ourselves better Muslims and submit truely to Islam and the Prophet (Sallalahu’alaihewasalam) then we will get support.
To twist this around and say we need to make ourselves more like the non-Muslims in how they mass-kill people is backwards.
313 barely armed people weren’t much of a match for a well trained, equipped army of 1000+, regardless of what you think the condition of the Quraish was.
The fundamental problem is that you are portraying a removed God, one who really had no need to be involved in the battle of Badr as it was really the organization that won the battle. This is the exact opposite of the lesson taught about the Battle of Badr. The exact opposite.
Interesting…because I had honestly never made the correlation between fighting with fire and nuclear weapons, but duh, it seems so obvious (which is why I love this site, since obviously my Islamic education is somewhat lacking).
Outside of Islam, I think nuclear weapons are clearly morally wrong but I think that modern warfare in general is sick. Not that war is ever good, but there is something to be said for the value of hand-to-hand, eye-to-eye combat that forces you to see the opposing side as humans and have the opportunity to show mercy when it is appropriate. The reality of modern war is that many more innocent civilians are killed than actual combatants, and because it is done from a distance, soldiers can convince themselves that their “enemy” is not really human and they don’t have to feel anything about what they are doing. In the case of nuclear weapons, of course there is also the long-range implications and problems.
My problem though with the U.S. arguing against certain countries having the technology and weapons is that it is hypocritical. You cannot say “it’s okay for India and Israel, because we like them” but then say “Iran! No way! They are gonna use them on us!” You can’t want something for yourself but deny it to others.
I personally think that a big part of why Islamic countries are willing to go this route is “necessary” self-defense. If you aren’t nuclear capable, noone takes you serious and you are a sitting duck, so to speak, in others possible aggressions. OTOH, making yourself nuclear capable just turns everyone’s eyes onto you and the U.S. never sees it as a defensive move, but as a threat.
Of course, I would also agree that Islamic countries getting into this has something to do with feeling pressure to modernize and to “fit in” to modern “civilization”.
My Shaykh often calls the West to abandon -its- weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear ones. At the same time he points out the fact that the Muslim countries are very eager to follow them down the lizard hole so-to-speak.
I agree with everything you said, I’m glad my short thought prompted that!
I think, in today’s environment, its better to say no to Nuclear weapons on moral ground and declare it. Today’s world is one which is all about maintaining current borders. No one is really keen on any country invading another.
What is funny is that these countries think that with a few nukes they can deter. Let us say something does occur, what will they do then? They will fire those nukes off for sure, the enemy will fire theirs, and then the Muslims will get overrun by the fact that they don’t have a real airforce, or a well-equipped army.
A lot of people die in the process, and most likely we still lose.
At least, if something occurs, we should be able to own the moral high-ground, if we can’t own the battle high ground. We should be proud of our religious position on the issue and declare it to the world. Who knows, maybe that way Allah will send his support like He did in Badr.
The use and development of nuclear weapons says a lot about us as a species. Nuclear energy offers great potential and great harm, as with most things.
On a deeper level, I think that nuclear weapons appeal to our leaders (or those with the most rampant egos) is that they offer the god-like ability to destory whole cities and countries at a stroke. And, of course, only Allah (being the only God) is capable of using such awesome power wisely and with justice.
As we can see, human beings armed with such might will eventually turn it to evil.
As for killing with fire, speaking as someone who had a serious accident with hot cooking oil, I can’t think of a more horrible end. May God keep us all safe from the fire of Jahannam
Let me begin by stating that Nuclear Weapons are the enemy of all mankind. That kind of violence recognizes no religion, no gender nor age. Every one loses if the world decends into nuclear war and weapons build-up. Even the U.S. and the Soviets recognized this during the period known as the Cold War. They are a deterent to keep madmen from using them, but then by definition, a madman is mad and does not care.
Nuclear energy is beneficial and the damage to the air and water from current carbon emissions is harming us. So too does waste from Nuclear energy rods. The Earth has plenty of wind and sunlight, why are we not using these as free energy? I like having lights in the home as much as any of you and I watch TV and listen to music etc. What we must do as men, is think to the future and what kind of shape do we leave it in for our children and their children?
Samir, the West will never use Nukes first. Never. First it is inhuman and even our calloused and out of touch politicians know this. Second, our citizens would literally crucify any who did launch such an attack. If attacked we will respond in kind, but please, do not use Japan as an example. That was a different war, from a different time. Circumstances dictate that use of those weapons now is used only as a last, a very last resort.
