An influential group of Muslim scholars in Indonesia have declared that suicide attacks, and terrorism in general, is forbidden by Islamic law." So says VOA News. "Members of the Indonesian Ulama Council, which brings together Muslim scholars to discuss the implementation of Islamic law, say that killing - especially of innocents - is contrary to the teachings of the religion.
"The move comes after increasing criticism that Indonesia's powerful Islamic groups were doing too little to condemn terrorism in the country.
"The ruling says that killing innocent people is forbidden, and that seeking martyrdom with such actions as suicide bombings is only justified in war zones. It states clearly that Indonesia is not a war zone."
This is, again, weaselly. What if Indonesia becomes a war zone? It sure looked like one in Bali last year: "A regional terrorist group, Jemaah Islamiyah, or JI, has used Islam to justify a series of bloody attacks in Indonesia. They include last year's bombing of a nightclub on Bali, which killed more than 200 people, and August's attack on an U.S. run hotel, which killed 12.
"Captured members of the group say the attacks were part of a holy war against the West, particularly the United States. They accuse the West of waging a war against Muslims.
"The new ruling specifically excludes religious struggle, or jihad, which it says is an obligation of every Muslim when the religion is under attack.
"The ruling is unlikely to have a dramatic effect on JI and similar groups, but it is an important expression of the hostility the majority of Indonesians have toward terrorism and terrorists."
It is unlikely to have a dramatic effect on JI because they already have a detailed justification for their actions, based on Islamic theology. Until the ulama definitively refute this, they're just talking to themselves.
The proviso of a war zone is interesting even in the context of Indonesia. Right now a war of extermination of Christians is occuring in parts of Indonesia; the Moluccas, Sulawesi and Papua. In each case, Jihadis are coming in, without any intereference from Indonesian forces, that are supposedly there to mantain law and order.
As you say, this ruling from Indonesian imams smacks of Taqqiya, the method of guile and deception.
The other reason this is surely a little disingenous is that it is not enough for an Islamic scholar to say "attacks are forbidden"; what I really would like to see is the exegesis to back it up. Reuven Firestone's "Jihad" offers one interesting possibility of a re-reading of the Islamic sacred texts; we need moderate Muslims to take up the challenge and tackle the "violent" texts within the their traditions.
I have a simple question. What do they mean by "innocents?"
I recently researched a thesis on Islamic radicalism, focusing on Al-Qaeda.
This page, Jihad Watch, makes a number of claims I find frustrating.
You claim that no muslim group has ever renounced terrorism, or renouncing violence against innocents. However, I have repeatedly found Muslim groups denouncing such violence. For one thing, there is a consensus of all four schools of Sunni Islamic Law that violence against innocents, or violence outside a state of war, is unacceptable. There is an extensive literature on the law of war in Islam, and it is impressively civilised in many ways, given that it is over 1000 years old. Under these interpretations (traditional/mainstream Islam), the only permissable war is a defensive war, however if the Muslim country is under attack by non-Muslims _and_ Jihad is declared by respected, learned scholars, then contribution to the war is obligatory for all individuals who are able.
The whole point of _radical_ Islam is that it rejects sections of the traditional interpretation and imposes a new, narrow interpretation on the religion. It is radically different to conventional Islam. While respected traditional scholars generally study for around ten years, many of these radical Islamists have never actually studied theology - Usama bin Laden studied engineering and business, whereas his second-in-command Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, is a paediatrician. Al Qaeda calls bin Laden a sheikh and their spiritual leader - but he has no theological training!
The radical groups start with the conclusion that violence and terrorism is justified, then seek permission from the Quran, selecting passages out of context.
I recently researched a thesis on radical Islam, and I deliberately compared different translations and interpretations of certain Quranic passages regularly quoted by radicals such as al-Qaeda. The al-Qaeda interpretation is a gross distortion of the traditional interpretation of the Quran, and when looked at more closely, this becomes clear.
For example, 2:190-194 includes snippets often quoted by Salafi radicals who seek religious justification for their violent inclinations. The tafsir (commentary) on these passages in Maulana Muhammad Ali's translation of the Quran explicitly states that "It is clear from these references that the Muslims were allowed to take up the sword only as a measure of self-defence." This section of Chapter 2 of the Quran specifically deals with the first period of Islam, when many on the Arab Peninsula were gathering to crush the Muslim upstarts. Permission to fight back against those who had repeatedly attacked or broken treaties was given at this point.
For example, 2:190
"And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah loves not the aggressors."
(This verse is usually interpreted as forbidding fighting except in self defence).
It's interesting to note that Al-Qaeda and their ilk often quote the first half of 2:193: "And fight them until there is no fitnatu (persecution/turmoil) and religion is only for Allah."
Now let's look at the context:
2:192 "But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
2:193 "And fight them until there is no fitna, and religion is only for Allah. But if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the aggressors."
Nathan says: "They only way is for them to remove those writings from the koran, or modify them in such a way to render there meanings spiritual.
Thats hard to do because the Koran cannot be abrogated"
The main problem in Islam today is that the traditional teachings are being lost, and replaced by a teaching which itself removes sections from the Quran, or deliberately misinterprets them.
