A few days ago, the American President George W. Bush was quoted as saying that he would like to close the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "but I also recognize that we're holding some people there that are darn dangerous, and that we better have a plan to deal with them in our courts."
But the fact of the matter is that “some darn dangerous people” are running the prison camp and the White House, and that’s why we had Guantanamo back on news headlines over the past week.
Following last week’s suicide of three detainees held at the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, two Saudis and one Yemeni, Saudi authorities ordered post-mortems on the bodies of its two nationals repatriated from the U.S. prison, to ascertain the causes of their death.
As for the family of the Yemeni detainee, they called for an immediate investigation into his death.
The U.S. initial reports following the outbreak of news of June 10 suicides at Guantanamo, the first at the camp since its establishment in 2002, claimed that the men hanged themselves with clothes and bed- sheets.
But the men’s families questioned the circumstances of their deaths. The father of Yassir al-Zahrani, one of two Saudi Guantanamo detainees who allegedly committed suicide, challenges U.S. reports suggesting that his son hanged himself, asserting that his dead son’s body bore signs of violence, according to an article on Business Day.
“My son was a strong believer and suicide is against the teachings of Islam. He had memorized the Holy Quran and the letters we received from him while he was in Guantanamo indicate that his faith was strong. In fact, he was looking forward to a reunion with his family,” he said.
Checking parts of Yassir’s body, including his head, face and chest, at Shumaisy Hospital, Brig Talal Abdullah al-Zahrani affirmed that “there are marks on Yassir’s body that show that he was beaten. This is in spite of the fact that 20 days have passed since his death and the body had undergone reconditioning.”
The bodies of Yassir and Manie Shaman al-Utaibi, the other Saudi national whom the U.S. alleged to have committed suicide, along with a Yemeni prisoner, arrived Saturday in Saudi Arabia.
Rejecting the U.S. postmortem report finding that their son has committed suicide, Yassir’s family demanded another postmortem to be bo conducted by a neutral agency.
Yassir’s father suggests that his son died in one of the fierce fights with the prison guards in which detainees usually get hurt, according to the BBC.
Currently doctors are performing an autopsy on the bodies of the two Saudi nationals to determine the cause of the death, Saudi interior ministry spokesman Maj-Gen Mansour al-Turki said.
Also the father of Saleh Ali Abdullah Ahmed, the third prisoner found dead in his cell in Guantanamo, had questioned the circumstances of his son’s death.
The remains of Saleh were incomplete, which makes it difficult to determine the real causes of his death, former Yemeni health minister Naguig Ghanem was quoted as saying.
Al-Zahrani accused the U.S. authorities of strangling his son, arguing that it was difficult for a Guantanamo prisoner to commit suicide, given the strict rules and continuous surveillance at the jail.
Treatment of detainees at Guantanamo prison, where the U.S. says it holds "terror" suspects with alleged links to Taliban regime and Al Qaeda had long been the subject of international controversy, with human rights groups repetitively complaining of the inhuman conditions in which the U.S. keeps those prisoners and the harsh interrogation methods used to break them.
The U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo and its key questionable attributes; interrogation techniques, treatment of prisoners, the lack of due process of law protections, and the absence of credible "trials" for the prisoners, do not emanate from a political vacuum, they reflect the true policies of the Bush administration that justifies any action, even a crime, as long as it brings it closer to achieving its agenda.
Re: Guantanamo detainees didn’t commit suicide- They were subject to torture
im glad that islam forbids torture and commands to treat prisoners with kind
see this
Islam's stance on torturing captives
In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His
Messenger.
Islam stance on captives and prisoners of war is very clear, as it strongly
opposes subjecting human beings to any form of degradation and barbarism.
Islam is the religion that strictly warns against hate crimes and all acts
of vendetta.
As Islam stands against waging war, especially against the innocents, it
never overlooks the possibility that mankind may resort to war against each
other. That’s why it shows keenness on regulating warfare, between Muslims
and non-Muslims; it enumerates those that should not be killed or even
targeted during the battles. Not only that. Islam also sets rules regarding
those taken as prisoners of war; how they should be treated and dealt with.
This is what is clarified by the late Sheikh Muhammad Abu Zahrah, in his
book Concept of War in Islam; it reads:
"Islam advocates clemency with captives. History has never known warriors so
merciful to their captives as the early Muslims who followed the teachings
of their religion. Numerous religious texts demand clemency with captives.
