“Now look—I ain't a man of big words or fancy books. But I do know a thing or two about presidential regret. Not real regret, mind you. I sleep just fine. But legacy—now that keeps a fella up at night. Turns out history books aren’t kind to folks who invade countries over invisible weapons.”
An Open Letter from George W. Bush to Donald J. Trump About Ignoring the Truth, Starting a War, and Somehow Making W. Look Smart
“From One War Criminal to Another: I Lied Us Into War. You Bombed Because You’re Stupid.” A fact-free strike on Iran that ignored intelligence, defied diplomacy, and may ignite the next global war.
From the BBC website this morning: The deputy political director of Iran's state broadcaster, Hassan Abedini, said Iran had evacuated these three nuclear sites a "while ago". Appearing on state-run TV, he said Iran "didn't suffer a major blow because the materials had already been taken out".
Dear Qasim... This is helpful. I'm am ignorant and uneducated. The information you provide is on a subject we should ALL know more about, because in the end this is about people... And how to treat them with human dignity. Even in the face of war. There aren't just *terrorists* in Iran. Or anywhere, for that matter. There are mothers, fathers, teachers, bakers, veterinarians, farmers, youth, elders... Human beings! No war is wanted. But when it it warranted, civility during the undertaking of the mechanics of war make it less horrific. Less dehumanizing. No war is good. But sometimes war we must. Lead with conviction. War is not godly. Let us then be less inhumane. I've found your posts invigorating and informative. Great ly appreciated.
I took a class on Islam in the ‘70s. It gave me tolerance if nothing else. This was before the much publicized “jihadists.” How are these people regarded by regular Muslims? Hope that is not a dumb or offensive question. I will follow. Thanks.
Thank you so much for having a safe space for us to learn about this beautiful religion and history. Growing up Christian in America I was not spared from the indoctrination of "radical Islam" and the Islamophobia. I am grateful to have undone a lot of that, but don't have much time to really dive in to learn about Islam more in depth. So I very much appreciate being able to learn about this in a way that can be done bit by bit without feeling overwhelming!
You're welcome here! And yes the goal is to provide regular bite sized morsels of knowledge and facts that we can all benefit from. Never hesitate to share your questions. This is truly a space for learning and understanding.
Prophet Muhammad (sa) was a brilliant, compassionate man. Regardless of our personal beliefs, we do ourselves a grave injustice if we dismiss his teachings.
I am so thankful that you are teaching history and helping us understand the moral basis towards war. Americans have been so steeped in falsehood about Islam. I am looking forward to reading all of your posts.
I know little about Islam, and appreciate having your guidance in learning more. I find what is happening in Gaza horrific and indefensible. It is not right by any religion or even atheist values. But what would Muhammad’s response been to October 8 by Hamas?
All of this only shows how un US American Islam is. Peace, good behavour, only use force as defence. How does that fit with the ingrained cultural belief of all peoples in the Americas south of Canada that any perceived slight and harm is best met with individual force?
"Thus, the permission -- not commandment -- to fight is defensive. And that fighting protects temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques -- which is to say, universal religious freedom."
This is permission for retaliation. Retaliation may be necessary to dissuade an enemy and thus promote eventual peace, but it is not the same as defense.
The problem with retaliation is that, like ancient family feuds, it usually leads to endless wars, while historians engage in fruitless and childish arguments about who started it.
No, it's not retaliation. I'm not sure how you even got to that conclusion. The verse is clear that if war is being waged against you, then you fight in self defense. Later the verse goes on to say that if those attacking you lay down their arms, then you must also lay down your arms, and no excess is permitted. I'll have a more detailed article about that soon. But your claim that this is about retaliation finds no validation in the text nor in the actual practice and exemplification of this verse by Prophet Muhammad (sa).
It seems to me that antiaircraft guns, missiles, etc. were defensive, but now that the air attacks are done, any response from Iran, e.g. attacking a US base, would be retaliatory, not defensive.
Would such a move by Iran be allowed by the passage you quote? or would it be fighting after "those attacking you lay down their arms"?
Look forward to understanding this more after reading your upcoming article.
I must respectfully disagree with the entire concept of rules of war. Not that I fail to appreciate attempts to minimize suffering and death in warfare, particularly to civilians who want no part of a war. But in my view, "rules of war" trivializes warfare by making it analogous to any rule-governed game like football. See the following for a complete explanation: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cui-bono/201702/war-game
I'm not sure what there is to disagree about here? Either we agree that civilians should not be targets, or hold that civilians are legitimate targets. If the standard truly is justice, then the former must hold true -- civilians can never be targets.
The concept of legitimate and illegitimate targets of war makes no sense to me because I don't think war is a legitimate activity. I know that some argue for the legitimacy of defensive wars, but I find that to be a slippery slope. Some would argue that the airstrikes on Iran were defensive. We both know that is bullsh*t. I am not going to say that any war is fine as long as people follow the rule that civilians aren't targeted or certain kinds of weapons (e.g. chemical) aren't used. Men who want to fight ought to go at each other in contact sports, not on battlefields.
John, Jai Alai was the Iroquois Confederacy's playing field concept of members' dispute resolution. It has been shown to preserve precious resources and lives which would have been sacrificed in armed conflicts.
“Now look—I ain't a man of big words or fancy books. But I do know a thing or two about presidential regret. Not real regret, mind you. I sleep just fine. But legacy—now that keeps a fella up at night. Turns out history books aren’t kind to folks who invade countries over invisible weapons.”