The Quran I've referred to in writing this also makes the point that "until the religion is only for Allah" does not have the implications that Al Qaeda et al would like to give it. Allah is merely the Arabic word for the Christian God or Jewish Yahweh, and refers readers to 22:40, which explicitly states that Allah/God states that the Ahl al-Kitab (people of the Book - the Torah/Gospel/Quran) should repel those who attack "cloisters, churches, and synagogues". (Not much consolation for atheists like me...)
Several posters here have attempted to cast scorn on the statement of Indonesian Islamic scholars that suicide attacks are unacceptable outside a state of war - the webmaster says the statement is 'weaselly', as if the mainstream scholars are attempting to keep their options open.
What the scholars are doing here is deliberately refuting the decidedly 'weaselly' standard arguments presented by the radicals.
For one thing, suicide is illegal in Islamic law, while wading into an 'impossible' battle against a genuine enemy during a genuine war is praiseworthy, even if it means (almost) certain death. The jihadis attempt to justify suicide bombing by saying that it is not suicide at all, but martyrdom in warfare. 'Jihad Watch' says "What if Indonesia becomes a war zone? It sure looked like one in Bali last year". But that is entirely the point - the council of ulema is explictly saying that the Bali bombings were committed when there was not _legally_ a state of war, and therefore were out-and-out murder, completely against Islamic teachings. If someone actually declared war on Indonesia, are you asking that they do nothing in return?
The other way the Jihadis often try to get around 'the law' is by artificially creating a 'state of war'. That is, they will claim that the west is engaging in a de facto war against Islam, a war of stealth. (Note the line in the article: JI believe America to be at war with Islam). Usama bin Laden declared war on America in 1996, and he created a federation (World Islamic Front Against Jews and Crusaders) in 1998, then declared war, essentially, on the world. Therefore, according to primary school logic, any attack anywhere would be acceptable. This ignores aspects of Islamic law such as when holy war is acceptable, who may declare it, and what conduct is acceptable under law. It is a convenient fig leaf for Al Qaeda's violence. By explicitly stating that there is no state of war, the council of Ulema are saying that the radicals are acting outside the pale of Islam, and are in deep sin.
JW: "It is unlikely to have a dramatic effect on JI because they already have a detailed justification for their actions, based on Islamic theology. Until the ulama definitively refute this, they're just talking to themselves."
That is, in a sense, correct, but I fail to see how it is an indictment of the ulema.
Yes, JI have already 'justified' their violent behaviour. They have 'justified' the mainstream clerics as clerics bought by the regime (thus the recent al-Qaeda statement: "The _real_ Muslims, we mean what we say".) Their web of rationalisations is based on extremely shoddy Islamic theology, contrary to 1400 years of practice and teachings.
The ulema just did definitively refute the entire theological basis of JI's ideology, but as you say, from the point of view of dissuading the members of JI, they may as well be speaking to themselves. From the point of view of Muslim laymen in Indonesia however, this is a powerful statement that JI is _not_ a conventional Muslim outfit fighting a legitimate defence against a real war, but rather a sect composed of deluded souls who have strayed from the path of Islam.
Your webpage also states that "the West is facing a concerted effort by radical Muslims, most of whom are ignored by the Western media, to destroy the West and bring it forcibly into the Islamic world"
Actually, the western media finds the whole jihad thing very entertaining to publish. The numerous denunciations of terrorism I have come across in my studies never make it into the papers because they are, frankly, boring. "Killing innocents is wrong" is a much less exciting headline than "All Christians must die", and the media will always go with the latter.
Did you know that 20,000 Iraqis marched against terrorism and for democracy in Iraq recently (and more in other cities), but were ignored by the world media? The media were scooped by Iraqi blogs.
You are also incorrect to believe that this is primarily an attempt to bring the west into the Islamic world. Really, this is an attempt to transform the Islamic world by altering the relationship between it and the West. The radicals want to change their regimes, but believe the only thing standing in their way is Western support to the regimes in their countries. If they can drive out the West, they can overturn their home governments, so the logic goes. Consolidation would follow, then expansion within the Muslim world, more consolidation, then _perhaps_ an offensive jihad against the West. My point? Our greatest potential allies are the Muslims who have been suffering from this onslaught of terrorism since the 1950s and earlier.
Finally, what concerns me about your page is that I can see the radicals cynically presenting their case as the opinion of "all Muslims" or "Orthodox Islam", and even presenting themselves as moderates. They are louder and more activist (like all fanatics) and therefore they sometimes drown out the mainstream Muslims. By presenting the claims of the radicals ("Jihad is a central duty of every Muslim") as the attitude of Islam towards the West (hands rubbed together in glee at the prospect of more Christians to kill), you are playing into the hands of the radicals, the people who today have the heaviest bet on Huntington's "Clash of Civilisations" thesis.
Perhaps I am sometimes overly critical. I think your analysis in the al-Mujahiroun article was correct, for example.
Trevor Stanley
Trevor, it sounds as if you didn't learn much from your extensive research.
What a pity.
I need help, im doing a essay on why "Jihad is not justification for terrorism..." i was wondering if anybody wants to give me their views on this topic... it would be a great help
Daniel