Note that the debate in Amir Taheri's "To Kill Or Not To Kill" in the New York Post (thanks to Cid Martel) is not over whether or not it's permissible to kill non-Muslims: everyone takes that for granted. It is over whether Muslims can be killed in the course of jihad operations. Note also that the "self-styled ulema" about which al-Shamri complains includes Qaradawi, one of the most influential Islamic teachers in the world.
June 10, 2005 -- AN obscure Arabic word is making a comeback from centuries of oblivion to dominate the debate about whom Muslims are allowed to kill in the service of political goals. The debate has been triggered by the killing of large numbers of Muslims, including women and children, by Islamist insurgents in Iraq. Are such acts permissible? Judging by fatwas (religious opinions) and articles by Muslim theologians and commentators, the Islamic ummah (community) is divided on the issue.Those who believe that killing innocent people, including Muslims, is justified in certain cases, base their opinion on the principle of tattarrus. The word, which originally meant "dressing up," was first used as a religious term in the book "Al-Mustasfa" ("The Place of Purification") by Abu-Hamed al-Ghazali (d.1127), to mean "using ordinary Muslims as human shields for Islamic combatants against infidel fighters."
Actually there are other justifications. Mawardi in al-Akham as-Sultaniyyah (4.2) allows for the killing of women and children who are perceived as aiding the war effort against the Muslims (cf. 'Umdat al-Salik o9.10). This is, of course, different from the killing of Muslims, but it applies to Taheri's reference to "killing innocent people" as "justified in certain cases."
In the 13th century, the theologian Ibn Tayimiah wove a whole doctrine around the term to justify the killing of Muslims while combating Mongol invaders. By century's end, however, the concept had fallen into disuse and a new consensus developed against the killing of noncombatants.But in 1995 Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian mentor of Osama bin Laden, used the concept in his book "The Rule for Suicide-Martyr Operations." Arguing that the ends justify the means, al-Zawahiri insisted that the killing of Muslims, including women and children, was not a sinful act provided the combatants were fighting "the enemies of Islam."
More recently, that view has been endorsed by Yussuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian sheik working in Qatar. Initially, al-Qaradawi had ruled that only three categories of unarmed individuals could be killed: apostates, who have turned their back to Islam; homosexuals, who "dirty" the pure society — and Israelis, including unborn children, who could grow up to join the Jewish army.
Now, however, al-Qaradawi has expanded his doctrine to allow for the killing of innocent Muslims in Iraq. His argument is stark: What matters is the broader interest of the Islamic ummah which could, under certain circumstances, necessitate operations in which Muslim civilians lose their lives.
That position is supported by several Saudi theologians, including Hammoud al-Uqalla, Ali al-Khudhair, Nasser al-Fahd, Ahmad al-Khalidi and Safar al-Hawali. Their argument is that the broader interest of the ummah requires the expulsion of the U.S.-led forces from Iraq and that the killing of innocent Iraqis in whatever numbers is of no concern to the combatants, whose place in paradise is assured.
Other Saudi theologians, including Abu-Muhammad al-Maqdasi and Abu-Basir al-Tartussi, go further and apply tattarrus to situations where no "infidel" troops are present. Thus they justify the killing of innocent Muslim Saudis in Saudi Arabia because, they claim, such actions could lead to the establishment of a "truly Islamic regime."
This is an argument that goes back to Qutb and Maududi, and to their own traditional antecedents, which go all the way back to the earliest power struggles over the caliphate, in which the losers were often killed as hypocrites or apostates.
The starkest defense of tattarrus in its new sense has come from Abu-Musaab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda mastermind in Iraq. "Islam establishes a hierarchy of values in all domains," he wrote in a recent missive posted on Islamist Web sites. "In [that hierarchy], protecting the faith is more important than protecting the self. Killing the mutumarresoun [i.e, civilian Muslims who live under the control of the infidel] is necessary to prevent the faith of the infidel from striking root [in the land of Islam]."
I discuss Zarqawi's detailed argumentation in a recent article.
The only point of dispute among supporters of tattarrus is related to procedural matters. Can Islamic combatants decide whom to kill and when or should they obtain a fatwa in every single case?Showabel al-Zahrani, a Saudi militant and author of "Views of Theologians Concerning the Rules of Raids and Tattarrus" claims that what is needed is a "flexible understanding" of the concept. "To demand that a combatant get all his operations approved by a theologian in advance is a demand for inaction," he writes. "The better rule is to allow the combatant to do as he sees fit and have his actions approved afterwards."
Zarqawi, too, says there is no need for fatwas in each case: A fatwa issued by bin Laden in 1999 authorizing the killing of "enemies of Islam" is sufficient. It is up to the muqatelin (combatants) to decide who is an enemy of Islam.
