A brother said:”The Syrian people didn’t want war, they wanted reforms, they demonstrated for 6 months peacefully without carrying a single weapon.
And Bashar was shooting them bombing of the cities, they left with no choice but to fight.
Let’s not forget that the regime pushed them to what happening right now.
Another point, people inside Syria are much more religious than they used to be, due to the war.”
Since you brought it up, I think it is useful to review the timeline of the crisis. The current situation in Syria did not originate with the 2011 protests; it began, at least conceptually, well before that, in the 1980s, when Israel published a policy paper for its vision for the region.
Oded Yinon’s “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” an Israeli strategic planning document, outlines the long-term Zionist project for the region. Yinon states that “”The dissolution of Syria, and Iraq later on, into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target”. It is worth noting that Yinon suggests the disintegration of Syria and Iraq “in the long run”, and it is worth noting that this is exactly what is happening 25 years later.
You also need to consider the significance of the appointment of Robert Stephen Ford as the US Ambassador to Syria in 2010. Ford was the protégé of John Negroponte while he was the US Ambassador to Iraq after the occupation.
Negroponte had previously served as the US Ambassador to Honduras during the “Dirty Wars” period in the 1980s. He recruited, trained, organized, and facilitated funding for paramilitary mercenary gangs in El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and elsewhere, earning himself the nickname “Mr. Death Squad”.
When the US occupied Iraq, they installed Negroponte as ambassador once again, and assigned him the same duties.
Negroponte delegated the task to Robert Stephen Ford, a fluent Arabic-speaker, and Ford began his career as a minister of chaos under the tutelage of Negroponte.
Following his internship in organized savagery, Ford was appointed as the US ambassador to Syria, where he promptly began to travel around the country advocating armed rebellion, and pursuing in that country the same mission he was tasked with in Iraq.
So we can see, if we have eyes, that the Syrian protesters were pushed on the path to armed struggle not only by the brutality of Bashar, but as part of long term, very deliberate, very organized Western machinations to plunge the country into catastrophe.
After, as you say, 6 months of peaceful protests being met with severe violent repression, armed rebellion was not the only choice, and in fact, it would not, and could not have been a choice, unless armed rebellion as a choice was facilitated, encouraged, and supported by the West; enter the FSA. All other strategic options were excluded from discussion and the protest movement was effectively appropriated and transformed into a military struggle.
When you try a peaceful strategy for a period of time to no avail, it does not automatically mean that you must then turn to conventional armed resistance. You can, as others have done, assess the situation, brainstorm your options, and embark on a new and different strategy that accurately evaluates your opponent’s strengths and weaknesses, your own capabilities, and effectively serves your original goals, and move on from there.
Wallahi, this is one of the most debilitating defects in our thinking; that there are only two options, either peaceful demonstrations or violent warfare.
As for your saying that the people in Syria have become more religious due to the war, I am sure that is probably true; just as Gazans have become more religious due to the strangulation of the Israeli blockade; and just as I saw several innocent Muslims in prison become more religious when they were sentenced to death for crimes they did not commit. Yes; you tend to hold on more tightly to the Rope of Allah when the earth has collapsed beneath your feet. Does that mean that we are supposed to advocate endangering the lives of the Muslims and putting them in crisis as a method of tarbiyyah? Excuse me, but that is the logic of a psychopath.
It is the unanimous position of the scholars, both past and present, that, no matter how noble the intention, if an action taken against an evil will predictably result in a greater evil, it is forbidden to pursue it. No rational mind can claim that the war in Syria has not unleashed a greater evil of nightmarish proportions.
The Muslims in Syria could pray and fast and learn their religion, they could adhere to Qur’an and Sunnah, they could be observant Muslims, before the war; and they had access to a decent quality of life. They have no such access now; their children will not have such access, and very possibly neither will generations to come. They can still be observant Muslims, just as they could be before, only now, the war has gifted them a society in ruins; so I would like to know, what is the point? That the savagely desperate situation in which they find themselves today has prompted them to become “more religious”? Is it the role of the Mujahideen to determine and regulate precisely how religious people are supposed to be? Are we tasked with imposing a standard of Imaan and Taqwa on the people, and pushing them to perform non-obligatory acts of worship? If the answer is “yes”, than I would suggest that those who have appointed themselves to teach us our religion through violence and chaos are the most urgently in need of learning the religion themselves.