An Open Letter from George W. Bush to Donald J. Trump About Ignoring the Truth, Starting a War, and Somehow Making W. Look Smart
“From One War Criminal to Another: I Lied Us Into War. You Bombed Because You’re Stupid.” A fact-free strike on Iran that ignored intelligence, defied diplomacy, and may ignite the next global war.
https://patricemersault.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-from-george-w-bush?r=4d7sow
From the BBC website this morning: The deputy political director of Iran's state broadcaster, Hassan Abedini, said Iran had evacuated these three nuclear sites a "while ago". Appearing on state-run TV, he said Iran "didn't suffer a major blow because the materials had already been taken out".
It seems they were ahead of the curve and saw this attack coming.
I never thought the Apocalypse would be this dumb.
Likely they were monitoring SOD Hegseth's Signal feed. This act has minimized bloodshed so far.
Dear Qasim... This is helpful. I'm am ignorant and uneducated. The information you provide is on a subject we should ALL know more about, because in the end this is about people... And how to treat them with human dignity. Even in the face of war. There aren't just *terrorists* in Iran. Or anywhere, for that matter. There are mothers, fathers, teachers, bakers, veterinarians, farmers, youth, elders... Human beings! No war is wanted. But when it it warranted, civility during the undertaking of the mechanics of war make it less horrific. Less dehumanizing. No war is good. But sometimes war we must. Lead with conviction. War is not godly. Let us then be less inhumane. I've found your posts invigorating and informative. Great ly appreciated.
Grateful to you for your desire and willingness to learn. That's how we build a better world.
I took a class on Islam in the ‘70s. It gave me tolerance if nothing else. This was before the much publicized “jihadists.” How are these people regarded by regular Muslims? Hope that is not a dumb or offensive question. I will follow. Thanks.
Thank you so much for having a safe space for us to learn about this beautiful religion and history. Growing up Christian in America I was not spared from the indoctrination of "radical Islam" and the Islamophobia. I am grateful to have undone a lot of that, but don't have much time to really dive in to learn about Islam more in depth. So I very much appreciate being able to learn about this in a way that can be done bit by bit without feeling overwhelming!
Thank you for ALL your work!
You're welcome here! And yes the goal is to provide regular bite sized morsels of knowledge and facts that we can all benefit from. Never hesitate to share your questions. This is truly a space for learning and understanding.
Prophet Muhammad (sa) was a brilliant, compassionate man. Regardless of our personal beliefs, we do ourselves a grave injustice if we dismiss his teachings.
❤️✊🏽
I am so thankful that you are teaching history and helping us understand the moral basis towards war. Americans have been so steeped in falsehood about Islam. I am looking forward to reading all of your posts.
Thank you for your openness to read and share, Susan.
I know little about Islam, and appreciate having your guidance in learning more. I find what is happening in Gaza horrific and indefensible. It is not right by any religion or even atheist values. But what would Muhammad’s response been to October 8 by Hamas?
All of this only shows how un US American Islam is. Peace, good behavour, only use force as defence. How does that fit with the ingrained cultural belief of all peoples in the Americas south of Canada that any perceived slight and harm is best met with individual force?
"Thus, the permission -- not commandment -- to fight is defensive. And that fighting protects temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques -- which is to say, universal religious freedom."
This is permission for retaliation. Retaliation may be necessary to dissuade an enemy and thus promote eventual peace, but it is not the same as defense.
The problem with retaliation is that, like ancient family feuds, it usually leads to endless wars, while historians engage in fruitless and childish arguments about who started it.
No, it's not retaliation. I'm not sure how you even got to that conclusion. The verse is clear that if war is being waged against you, then you fight in self defense. Later the verse goes on to say that if those attacking you lay down their arms, then you must also lay down your arms, and no excess is permitted. I'll have a more detailed article about that soon. But your claim that this is about retaliation finds no validation in the text nor in the actual practice and exemplification of this verse by Prophet Muhammad (sa).
How I got to "retaliation":
It seems to me that antiaircraft guns, missiles, etc. were defensive, but now that the air attacks are done, any response from Iran, e.g. attacking a US base, would be retaliatory, not defensive.
Would such a move by Iran be allowed by the passage you quote? or would it be fighting after "those attacking you lay down their arms"?
Look forward to understanding this more after reading your upcoming article.
I must respectfully disagree with the entire concept of rules of war. Not that I fail to appreciate attempts to minimize suffering and death in warfare, particularly to civilians who want no part of a war. But in my view, "rules of war" trivializes warfare by making it analogous to any rule-governed game like football. See the following for a complete explanation: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cui-bono/201702/war-game
I'm not sure what there is to disagree about here? Either we agree that civilians should not be targets, or hold that civilians are legitimate targets. If the standard truly is justice, then the former must hold true -- civilians can never be targets.
The concept of legitimate and illegitimate targets of war makes no sense to me because I don't think war is a legitimate activity. I know that some argue for the legitimacy of defensive wars, but I find that to be a slippery slope. Some would argue that the airstrikes on Iran were defensive. We both know that is bullsh*t. I am not going to say that any war is fine as long as people follow the rule that civilians aren't targeted or certain kinds of weapons (e.g. chemical) aren't used. Men who want to fight ought to go at each other in contact sports, not on battlefields.
John, Jai Alai was the Iroquois Confederacy's playing field concept of members' dispute resolution. It has been shown to preserve precious resources and lives which would have been sacrificed in armed conflicts.
A wonderful idea.