Abu-Unus al-Shami, an insurgent leader killed in Baghdad last September, held a similar position. His claim was that the insurgents in Iraq had "permanent authority" to kill whomever they thought was necessary in order to "re-conquer Iraq for Islam."
Abu-Hufus al-Masri, the mastermind of the 2004 Madrid massacre, also claimed that the combatants had had the authority to decide when and where and against whom to strike: "We are at war against the infidel and its apostate allies," he wrote. "And in a war he who fights has the authority to decide what action is best, leaving the final judgment to The Most High."
Sheik Muhammad Hussein Fadhlallah, the spiritual leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah, however, says that combatants do not have such authority and should refer each case to an authorized "mujtahid" (guide) such as himself. Fadhlallah is uncomfortable by the fact that the majority of those killed by the insurgents in Iraq are Shiites like himself.
And here's a tiny minority of extremists update:
While the majority view among Islamist activists seems to justify tattarrus, many other voices are raised against it.Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani, the primus inter pares of Shiite theologians, condemns tattarrus in its current sense as an "innovation" (bid'aah) and has called on Iraqi Shiites not to embark on revenge killings against Sunni insurgents.
Great. But note how far short this is of a general renunciation of violence, exhortation to adopt political means to solve problems, etc.
Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, dean of Cairo's al-Azhar University, insists that Islamic law "rejects all attempts on human life and all attacks on civilians."
Except in Israel, eh, Tantawi? "[Sheikh Tantawi] emphasized that every martyrdom operation against any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land and cause the cruel Israeli aggression to retreat…"
"Nothing in Islam justifies the deliberate killing of non-combatants," Tantawi says. "Tattarrus applies to collateral damage in a war between two regular armies, and not to action perpetrated by self-styled combatants."Najih al-Ibrahim, another Egyptian theologian, also castigates what he terms "the abuse of tattarrus."
"No one can use tattarrus to justify the shedding of innocent blood," he says. "The only time that tattarrus is allowed is when Muslim combatants have to kill a fellow Muslim who is captured by the infidel and may, under torture, reveal secrets that could help the infidel against the true believers. Apart from that, shedding Muslim blood is the gravest of sins in Islam."
Yet another Egyptian theologian, Hisham Abdul-Zahir, says the insurgents' killing of Iraqi civilians is "totally unjustifiable under any circumstances."
"Tattarrus is relevant only in the case of Muslim women and children who are captured in a war by the infidel," he says. "In such a situation, it would be permissible to kill them to prevent them from being converted into other faiths by the infidel or abused by infidel soldiers."
Jassim al-Shamri, a Saudi theologian, rejects the authority of the "self-styled ulema" to reinterpret Islamic concepts for political goals.
"These gentlemen sit in air-conditioned rooms and drink iced mango juice and issue fatwas for indiscriminate killing," al-Shamri says. "We never see any of them or their children sent on suicide missions."
Sheikh Abdul-Muhsin al-Ubaikan, a Saudi theologian, has proposed "a theological summit" to discuss tattarrus and related issues.
"Is it enough for an individual to say he is fighting for Islam in order to claim a license to kill anyone, anywhere and anytime?" al-Ubaikan asks.
Well, if it isn't, Ubaikan, then please explain why, so that those who believe this way will lay down their arms. Rhetorical questions won't do the trick.
more of the same empty words and talk leading to nothing
it's very obvious - non-combatants and all innocents should not be murdered by plan, nor be used as stategy footnotes for the spread of islamofacism - as conducted by those "brave" jihadi - hiding behind women, children, elderly, in places of "worship"
perhaps the sheikhs can pool their money - buy the "brave jihadi" uniforms - so they can be distinguished from non-coms - that way innocents can stay away from the likes of this "courageous" types - next the 1.2 billion could pool its money to form a real military force which can go to a battle field - away from non-coms and fight a real war
if nothing else - cair/aclu demand Geneve Conventions rules be adhered to - so where's the outrage by these PC paragons - and their leftist anti-USA, anti-western civilization, anti-capitalism supporters such as "amnesia international"
One of the most striking aspects of this dialogue is that it is taking place among the exponents of mainstream Islamic theologians. Attention Mr. President and Madam Secretary of State: jihad conquest is not a fringe doctrine of the Islamic ideology and its billion plus adherents, get it? It is enshrined in the universally accepted Islamic canon (Koran, hadiths and Sira) and is inseparable from it. This public debate among the most orthodox Islamic "scholars" in the world is proof positive of that fact. How long do you really think the American median voter can be fooled into believing the absurd myth that jihad conquest is not a central tenet of the Islamic ideology?
