By Khama Bagosh Madzallah, New Age Islam
In the social media the violent sectarian entities of Pakistan and their supporters has started a debate in the aftermath of Abbas Town blasts in which several children also got killed, that killing of enemy’s offspring is permitted, as enemy’s kid is like a snake’s offspring which can still be killed. The Jihadi swords men fighting on social media front are insisting that killing of Shia children is not only permissible but a virtuous act. The supporters of murdering the children present an argument that Hazrat Khizar also killed a kid knowing about him in advance that he would become a great sinner and oppressor, although the kid’s parents were very pious people. Sometimes ago, a famous religious scholar and the founder of the movement to establish a Caliphate in Pakistan, late Dr. Israr Ahmad Issued a decree that the decision of Pakistan’s national assembly which declared Qadianis or Ahmadis as pagans was still incomplete. The basis for incompletion of the decision, according to Dr. Israr Ahmad was that the Ahmadis were only declared as pagans rather astray, for whom the death sentence is the punishment in Islam. Dr. Israr Ahmad clearly stated on a Pakistani television that Ahmadi killing is obligatory; the decision of the1974 national assembly can be implemented if and only if; the entire astray are killed. Neither a single voice was raised then, against the disgusting talk of Dr. Israr Ahmad from the country nor is somebody there today to condemn Taliban and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi like organizations.
Although the Prophet of Islam issued explicit orders in many fights to not to harm children, women and elderly persons but in some traditions a conditional authorization is there, like in Muslim Sharif, Bab-ul-Jihad narration no 4457 it is said; “those children should not be killed about whom it is not known what they would become in future”. The traditions allowing killing of children and women during night assaults can also be found. A lot of repugnant material in the Islamic history can be found about this topic especially after conquest of Mecca, where in some cases this act is permitted and sometimes not.
After the domination of Islam, the ruthless murders of Kaab-bin-Ashraf and Umme-Qirfa are the clear examples of taking revenge from the old enemies who had opposed the message of the Prophet sometimes ago. Some people were killed on the explicit orders of the Prophet at conquest of Mecca; Umme-Qirfa was torn apart by pulling her two legs tied with two camels running in opposite directions. But it is also be observed that some people who more firmly opposed Islam as compared to Umme-Qirfa or Kaab-Bin-Ashraf were not only forgiven but also their status was elevated in the new Islamic state, though they had almost led their whole lives in the opposition of Islam. The history also witnessed later that some of the Sahaba also killed the Muslims of that age. The murder of Malik-bin-Naveera by Khalid-bin-Waleed is also an example where not only he killed him but also married his wife even before expiry of the “Iddah” (the period before the expiry of which a widow or divorced woman is prohibited to get married again in Islam).
Bloodshed seems to be an integral part of the Islamic history and there was a split in the Sahaba right after the death of the Prophet. The sky then observed that Senior Sahabis were killed and even the sanctity of Kaaba was challenged. Many of the Sahabis were killed during the wars between the 4th Caliph Ali Ibne-Abi Talib and Amir-e-Sham Mauhavia-bin-Abi Sufiyan. Before this large number of Sahabis were killed by each other in the war of Jamal which took place between the Prophet’s wife Ayesha and his son in law Ali-Ibne-Abi Talib. Later Banu-Umayyah and Banu-Abbas colored their hands with Muslim blood and this tradition is being observed with full commitment even today. Those who are of the opinion that “A Muslim cannot kill another Muslim without reason!” should look into the history; any None-Muslim has not killed Muslims with such great commitment with which firm Muslims have killed each other. There are hundreds of such books in which the Muslim sects have condemned each other and permitted each other’s killings. In such a situation where a Muslim does not hesitate to kill other Muslims, how come there can be mercy for a None-Muslim in any case?
This is evident like a bright day that justification for the bloody war between Islamic sects is derived from Islam itself. The stance of Sipah-e-Sahaba and Lashkar-e-Jhangawi is quite clear, they say; “since Shias disrespect some of the Sahaba and the wife of the Prophet so their killing is a virtuous act”, on the other hand the Taliban who are killing themselves and others for the sake of Islam, declare killings of None-Muslims and those who are at difference with them as permissible. From Swat to Karachi they have killed hundreds of such Muslims who were at difference with them and as for today they consider them as None-Muslims and are committed to kill them.
Thousands of very easy to prove such bloody facts stain the Islamic cloak and countless such instigation are there which meant to kill the astray and the pagans. Being astray was the justification to kill Muslims and for None-Muslims, none was needed.
The sectarian organizations of Pakistan started killings after the decree which got published in the form of a book from Karachi and proved Shias as astray written by Maulana Manzoor Ahmad Noumani, a Deo-Bandi scholar from Lakanuw. Maulana Manzour Ahmad Noumani proved Ayatollah Khomaini, the leader of Iranian revolution as an infidel, and prepared grounds of Shia killing by his decree. A similar decree was issued by another Scholar Dr. Israr, who declared the decision about the paganism of the Ahmadis as still incomplete and bound its completion with the authorization to kill Ahmadis as being astray, and death sentence is the punishment for the astray in Islam.
Both of the issuers of the decrees had the supportive evidence from the Islamic history and the collection of Hadees. They said what Islam meant.
About Khama Bagosh Madzallah: A confused Muslim, unable to understand the real definition of Muslimhood. Is a Muslim the standard bearer of Islam in reality? Or just an enemy of fellow Muslims? What is the Islamic ideology about rest of the world? What is its culture and history? Why the Muslims are in a conflict not just with other religions but other cultures as well?
Is Islam made for dominance or has been dominated by its followers?
I am a student of this thesis and would try to share my views with you fiends on the pages of New Age Islam.