The Islamic definition of violence
|
Sayyed Fadlullah:
America created terrorism in our region and in the world in general,
and we should do our best to end it
Asked in his weekly
seminar the following question: As the
Americans try to link the successive acts of violence with Islam,
don’t you think that there is a need to clarify the Islamic
stance concerning violence?
The Religious
Authority Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah said:
Islam did not need violence whether in the past or
the present. On the contrary, it called for leniency following
what our Messenger (p.) has said in one of his traditions that
Allah is Kind and Merciful, and that He would give for leniency
what He would not give for violence.
If Islam has legalized fighting in self-defense,
it has done so strictly in the framework of respecting life and
not killing any human, unless he puts himself in a state of
aggression that cannot be confronted by any other means, taking at
the same time all the precautions necessary to protect civilians,
women, children and prisoners.
Therefore, the violence phenomenon in the Arab and
Islamic countries or in the Middle East in general is not Islamic,
especially that it resorts to means that Islam does not accept.
Many of its forms were practiced first in the West and were later
imitated in the Arab and Muslim world without studying them from
the religious point of view. They were actually encouraged by some
Western Administrations in the beginning since they served their
on-going confrontation with the Soviet Union.
We believe that what is responsible for the
violence that takes the form of terror in the region and the world
is the American logic, which encouraged it in the beginning, and
which helped in creating a favorable political and social
environment afterwards. This kind of violence was sponsored by the
U.S. It was not a product of the Islamic culture, but rather of a
backward mentality, and misguided teachings. When America accuses
some Arab and Muslim countries of supporting this trend or these
groups, it can not deny that it was the one that urged such a
support.
The U.S. also supported state terror by supporting
the Israeli’s terror and trying to find unjustified pretenses
for it. It also supported Saddam Hussein and enabled him to kill
his people by means of chemical weapons, before it overthrew him
when the need for him no longer existed.
The U.S. supported such phenomena to enable it to
enter to the countries that were not under its direct control
under the pretext of terrorism. To prove this, it is enough to
remember that the plans made by the new conservatives for this
region were laid out in the eighties. Nevertheless, our reaction
falls politically in the category of rejecting occupation. The
Islamic stance is very clear in this respect: Resistance against
occupation is not an act of terror especially that we have always
repeated that we condemn any targeting of civilians outside the
circle of war. Thus, we condemned what happened in 9-11as well as
the massacres in Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Morocco…etc, and
targeting civilians and policemen in Iraq. Such operations are by
no means Islamic and they have been denounced by Muslim scholars
of all sects.
We believe that there is a dire need to found a
political and humanitarian global movement that condemns terror
and makes every effort to stop its expansion. To do this, this
movement should fight the political tyranny and brutality that
dominate the world, as well as the American logic that seeks to
globalize terrorism. Therefore, there is a dire need for an
Islamic, Christian and international movement to prevent America
from tampering with the destiny of the world, and stop such
terrorist phenomena that run counter to the interests and values
of humanity.
|