Perhaps you are worried that it would be perceived that we are at war with Islam. Are we at war with Islam? No, we are not at war with Islam, we are at war with its adherents. OK, so here's the scary part: it turns out that those adherents of the Islamic othodoxy that commands them to make war on us, are not some tiny minority of extremists. It's the mainstream, stupid. No amount of Madison Avenue ad agency crafted media campaigns of lies or greased politicians can negate the facts that are presented on the ground by the daily action of jihadis worldwide. Jihad conquest is as integral to mainstream Islam as democracy is to the United States.
We are no more at war with Islam than we were with Nazism and communism. We were at war with Nazis and communists. Today we are at war with Muslims. Time to face the music and get on with the job that our ancestors accomplished in their day many times over in the last 13 centuries. Batter up.
It's unimaginable that this type of discussion would take place among Christian or Jewish scholars. Jews are taught "thou shalt not kill" Christian are told "you must love your neighbor as your self". The highest value is placed on life in the Christian and Jewish faiths.In Islam only the lives of the powerful like Osama Bin Laden and his family appear to be of value,since Bin Laden and his sons seem to be working hard to avoid becoming "matyrs". The lives of infidels appear to have no value and even muslim life is cheap.In islam it seems any old body can issue a "fatwa" granting someone a "license to kill".Islam is truly a Satanic religion, a scourge that needs be wiped from the face of the earth. No wonder muslims are desperate to silence critics and keep the truth about islam from coming out.If people really knew what islam is all about muslims would be run out of dodge.The problem islam has is that muslims simply cannot hide who and what they really are, eventually they show who and what they are.I support President Bush but I don't know anyone who really believe islam is a religion of peace.
Khan wrote...One of the most striking aspects of this dialogue is that it is taking place among the exponents of mainstream Islamic theologians.....
Exactly, this isn't some ignorant imam sitting in an alley to some lean to mosque. Forgot the point that in Western civilization, there is no argument because we view it as immoral, this is mainstream Islamic thinking. Civilian casualties are of no concern.
spqr said... a big problem that i am finding is that the students who have taken world religon classes all say the same thing, that the jihad is a internal struggle...
Whenever Islamic terrrorists comes up in conversation, and someone defends jihad as an 'internal struggle', I immediately ask, "What dhimmi told you that?" The reason is I want to know if they what a dhimmi is, or at least the concept. I would say 90% of the time, that person who identifies with the 'internal struggle' does NOT know what a dhimmi is? Case closed.
Hukegu Khan:
Good post.
Roxane posted:In Islam only the lives of the powerful like Osama Bin Laden and his family appear to be of value
For the clerics and the jihadis, what matters most is the well being of the uummah, particularly the component that is rapdly expanding in infidel lands, particularly the US.
Islam is a tribal society and allegiance to the tribe, is fundamental. The jihadis do not care nought if they are killed in battle, as they believe they are going to 72 X rated virgins. Even the way the jihadis wage war against us, reflects their thinking - they target civilians, as on 9/11. What does matter, is if any harm comes to the tribe. Moderate muslims realise that the jihadis are waging war on their behalf, and will always support them in some way or other. In any case, their sympathy will be for the jihadis. That is why we see no moderates speaking out publicly. This is also evident in that muslim organisations in the US, are impeding the war in every way possible, trying all the while not to harm their own credibility.
We need to make muslims in the West, and specially in the US, feel that they have something to lose. I'm not advocating that we consciously target the uummah in the military sense. We can though at least start to contemplate, that the presence of muslims in the West, is causing us huge harm in the domestic arena. Some pressure has to be applied to this fifth column, if for no reason other then to let the jihadis know that we know how to hurt their cause ie the cause of islam in the West.
INteresting that these psychopaths quote Osama and his fatwah. Osama has no religious credentials at all and is not even a low ranked mujtahid.
I guess they take bestow authority and give credence to whatever and whoever serves their psychopathic mentality..
But that's Islam for you a religion (or is that ideology) for psychopaths.
I've read the book about these Sh*theads
and how Allah gives a special dispensation
to murder human whenever he's to busy to do it
during the holy period of daily prayers.
It's called "Apostates" ,the English
version is "To kill a mocking turd".
NO ISALM - KNOW PEACE
Gitmo has become a feeding frenzy for the shysters.
The Koran-issue should have never become an issue, it should have been ignored, entirely.
A president who doesn't read anything but picture books and a secretary of state who is stupid enough to go in front of the cameras with her "holy- holy' statement is a disgrace to the nation. It makes me puke.
