5/8/2012 – Opinion – Article Ref: IV1205-5086
By: Dr. Habib Siddiqui
Iviews* –

http://www.iviews.com/articles/articles.asp?ref=IV1205-5086&p=1

The U.S. missile defense plans in Europe have been one of the thorniest topics in U.S.-Russian relations for years. Last week, Russia’s top military officer threatened to carry out a pre-emptive strike on U.S.-led NATO missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe if the USA goes ahead with her controversial plan to build a missile shield.

At an international conference last Thursday that was attended by senior U.S. and NATO officials Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov said, “A decision to use destructive force preemptively will be taken if the situation worsens.” Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov also warned that talks between Moscow and Washington on the topic are “close to a dead end.”

Russia rejects USA’s claim that the missile defense plan is solely to deal with any Iranian missile threat. Russia has voiced fears that it will eventually become powerful enough to undermine her nuclear deterrent. The U.S.-NATO missile defense plans use Aegis radars and interceptors on ships and a more powerful radar based in Turkey in the first phase, followed by radar and interceptor facilities in Romania and Poland. To diffuse the crisis, Russia’s Security Council secretary Nikolai Patrushev reiterated Moscow’s offer to run the missile shield together with NATO, which “could strengthen the security of every single country of the continent” and “would be adequate for possible threats and will not deter strategic security.”

As a countermeasure, Russia has just commissioned a radar in Kaliningrad, its western outpost near the Polish border, capable of monitoring missile launches from Europe and the North Atlantic. The U.S. Senator John McCain who has been visiting Lithuania lashed out at Russia’s plans in Kaliningrad calling it an “excuse to have a military buildup in this part of the world, which is at peace, is really an egregious example of what might be even viewed as paranoia on the part of Vladimir Putin.”

So, there again we have this modern paranoia with pre-emptive strikes amongst the powerful nations of the earth. They imagine the worst of their enemies and then justify their horrendous crimes associated with pre-emptive strikes by saying that ‘if we had not struck first, they (the ‘enemies’) could have killed us all.’ It is what I call the Kabil Syndrome, so beautifully put in the Qur’an.

Allah says, “Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to Allah): It was accepted from one, but not from the other. Said the latter: “Be sure I will slay thee.” “Surely,” said the former, “Allah doth accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous. If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear Allah, the cherisher of the worlds. For me, I intend to let thee draw on thyself my sin as well as thine, for thou wilt be among the companions of the fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong. The (selfish) soul of the other led him to the murder of his brother: he murdered him, and became (himself) one of the lost ones.” (Qur’an 5: 27-30)

The slain son of Adam was Habil (Abel), and the slayer Kabil (Cain). Throughout history, since the time of Adam, there seems to be this warfare going on between the forces symbolizing the mindsets of Kabil – the exploiter, the tyrant, the arrogant, proud, selfish and the covetous one, the pre-emptive striker – and Habil (Abel) — the exploited class, the victim, the undemanding, unselfish, humble and peaceful kind that is always concerned about its ultimate accountability before God.

The class of Kabil has 3 faces – Fir’aon (Pharaoh) and Haman (for power), Qarun (Korah) and Croesus (for wealth), and Balaam (for creed). Following this analogy, all the tyrannical and powerful governments of the world (from the time of Namrud (Nimrod) to our present time) symbolize the characteristics of Kabil. They control the UNSC to justify their crimes of embargo, invasion, occupation and plunder, much like what we witnessed with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq during George W. Bush’s presidency (to be continued by Barack Obama). The Trilateral Commission, the Bohemian Club, the Bilderberg, etc. – are all embodiments of that Kabilite evil force ensuring their authority on all things material. They control the IMF, the World Bank and many important agencies in our world so that further painful concessions can be extracted out of the Habilite nations or worse still, weakened badly, much like what we are witnessing today with their cruel measures to punish Iran in the international monetary circles. Iran’s crime: it has dared to pursue nuclear technology while such should have been the Vedic rite reserved for only the nuclear Brahmins of the Kabilite society!

As I hinted above (previous page), pre-emptive strikes against the perceived enemy is part of the strategic planning of the Kabilite forces of our world, whether it is carried out at an individual or a state level. So the Kabilite crime committed in Norway by the Christian terrorist Anders Behring Breivik has a justification! It did not matter to Breivik that the median age of his victims in the Labor Party youth camp in the Utoya Island was only 18.