Prisoners are usually taken when a battle is at its height and there is
danger that rage may lead the victorious warriors to harm those who have
been defeated in order to take revenge. The Prophet, however urged his
followers to treat their captives with clemency. He said to them “You are
recommended to treat your captives kindly.” He also urged his Companions on
the day of Badr to be kind to their captives. Accordingly the Companions of
the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, gave their captive preference
over themselves in matters of food. This is the tolerance of Islam and its
respect for human dignity.
In this way Muslims learned two kinds of Jihad. The first is Jihad on the
battlefield where people give themselves to the cause of Allah and the
second one is Jihad against one’s desires that restrains man’s rage and
allows him to fight his foes with clemency and not in the accordance with
the laws of the jungle.
What are the teachings of Islam as regards the prisoners of war? Does Islam
grant them freedom, ransom or enslave them to the Muslims? Here, we should
again refer to the religious texts and the example given by the Prophet,
peace and blessings be upon him. The most direct of these texts is Allah’s
saying: “So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the
necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and
afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves)
until the war terminates." (Muhammad: 4)
The Qur’anic verse thus provides alternatives: either the Muslim commander
should free those captives who can not offer ransom either in the form of
money or an equivalent number of Muslim captives, or he should ransom his
captives for money or for a similar number of Muslim captives. This is what
is now known as an exchange of prisoners. That kind of ransoming should be
adopted, as it leads to the release of two big groups of people – Muslims
and non-Muslims.
The religion of freedom, therefore, esteems the freedom of those who do not
follow it as much as it does that regarding its followers, for if the
advocate of freedom is himself free, he will not make any discrimination on
regional, racial or religious grounds, because freedom is a natural right to
every human being.
The Qur’anic verse does not mention a third choice, namely the enslavement
of captives; the Qur’anic text explicitly forbids it by limiting the choice
to only two alternatives – free dismissal or ransoming – without referring
to enslavement. Thus enslavement is not involved in the choice.
Moving to the Prophetic Tradition, we shall again find that the Prophet
never enslaved a free man throughout his reign. His Companions did take some
captives among the spoils in the conquest of “Bani al-Mustaliq” and turned
them into salves. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, did not
explicitly prohibit them from doing that, but his own action (of setting
free a prisoner) prompted them to release their captives.
This implies prohibitions of enslavement although it is not explicit. The
Prophet avoided the enslavement of any free man in his wars; his actions
tended towards its denunciation. He urged the manumission of those who had
been enslaved. The Qur’an refers to the permissibility of slavery only to
urge the emancipation of the enslaved.
The time of the Companions was characterized by the intensification of
clashes between the Muslims and the Byzantines in the West and between the
Muslims and Persians in the East. The enslaving of captive was practiced in
the wars of these nations. When they captured Muslims, they sold them as
salves. Those early Muslims made their dealing with their enemies on a
reciprocal basis. They therefore retaliated by enslaving their enemies, as
it was not fair that the Muslim captives should be kept as slaves while
enemy captives should enjoy their freedom.
The Arab commanders found neither Prophetic text nor Qur’anic verse
prohibiting slavery explicitly. They only found that the law of dealing on a
reciprocal basis necessitated retaliation. Thus if the enemy enslaved a free
Muslim it was the duty of Muslims to enslave an enemy captive in compliance
with the verse: “If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you,
transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is
with those who restrain themselves.” (Al-Baqarah: 194). The Muslims fighters
had therefore to enslave their enemies just as the latter had enslaved them.
The sin lies with him who initiates the bad policy.
The Muslims dealt justly with their enemies in compliance with the
injunctions of their religion. Having been forced to allow themselves to
enslave their enemies they also tolerated the same thing from their enemies
when they captured Muslims.
We may compare this wise policy in the treatment of captives with the modern
practice which though not allowing the actual buying and selling of captives
(as the slave trade has been abolished) yet it allows worse treatment.
Captives of the vanquished party may be retained by the victor to do really
hard work, while captives of the victor are released immediately after the
cessation of hostilities.”
Moreover, Sheikh `Atiya Saqr, former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, adds:
"The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, urged Muslims to show good
treatment to war captives; he said to his Companions: “Treat the prisoners
of war kindly.” Relating how the Companions complied strictly with this
order given by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, one of the
prisoners of Badr, Huzayr ibn Humayr, states: “I was with one of Ansari
families, after being taken as captive.
Whenever they had lunch or dinner, they used to give me preference by
providing me with bread while they’d eat only dates, in showing compliance
with the Prophet’s order of treating prisoners well."
In light of the above-mentioned facts, it is crystal clear that Islam
requires that prisoners of war, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, should be
accorded with good treatment.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks