I disagree with some of the points in the article, especially author’s understanding of the issue of targeting civilians in the context of modern warfare, which has an implication on the meaning of collateral damage. I also disagreed on the culpability of the citizens in a democracy. War is fought collectively is a fact, and this is regardless of the opposition or support expressed through the ballot box, because the citizens concur on its outcome, they obey the government’s decision as law; hence we as a nation were represented by the criminal Blair. This is the point about the collective guilt; it is sanctioned by the outcome of the system in place – not by votes or popular opinion.
However, in the context of the murder in Woolwich, the most pertinent point is the issue of “covenant of security”, since it was carried out by a British citizen – and here I fully concur with the author’s view that as citizens we are forbidden to carry out such actions. The counter argument from the Jihadi camp is that the covenant has been broken by the nation pursuing the war (Afghanistan and Iraq), but that is only applicable to the one who believes that to be the case here in the UK. Yet, we see them living here peacefully and making no effort to renounce their covenant and by implication their passport and citizenship! If one believes there is no covenant of security then he must inform the authorities that no peace exists between him and the state, and that he is in a state of war alone, since individuals cannot speak for the community. This would also minimize a backlash and help absolve the rest.
I have published it on my site too http://www.radicalviews.org.
On a personal note – Surkheel has always been very studious, it maybe that experience of life has led to both of us crossing over to the Sufi school of thought. Well that is what I have heard 🙂