ISLAMIC ETHICS AND WEAPONS OF MASS

DESTRUCTION: AN ARGUMENT FOR

NONPROLIFERATION BY
SOHAIL H. HASHMI

Allison Barry

18 February 2016

WMD:

Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear

Which Muslim states have chemical and

biological weapon programs?
Egypt, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria

When did these programs develop?

1960s: Muslim states do not esp. consider
Began in the 1970s, spiked in the 1980s,
decreased in magnitude in early 2000s

Why havent WMD in terms of Islamic ethics been discussed?

1. Shorter time weapons relevant to

Muslims
2. Repressive political atmosphere
Ex: military dictatorships: Iraq, Libya,
Syria
Ex: democratic regimes: Egypt, Iran,
Pakistan

Many Islamic ethic interpretations do not

support national defense and patriotism
policies

3 Interpretations of WMP in Islamic Ethics:

1. Acquisition and Use WMD
Jihadists*
WMD push moral limits on proper
fighting, but can be proper in certain
appropriate circumstances

Muslims should acquire WMD only for defensive purposes

and that resort to such weapons is permissible only after
the enemy has resorted to the first

*Majority of scholars

3 Interpretations of WMP in Islamic Ethics:

2. Morally and Pragmatically

Necessary Muslim WMD Terrorists
Justify use and are prepared to employ
as 1st resort
All non-Muslims are targets (dispute
traditional distinction between
combatants and nonC)

Proactive defense and emergency measures: it would be a sin for Muslims

not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from
inflicting harm on Muslims Bin Laden (1998)

3 Interpretations of WMP in Islamic Ethics:

3. No Acquisition or Use Muslim

WMD Pacifists
Completely contrary to Islamic ethics
However, they do not renounce all
violence

Note: These are not pure pacific due to verse 2:216 man
resort to violence if nonviolent peaceful methods are
unsuccessful. But, violence does not call for NCB weapons

All theorists interpret the same scriptures;

Author argues Pacifist

position
1. WMD blur the line between combatant and nonC, a basic Islamic
rule of war
2. Inhumane fighting

Kill or maim in such horrible ways that they violate Islamic teaching on
fighting humanly

3. Permanent damage on natural environment

Against moral Islamic principal that all life, Gods creation, is divine
Animals cannot defend themselves

4. Waste (israf)

Stockpiling these morally unethical objects deduce from resources that

can be allocated for constructive purposes

Note: Author includes cluster bombs, firebombs, and antipersonnel land mines with WMD
technology

Note: #3 causes a divide within pacifist community

Sources
In determining the use of WMD, we should look at
Islamic texts the same way as with any other
violence
Jurists used Quran and Sunna

Use fiqh on controversial chapters

Subtract the ethical misinterpretations due to military,
economical, and political bias due to the time period

Ask the same questions

Who is permitted to wage war

Permissible type and magnitude of inflected harm
Permissible damage to enemy property

I. Legitimate Wars [W]

Medieval View (Sunni and Shiite):

Differentiate between justifications for

Muslim and non Muslim wars
Defensive war against non believer
aggression
Expansionism

WMD Terrorists: combine defensive war and expansion, claiming

that they must expand and eliminate all non Muslims because
they inherently pose a threat through corruption and repression

II. Damage to Persons [S]

MV: Jihad goal is to incorporate not

annihilate

Fight those who fight against you, but do

not transgress limits, for God love not the
transgressors (2:190)

Hadiths state one must not deliberately

kill women and children

Only terrorists do not follow this

III. Permissible Weapons ad Tactics (-)

MV: women, child, old, infirm not attackable

Blurred lines throughout history

It is enemys fault if the population is in-discriminable

Siege of Taif (630 CE): catapults and mangonels, naphtha

(flammable liquid hydrocarbon)
Incendiary weapons: deliberate burning of persons opposed to
capturing
Poison
Flooding

Authors Argument: WMD have harsher and longer-lasting side

effects

IV. Necessity [W]

MV: broad! Allowed military necessary to encompass

basically anything

Necessity has always been the most interpretive category,

because the qualifications for justification are
1. the wellbeing of the Muslim community
2. reciprocity

MV and Contemporary View: match the enemy

Religious opinions are either suppressed or naturally

quieted due to the powerful presence of opposing
governments. Thus, we need technological advancements
in the military to modernize, compete, and defend.
Ex:

Arab-Israeli conflict; Indo-Pakistani Wars

WMD Uses so Far [-]

Yemeni Civil War 1963-67 Egypt

bombs Yemeni with gas
Iran-Iraq War 1980-88

Iraq used chemical weapons, no real

punishment
Iran did not have any NW to compete or
retaliate
Psychological and physical damage: used
as threatening tactic and to cause
generational mutilation
Silence set precedent [W]

Aside from Scripture Take modern

society and international relations into
account [S]
Long-lasting effects
Non combatants (battlefield changed, innocent lives)
Escalation (arms race)
Inhumane [S scripture support]
Probability of catastrophe (fail-fail; cannot assume both
side will survive first strikes and have enough resources
for second strike)
Effecting neighboring countries

When a dangerous non Muslim enemy that threatens to

overwhelm a territory of Islam and kill al Muslims () it is
permissible for Muslim troops to kill the Muslim captives as
part of their attack on the enemy Al-Ghazali (cites 10:4:93
and 6:151)

Deterrence

Transitional justification of deterrence:

deterrence deterrence with patriotism (v. India) deterrence

with Equilibrium and competitive capability

Is this supported under Necessity?

Proliferation M&C View: inevitable and morally acceptable

Development for deterrence alone is morally, economically, and

militarily unjustifiable because they do not deter low intensity
wars, the catastrophic risk is too high, terrorist organizations will
abuse them.

Other Arguments
1. Evidence of multiple governments hesitating to use the
weapons [-]
Ex: Iran-Iraq War (1984) president and committee of experts
deliberated and assessed national interests did not
immediately continue with nuclear program. Unfinished
projects throughout 1980s and early 90s.
The argument of when in doubt, dont use would be more
effective if medieval Jurists preexisting evidence did not
already somewhat allow nuclear weapons.
2. Most Muslims states have a history of not being on the
forefront of nuclear weapon development [-]

True, Muslim states were not overly active in 1960s early 70s
However, not succumbing to Indias nuclear blackmail is outdated

Where are we today?

Overall, once again Islamic ethics coordinating with

international law

Pakistan: only nuclear nonproliferation regime

Approx. 50 states always sign treaties and attend conferences

Many signers want to keep the treaties, but make sure there
is consistent application (calling out Israel)

For Israel defense planning

Leaders have supported nuclear ambitions
Pakistan doesnt sign things because India doesnt sign things

Kazakhstan: 1st state to trade nuclear weapons (gave to Russia for

nuclear disarmament)