LibriumArcana.Games

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2009 12:19 am**

Muslims should not use weapons of mass destruction and possess them only as a deterrent, a top Islamic cleric says.

Grand Mufti of Egypt Ali Gomaa said using such weapons would violate Islamic teachings as Muslims as well as non-Muslims could be killed.

He issued the religious ruling, or fatwa, following reports that the use of such weapons was legitimate, the state news agency Mena said.

His ruling comes just days before the visit of US President Barack Obama.

Mr Obama, who arrives on 4 June, is expected to give a speech on US relations with the Muslim world.

On a recent visit to Turkey he said the US was not at war with Islam and called for a greater partnership with the Muslim world.

Cairo has said it does not want to make atomic bombs and in the past has called for a region free of nuclear weapons.

Correspondents say that is a reference to Israel - the only Middle Eastern power suspected of possessing such an arsenal.

Pakistan is the only Muslim country known to have nuclear weapons, although Western powers and Israel suspect Iran of trying to develop an atomic bomb.

The grand mufti, who is state-appointed, also said it was also not allowed for Muslims to kill civilians even during a declared war.

Kudos to the grand mufti for this, though of course there may be scholars in the Islamic world who don't agree (AFAIK Islam does not have a unified hierarchy for resolving interpretations).

I thought it was a bit funny in a bad way that he justified the decree with the fact that there Muslims might be among those killed, not just non-Muslims. But he then also says that civilians cannot be killed even during a declared war, so that's rather less bad (since the non-Muslims referred to earlier would then be combatants).

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:49 am**

*Shrug* His rationalization is no worse than plenty of western ones I've heard concerning the use or non-use of nuclear weapons and other indiscriminate forms of war-making.

I will point out however that the Grand Mufti of Egypt is a government-appointed position, and that the hardcore islamists (among others) consider the Egyptian government to be a reactionary puppet regime with no more moral weight than Israel itself. I doubt that too many of the people who would be in a position to have nuclear weapons in their hands will take this at all seriously.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:32 am**

But he then also says that civilians cannot be killed even during a declared war, so that's rather less bad (since the non-Muslims referred to earlier would then be combatants).

*snorts* They never hesitate to kill civilians when fighting each other or the Israelis.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:47 am**

frigidmagi wrote:*snorts* They never hesitate to kill civilians when fighting each other or the Israelis.

Very few countries, nations, or forces do.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:18 pm**

Granted, I just find the hypocrisy here amusing. Especially since they scream and bitch at us and I know for a fact we take more care then they do.

Nuclear bombs that might kill civilians? Bad.

Car bombs or teenage suicide bombers that are pretty much guaranteed to kill civies? Okay sure.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:26 pm**

Hesitate? No. Try to avoid to? Yes, given that amassing huge enemy civilian casualties while attaining little if any worthwhile gains tends to do Bad Things for your reputation. See the US of A in Vietnam, recently in Iraq, or Israel more or less in general.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:39 pm**

See the US of A in Vietnam, recently in Iraq,

I can't speak much for Vietnam but we did try pretty damn hard to avoid killing civies in Iraq.

And do you even know what you're talking about? None of the Arab states do shit to avoid killing civies in war. Look up the Jordan/PLA conflict for example.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:51 pm**

frigidmagi wrote:
See the US of A in Vietnam, recently in Iraq,
I can't speak much for Vietnam but we did try pretty damn hard to avoid killing civies in Iraq.

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. The publicity you got when it didn't work.

And do you even know what you're talking about? None of the Arab states do shit to avoid killing civies in war. Look up the Jordan/PLA conflict for example.

I never said they were.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2009 6:04 pm**

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. The publicity you got when it didn't work.

Because bluntly people are going to die whenever you fight a war in inhabited spaces. Anyone who thinks we can manage a 100 or even an 80% success rate in keeping civilians from being killed is simply uneducated in the realities or has lost their damn mind.

I never said they were.

Fair enough, I withdraw the comment.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:09 pm**

Anyone who thinks we can manage a 100 or even an 80% success rate in keeping civilians from being killed is simply uneducated in the realities or has lost their damn mind.

Religion is like that. Look. You can point out all the facts you want, but the reality is that the civilian deathtoll would shock believing Muslims so hard very, very few of even the most bellicose of Middle East rulers will risk it. A Jihad you've been supporting turning on you is worse than anything you could gain with a nuclear strike.

Posted: **Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:17 pm**

I was mainly thinking of protesters in the US and Europe Nitram. Most of them insist since civilians have died, we're evil blood drinking monsters who should leave all theaters of combat.

LibriumArcana.Games

Cleric 'bans' Muslim use of nuclear weapons

#1 Cleric 'bans' Muslim use of nuclear weapons

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11