In his trial Breivik said that Western Europe was gradually taken over by “Marxists and multiculturalists” after World War II and that his country was dying. He claims that the July 22 attacks were “necessary” and that the 77 victims had betrayed Norway by embracing immigration. He said that he acted out of “goodness, not evil” to prevent a wider civil war, and vowed, “I would have done it again.” “The attacks on July 22 were a preventive strike. I acted in self-defense on behalf of my people, my city, my country,” he said. He equated his pre-emptive strike against the youth camp with the atom bomb attacks on Japan during the World War II “to prevent further war.”

Closer to home, here in the USA, Jose Padilla, an American citizen has been detained as an ‘enemy combatant’ since May 2002 after he was arrested by the Bush administration on suspicion of plotting a ‘dirty bomb.’ As the New York Times editorial of May 3 noted, Padilla was denied contact with his lawyer, his family or anyone else outside the military brig for almost two years and kept in detention for almost four. His jailers made death threats, shackled him for hours, forced him into painful stress positions, subjected him to noxious fumes that hurt his eyes and nose and deafening noises at all hours, denied him care for serious illness and more. This treatment was torture and indisputably cruel, inhumane and shocking, in breach of the minimum standard required for anyone in American custody, especially a citizen.

Seeking monetary damages of only a dollar – to make a point about accountability – Mr. Padilla sued John Yoo who had drafted legal policies for President Bush’s war on terrorism. In 2009, a Federal District Court in California ruled that Yoo was not immune from the lawsuit. But this week, in a misguided and dangerous ruling, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that Mr. Padilla’s lawsuit cannot go forward because John Yoo is immune. What a mockery of justice!

What has been happening with Jose Padilla’s case, as NY Times (May 3, 2012) noted, is simply ‘beyond debate.’ It is outrageous and unacceptable. It shows the despicable hypocrisy of the American judicial system. The paper noted, “The Bush administration manufactured both ‘debates’ – about torture and enemy combatants. Any future government can rely on this precedent to pull the same stunt as cover for some other outrage. By using the ‘enemy combatant’ category, the Bush administration stirred debate that had not existed about whether rights of an American citizen in custody depend on how he is classified. By coming up with offensive rationalizations for torturing detainees, it dishonestly stirred debate about torture’s definition when what it engaged in plainly included torture.”

The accusations against Padilla are absolutely baseless and the government case weak. If there was fairness in justice, he should have been released long time ago. And yet, here again is an appalling case of Kabilite strategy where an innocent person has been relegated to rot within the prison walls on mere suspicion (much like pre-emptive attack). And compare this episode with two incidents from the Islamic history.

Muhammad (S), the Prophet of Allah, informed his close companion Ali bin Abi Talib (RA) about a man who would stain ‘Ali’s beard with the blood of his own head. [Ref: al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak iii, 113; Musnad i, 102, 103, 148, 156; Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat.] ‘Ali (RA) had been informed by the Prophet of his assassination in such detail that he knew the man who was going to kill him, and identified him — it was ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Muljam al-Sarimi, the Kharijite. And so was the case with Caliphs Umar and Uthman (RA). [Ref: Bukhari, Fada’il al-Ashab 5, 6, 7; Tirmidhi, Manaqib 19, no: 3697; Abu Da’ud, Sunna 9 (Bab: Fi’l-Khulafa’); Muslim, Fada’il al-Sahaba 6 no: 2417; al-Hakim, al-Mustadrak iii, 450.]
Ali (RA) also saw in dreams of his martyrdom. One day Ali (RA) came across ibn Muljam in the streets of Kufa and told him, “I know for what purpose you have come to Kufa.Ó”
As soon as Ibn-e-Muljam heard these words, he trembled and said to Ali (RA): “Oh Ali, when it is so (that you know) release the orders of my being killed or put me in the prison or banish me off.” Ali (RA) replied, “Although I can put into practice each one of your suggestions, but Islam does not deem pre-crime punishment as fair. So I am obliged to let you go free. Perhaps you may repent upon your decision.”

On the 13th day of Ramadan Ali (RA) told his son Husayn (RA) of his impending murder and that he won’t be able to participate in the hajj that year.

Some of Ali’s (RA) companions also heard of the conspiracy of the Khawarij. They requested him to name the would-be assassin. They sought permission to arrest him. Ali (RA) said: “How could I condemn a person who had not yet committed the murder?” When Ash’ath, a close companion of Ali (RA), met ibn Muljam and found out that he was preparing to murder Ali (RA) with a sword, he hastened to inform Ali (RA) of the matter. Ali (RA), however, replied that he couldn’t do anything against ibn Muljam since the latter had not committed the crime by then. He said that such actions would be contrary to Islam since pre-emptive strike before the crime is committed is unacceptable.

The night preceding his assassination Ali (RA) had come out, and gazed at the sky and said: “By Allah he (Muhammad – the Messenger of Allah) never told a lie, nor was a lie ever told to him.

The next day, early in the dawn of the 19th of Ramadan of 40 A.H., ibn Muljam’s sword struck Ali’s (RA) forehead, and his blood spilled down his beard, as the Prophet had described. The assassin was captured and Ali (RA) was carried to his home. When Ali (RA) was informed by his son Hassan (RA) about the capture of ibn Muljam, he told his son, “Oh Son! He is a prisoner. Treat him well and look after his comforts. If I recover from this wound it will be my business to deal with him. If I die, kill him with a single stroke of the sword, so that the divine law is carried out. Take care not to kill him with cruelty or torture, for I once heard your grandfather Muhammad (S) say: “Do not kill even a rabid dog with torture and pain.

Ali (RA) also instructed his family not to take revenge on anyone else, including the family of Ibn Muljam, for his death. [Ref: Tabaqat: Ibn Sa’d; Michael M.J. Fischer, Iran: from religious dispute to revolution, University of Wisconsin Press (1980), p. 18.]

Ali (RA) did not survive the injury and died on the 21st of Ramadan, 40 A.H. at the age of 63 years. He was buried in Najaf, Iraq.

During the caliphate of Umar (RA), he recalled that Muhammad (S), the Messenger of Allah, himself on more than one occasion had referred to him as a ‘Shahid’ (martyr). He, therefore, felt that he might be blessed with martyrdom even in the capital city of Madinah. When the year 644 C.E. dawned, that being the tenth year of his rule, Umar (RA) had the premonition that before the year ended, he would die.

Firoz alias Abu Lulu was Umar’s (RA) assassin. He once met Umar (RA) and complained that the tax which his master Mughirah was exacting from him was too high. He wanted the Caliph to reduce the levy. Umar (RA) enquired about his work and was told that he worked as a carpenter, painter, and an ironsmith. Firoz added that he could make windmills as well. Umar (RA) next enquired as to the amount of the tax that he was required to pay to his master. Firoz replied that he had to pay two dirhams a day. Umar (RA) said that keeping in view the lucrative nature of the jobs done by him, the levy of two dirhams a day was prima facie not excessive. He added that he would, however, write to Mughirah, and examine the question further in the light of what Mughirah said. That did not satisfy Firoz, and he went away sulking.

Umar (RA) wrote to Mughirah, and in reply Mughirah quoted facts and figures to establish that what he took from Foroz was by no means excessive. When Firoz called on Umar (RA) again, Umar (RA) explained to him that as the levy was not excessive, no reduction therein would be made. This made Firoz very angry. To soften his anger, Umar (RA) said to Firoz, “I understand that you make windmills; make one for me as well.” In a sullen mood, Firoz threatened, “Verily I will make such a mill for you that the world would talk about it.”

Firoz told other Persians living in Madinah that he would take Umar’s heart out. He made for himself a dagger with a very sharp edge and smeared it with poison.

Interestingly, Umar (RA) was also told by Ka’b al-Ahbar (a Jewish convert to Islam) that he had read in the Torah that Umar (RA) would die as a martyr. Umar (RA) also dreamt of his martyrdom. In spite of his knowledge that Firoz would assassinate him, and Firoz’s own statement which was an open declaration of war against him, Umar (RA), the Caliph, did not arrest Firoz for the latter had not yet committed his crime.

On the 3rd of November 644 C.E. at the time of the Fajr (dawn) prayer, Firoz went with his dagger to the Prophet’s mosque and hid himself in a corner in one of the recesses of the mosque. When the faithful Muslims stood for prayer after straightening the lines, and Umar (RA) took up his position as the Imam to lead the prayer, Firoz emerged from his place of hiding and rushed at him. Firoz struck Umar (RA) six consecutive blows with his dagger, and Umar (RA) fell on the floor profusely bleeding.

Other persons rushed at Firoz, but he had the fury and frenzy of a desperate man striking right and left, and thirteen Muslims were wounded, some of them fatally, before he could be overpowered. At last realizing that he could not escape, Firoz stabbed himself to death with his own dagger.

Umar (RA) died of the wounds three days later on Sunday, 7 November 644 C.E. (23 A.H. of the Islamic calendar).

As can be seen from the above historical facts, there was no pre-emptive strike against known enemies, much in contrast to the criminal actions of the Kabilite powers of our time – the so-called civilized nations — against their perceived foes! Probably something to ponder about and modify views about Islam and its Caliphate — now a dirty-word in western lexicon!

*****

Dr Habib Siddiqui has authored 10 books. His latest book – Devotional Stories – is now available from A.S. Noordeen, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.