I don't hear any call from the administration for reigning in the Islamics, threatening them in any way for seditious activities, the PC of the MSM has become unbearable and every day we see the Islamics encouraged and emboldened making more preposterous and outrageous claims.
A little humor may help:
http://www.terrorists-suck.org/fight/the_shoe_bomber.mp3
http://www.terrorists-suck.org/fight/winds_of_jihad.html
If Monty Python had written this skit with Cockney priests and pastors mouthing the very same words, people would roar with laughter at the patent lunacy exposed.
In Islam, however, they nod somberly and seriously, and the co-religionists don't throw nuthouse nets over this entire nest of psychopaths.
Crazier and crazier every day...
This I found on Ali Sina's website:
The mind boggles! A 'reluctant' Jihadi is encouraged to follow the Koranic teachings, in other words: Chop off heads is cool...
Joined: 02 Apr 2005
Posts: 370
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:14 pm Post subject: An unwilling jihadi
This is from a question asked here :
http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=9524
The iman answering is a moderate and do not condone offensive jihad, only peaceful jihad, and da `W a h. besides in selfdefense or when wrongdoings has been done.
But that is not the point here, the one asking lives in Sweden and can´t understand about why some, even there talk about overthrowing the government by offensive jihad, can´t get over his/her heart to wage jihad against "peaceful people".
Quote:
Why must we, if the caliphate is established one day (and the Muslims are strong), attack the peaceful people of, for example Sweden (where I live), when they allow Muslims to do da`W a h [inviting people to Islam] freely; they even help us here in Sweden. Once again, I know that we cannot force people to become Muslims, but we can force an Islamic system of governing on them, where they pay the jizyah [tribute]. I know that many Muslims say that we will do them a favor if we remove their evil governments, but why must we do that with the sword when they allow us to do da`W a h. Most people want peace in their life and to live in love and harmony with their neighbors, so why can’t we let them live in peace and let Allah judge them on the Last Day?
Maybe you will quote this verse:
*{Fighting is prescribed for you and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.}* (Al-Baqarah 2:16)
I do not hate to fight and I am not afraid to lose my life in jihad if Allah says we must do it, but I will never be satisfied in my heart if one day I have to fight a people that are peaceful (like in Sweden where I live) and then the jihad I do will not be voluntary, and that would make me a munafiq [hypocrite] if I don’t fight with my heart. I know and you know that the people will try to stop Muslims by force if they try to bring Islamic rule over them. Can you even imagine how many people will be killed? This is weakening my iman [faith]. Please help me. What should I do? I love Allah and His Prophet(s), but when I think about things like this, my iman is destroyed.
Back to top
This I found on Ali Sina's website:
The mind boggles! A 'reluctant' Jihadi is encouraged to follew the Koranic teachings, in other words: Chop off heads is cool...
Joined: 02 Apr 2005
Posts: 370
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:14 pm Post subject: An unwilling jihadi
This is from a question asked here :
http://www.islamonline.net/askaboutislam/display.asp?hquestionID=9524
The iman answering is a moderate and do not condone offensive jihad, only peaceful jihad, and da `W a h. besides in selfdefense or when wrongdoings has been done.
But that is not the point here, the one asking lives in Sweden and can´t understand about why some, even there talk about overthrowing the government by offensive jihad, can´t get over his/her heart to wage jihad against "peaceful people".
Quote:
Why must we, if the caliphate is established one day (and the Muslims are strong), attack the peaceful people of, for example Sweden (where I live), when they allow Muslims to do da`W a h [inviting people to Islam] freely; they even help us here in Sweden. Once again, I know that we cannot force people to become Muslims, but we can force an Islamic system of governing on them, where they pay the jizyah [tribute]. I know that many Muslims say that we will do them a favor if we remove their evil governments, but why must we do that with the sword when they allow us to do da`W a h. Most people want peace in their life and to live in love and harmony with their neighbors, so why can’t we let them live in peace and let Allah judge them on the Last Day?
Maybe you will quote this verse:
*{Fighting is prescribed for you and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.}* (Al-Baqarah 2:16)
I do not hate to fight and I am not afraid to lose my life in jihad if Allah says we must do it, but I will never be satisfied in my heart if one day I have to fight a people that are peaceful (like in Sweden where I live) and then the jihad I do will not be voluntary, and that would make me a munafiq [hypocrite] if I don’t fight with my heart. I know and you know that the people will try to stop Muslims by force if they try to bring Islamic rule over them. Can you even imagine how many people will be killed? This is weakening my iman [faith]. Please help me. What should I do? I love Allah and His Prophet(s), but when I think about things like this, my iman is destroyed.
Back to top