Evaluating the Incongruity of Prohibiting the Use of Mass Destruction Weapons in Emergencies

One of Islam's jurisprudential and moral issues is the competence or inadequacy of using weapons of mass destruction, predominantly nuclear weapons in war or defense. The present study aimed to analyze this issue and incongruity of do not use weapons of mass destruction with necessities such as the need to maintain the Islamic system or urgency such as preventing harm when there is a suspicion of death and severe embarrassment for Muslims. The results indicated that the use of weapons of mass destruction, both conventional and unconventional, has a jurisprudential and moral prohibition under normal circumstances. There are various reasons for this prohibition: the interdiction of using poison, the ban on killing women, children, the elderly, the prohibition of using inhumane tactics, the aggression rule, the observance of animals and the environment, and the rule of sin. The use of unconventional and prohibited weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear weapons, according to the term of international law, even in cases of necessity, has jurisprudential prohibition and moral incompetence. Evidence of use permit is distorted and inadmissible.

Keywords:

weapon , Mass Destruction , jurisprudence , Atomic Bomb , emergency