But, can any of you say the same for Iran? They have threatened their use upon gaining them? Do we do nothing? What of Pakistan and its disputes with India? Will that affect more than just those two? There are enough loudmouths and hatred spewing voices on both sides. Enough is enough!
Nuclear energy for electricity and heating and all the peaceful uses should be allowed for all nations. Weapons however due to their extremely destructive nature should not be allowed by any. But thats not the world we live in.
I don’t think anyone would disagree with you, Iran, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, and the United States should just forget Nuclear weapons ever existed.
When supposedly Muslim countries arn’t following traditional Islam regarding defense and ethics then they really have no values except what their own ego’s want. At that point they are really dangerous, as they really don’t believe in anything except power.
Living here in the U.S., you see just how hungry for power and the ego trip our leaders are. A truly peaceful leader cannot emerge as long as the ACLU exists. In regards to nuclear weapons, we can only pray that they are never used and that in the future, God will direct men to destroy them instead of each other.
I am 100% in agreement with Sidi Yursil’s analysis here.
Nuclear devices have no place in our belief system and the desire to obtain them is a clear sign that Muslim societies have lost their way.
October 20th, 2006 - 3:38 pm
Deterrent perhaps? Not that I approve. Just exploring possible justifications. You mess with me and I’ll blow you up kind of thing.
October 21st, 2006 - 8:14 pm
absolutely its being used as a deterrent right now, but if the going got tough, I don’t think the military would hesitate to use them either.
October 22nd, 2006 - 2:39 pm
i agree with the above its being used as a detterent. But as nukes get smaller and tactical I do expect the West to start using them again.
November 3rd, 2006 - 12:03 am
After the battle of Uhud, a particular tribe of the Jews (I forget their name!) had planned to assassinate the Prophet (SAW)–albeit unsuccessfully–whilst in a truce with the Muslims. For their betrayal, the Prophet (SAW) told them to leave. However, they persisted in their efforts of not leaving Medina, and so the Muslims held them in a siege. However, the problem was, that the tribe was particularly ‘well off’ and had vast areas of date-trees and other food resources, and thought they could survive any siege. So the Prophet (SAW) instructed the Muslims to burn down the date trees despite the fact that he forbade us to use fire in warfare. This obviously implies that, given circumstances, we can over-ride particular traditions out of necessity. Nuclear Energy, in today’s society is a necessity for two reasons:
a) Nuclear energy is environmentally friendly and does not ruin the atmosphere
b) Nuclear weaponry is necessary for some countries such as Iran and Pakistan which are surrounded by other coutnries with Nuclear weapons (Israel and India respectively) for self defence.
Arguments like “Nuclear weapons are antithetical to traditional understandings of Islam” are not practical.
November 3rd, 2006 - 8:56 am
If the Prophet (صلي الله عليه و سلم) made an exception upon himself, that does not mean we can disobey his command. At best it means we could make the same exception. Or would you now authorize as legitimate more than 4 wives for men?
The prohibition *against killing with fire is clear* (not date trees).
Nuclear weapons kill and burn indiscriminately, which not only violates his command of not killing by fire, but violates killing the young, and weak and non-combatants.
Many may have thought that praying 5 times a day wasn’t practical either, but we do what we do based off of faith, not practicality.
Nuclear energy is not environmentally friendly. It creates waste that we still cannot properly dispose of. No one wants to live next to a Nuclear plant.
And, we look to Allah for support.
November 4th, 2006 - 9:41 pm
Carbon emissions are worse than Nuclear power. Compared to that, Nuclear energy is definitely a lot more environmentally friendly than any other forms of energy in the 21st Century. Even the Greenies cant deny that. There are hundreds of Nuclear power-plants in europe and north america that have been functioning properly, with no side-effects, for decades.
“Nuclear weapons kill and burn indiscriminately, which not only violates his command of not killing by fire, but violates killing the young, and weak and non-combatants”
Tell that to those who actually ‘have’ used nuclear power to kill the young, the weak and non-combatants: namely, Hiroshima and Nagasaki disasters by the US. No muslim nation has used nuclear power for want of political power. Having it and using it are completely different things. I feel countries like Iran and Pakistan need to develop it for defence & political purposes. At least this might work as a detterant for those wanting to use nuclear weapons on them. Dont get me wrong. I’m not trying to over-ride the Prophet’s commands. But self-defence is also allowed in Islam. So which option do we choose?
I think there is a greater need amongst the Muslim Ummah today to step out of our comfort zones and try to get a little more involved in the intellectual circles. If Nuclear power is islamically illegitimate, then there should be more Muslims trying to develop a form of energy that ‘is’ legitimate. We can criticize things all we want, but I feel this negativity does nobody any good. The great chasm between ‘religion’ and ‘education/science’ is growing bigger by the day, and we have virtually stopped to see any connection between the two. Sheikhs/Islamic scholars (most of them, anyway) know hardly anything other than their area of expertise; on the other hand, we have Muslim professors/engineers/wat-not, who know hardly anything about Islam.
I’m going off at a tangent here, so i’ll end by saying that, ok I get it: nuclear power is bad. But then wat should countries like Iran and Pakistan do? Sit there and read zikr? Do they have any other alternative? I’m seruiosly NOT undermining the power of zikr/prayer etc. But, see, the prophet (SAW) before the Battle of Uhud and Badr and Khandaq, didnt take all his companions and make zikr all night long. They also developed clever military tactics that were never before used in the ARab world. He (SAW) used to organise his army into straight rows subdivided into several sects, and their method of attack was about a gazillion times more organised than the Quraish, who simply attacked haphazardly. Basically, what I”m trying to say is that prayer isnt everything. We need to change ourselves before Allah (SWt) can offer any support. This is not a justification for developing nuclear power–its only said to suggest that there needs to be decisive actions taken before we can expect any miracles to happen. So in times of war, what is a Muslim nation to do? How do they defend themselves if bombs, guns, all other modern military weapons are prohibited? Swords arent much of a match against an f-16 bomber.
November 4th, 2006 - 10:27 pm
as-salamu’alaikum,
I said nothing about nuclear power being against Islam, just that I thought it was environmentally unfriendly as anything else.
The self-defense option that is Islamic. Being a hair-trigger away from nuclear annhilation of innocents is wrong, Islamically.
Then step out. Again, I’m not talking about energy, I’m talking about weapons.
The Prophet (Sallalahu’alaihewwassalam) and the Companions (R) started with a base of a pure belief. So yes, they should sit there and read zikr.
You are wrong.
EXACTLY. First we need to change ourselves, make ourselves better Muslims and submit truely to Islam and the Prophet (Sallalahu’alaihewasalam) then we will get support.
To twist this around and say we need to make ourselves more like the non-Muslims in how they mass-kill people is backwards.
313 barely armed people weren’t much of a match for a well trained, equipped army of 1000+, regardless of what you think the condition of the Quraish was.
The fundamental problem is that you are portraying a removed God, one who really had no need to be involved in the battle of Badr as it was really the organization that won the battle. This is the exact opposite of the lesson taught about the Battle of Badr. The exact opposite.
November 10th, 2006 - 7:24 am
Asalaamu alaikum.
Interesting…because I had honestly never made the correlation between fighting with fire and nuclear weapons, but duh, it seems so obvious (which is why I love this site, since obviously my Islamic education is somewhat lacking).
Outside of Islam, I think nuclear weapons are clearly morally wrong but I think that modern warfare in general is sick. Not that war is ever good, but there is something to be said for the value of hand-to-hand, eye-to-eye combat that forces you to see the opposing side as humans and have the opportunity to show mercy when it is appropriate. The reality of modern war is that many more innocent civilians are killed than actual combatants, and because it is done from a distance, soldiers can convince themselves that their “enemy” is not really human and they don’t have to feel anything about what they are doing. In the case of nuclear weapons, of course there is also the long-range implications and problems.
My problem though with the U.S. arguing against certain countries having the technology and weapons is that it is hypocritical. You cannot say “it’s okay for India and Israel, because we like them” but then say “Iran! No way! They are gonna use them on us!” You can’t want something for yourself but deny it to others.
I personally think that a big part of why Islamic countries are willing to go this route is “necessary” self-defense. If you aren’t nuclear capable, noone takes you serious and you are a sitting duck, so to speak, in others possible aggressions. OTOH, making yourself nuclear capable just turns everyone’s eyes onto you and the U.S. never sees it as a defensive move, but as a threat.
Of course, I would also agree that Islamic countries getting into this has something to do with feeling pressure to modernize and to “fit in” to modern “civilization”.
November 10th, 2006 - 8:01 am
Walaikumassalaam Aaminah!
My Shaykh often calls the West to abandon -its- weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear ones. At the same time he points out the fact that the Muslim countries are very eager to follow them down the lizard hole so-to-speak.
I agree with everything you said, I’m glad my short thought prompted that!
I think, in today’s environment, its better to say no to Nuclear weapons on moral ground and declare it. Today’s world is one which is all about maintaining current borders. No one is really keen on any country invading another.
What is funny is that these countries think that with a few nukes they can deter. Let us say something does occur, what will they do then? They will fire those nukes off for sure, the enemy will fire theirs, and then the Muslims will get overrun by the fact that they don’t have a real airforce, or a well-equipped army.
A lot of people die in the process, and most likely we still lose.
At least, if something occurs, we should be able to own the moral high-ground, if we can’t own the battle high ground. We should be proud of our religious position on the issue and declare it to the world. Who knows, maybe that way Allah will send his support like He did in Badr.
November 10th, 2006 - 8:20 am
Salaams Yursil bhai and everyone else…
The use and development of nuclear weapons says a lot about us as a species. Nuclear energy offers great potential and great harm, as with most things.
On a deeper level, I think that nuclear weapons appeal to our leaders (or those with the most rampant egos) is that they offer the god-like ability to destory whole cities and countries at a stroke. And, of course, only Allah (being the only God) is capable of using such awesome power wisely and with justice.
As we can see, human beings armed with such might will eventually turn it to evil.
As for killing with fire, speaking as someone who had a serious accident with hot cooking oil, I can’t think of a more horrible end. May God keep us all safe from the fire of Jahannam
Abdur Rahman
November 15th, 2006 - 6:42 pm
Greetings to all,
Let me begin by stating that Nuclear Weapons are the enemy of all mankind. That kind of violence recognizes no religion, no gender nor age. Every one loses if the world decends into nuclear war and weapons build-up. Even the U.S. and the Soviets recognized this during the period known as the Cold War. They are a deterent to keep madmen from using them, but then by definition, a madman is mad and does not care.
Nuclear energy is beneficial and the damage to the air and water from current carbon emissions is harming us. So too does waste from Nuclear energy rods. The Earth has plenty of wind and sunlight, why are we not using these as free energy? I like having lights in the home as much as any of you and I watch TV and listen to music etc. What we must do as men, is think to the future and what kind of shape do we leave it in for our children and their children?
Samir, the West will never use Nukes first. Never. First it is inhuman and even our calloused and out of touch politicians know this. Second, our citizens would literally crucify any who did launch such an attack. If attacked we will respond in kind, but please, do not use Japan as an example. That was a different war, from a different time. Circumstances dictate that use of those weapons now is used only as a last, a very last resort.
But, can any of you say the same for Iran? They have threatened their use upon gaining them? Do we do nothing? What of Pakistan and its disputes with India? Will that affect more than just those two? There are enough loudmouths and hatred spewing voices on both sides. Enough is enough!
Nuclear energy for electricity and heating and all the peaceful uses should be allowed for all nations. Weapons however due to their extremely destructive nature should not be allowed by any. But thats not the world we live in.
November 15th, 2006 - 7:39 pm
Peace Jarhead,
I don’t think anyone would disagree with you, Iran, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Russia, and the United States should just forget Nuclear weapons ever existed.
When supposedly Muslim countries arn’t following traditional Islam regarding defense and ethics then they really have no values except what their own ego’s want. At that point they are really dangerous, as they really don’t believe in anything except power.
November 16th, 2006 - 11:00 am
Greetings Yursil,
Living here in the U.S., you see just how hungry for power and the ego trip our leaders are. A truly peaceful leader cannot emerge as long as the ACLU exists. In regards to nuclear weapons, we can only pray that they are never used and that in the future, God will direct men to destroy them instead of each other.
November 16th, 2006 - 10:51 pm
As-Salam ‘Alaikum,
I am 100% in agreement with Sidi Yursil’s analysis here.
Nuclear devices have no place in our belief system and the desire to obtain them is a clear sign that Muslim societies have lost their way.
December 28th, 2007 - 11:32 am
How could a ban on nuclear weapons be enforced?