By Maulana Waris Mazhari
(Translated from Urdu by Yoginder Sikand/Noor Mohammad Sikand)
Suicide
attacks have become a fairly frequent phenomenon today. Many of them are the
handiwork of disgruntled Muslim elements. Indeed, in some countries what are
known as fidayeen attacks undertaken by Muslim groups have become so common as
to pose a major challenge to internal security and peace, emerging as a grave
threat to the lives of ordinary citizens. Of these countries, perhaps Pakistan
is the most hard-hit by suicide bombings, which now seem to occur there on an
almost daily basis, not even sparing Muslims worshipping in mosques. Perhaps
nothing worse can be conceived of than Muslims taking the name of Islam to kill
innocents and thereby tarnishing the
image of Islam.
The
issue of whether fidayeen attacks are allowed at all in Islam and of what their
status is in the shariah continues to be hotly debated. However, these questions
have not received the sort of serious attention that they deserve by the ulema
and other Islamic intellectuals. In fact, much effort has be expended by a
section of Islamic scholars to seek to provide legitimacy to such attacks by
drawing from rules and details contained in the books of medieval fiqh or Muslim
jurisprudence. These scholars have, by and large, based their opinion on
fidayeen attacks by focusing on the particular case of Palestine, where they
believe that such attacks are the last resort by the Palestinian resistance in
the face of Israeli barbarism and aggression.
However, now that fidayeen attacks are no
longer confined just to Palestine and directed only at Israelis, but have become
a global phenomenon, targeting even Muslim countries and Muslim peoples, as in
the case of Pakistan, those who sought to provide legitimacy for such actions
are faced with a peculiar dilemma. It is true that, prior to the American
aggression against Iraq and Afghanistan, fidayeen attacks by Muslim groups were
confined only to Palestine. However, continued American imperialist offensives,
including America’s unstinting support to the Israeli occupiers, have driven
many Muslim youth to the wall, forcing them to take to such radical steps as
suicide bombings in utter desperation. This must be recognized as the basic root
of the phenomenon of fidayeen attacks by Muslim groups that has now spread out
from Palestine to expand to other lands. Ultimately, the dominant Western
powers, particularly America, are to blame for this development, which they
berate as inhuman and cruel. The fact of the matter is that these bombings are a
result of pent-up feelings of revenge in the face of intolerable oppression. At
the same time, it must also be recognized that seeking to right wrongs in this
manner has led to these Muslim groups exceeding the bounds of Islam and
morality. Hence, it is crucial for Islamic scholars to seriously ponder on the
legitimacy of suicide bombings in Islam, especially since Muslim groups who
engage in such attacks often do so precisely in the name of Islam and claim that
in doing so they are acting according to Islamic commandments.
In a
range of countries, such as Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and so on,
the continuing wave of suicide attacks have not received the approval of any
noteworthy Islamic scholar till date. Thus, such attacks in Muslim-majority
countries, in which the victims are mostly Muslims, may be clearly said to be
un-Islamic, according to the vast majority of the ulema. The case is different,
however, in Muslim lands under non-Muslim occupation or with regard to suicide
attacks against countries that commit aggression against Muslims and/or Islam.
Those ulema who regard such attacks as a legitimate response to aggression and
oppression regard them as permissible actions in the course of jihad. They view
them as legitimate acts of defence and as a powerful deterrent. For this they
use the fiqh principle al-inghimas fi al-aduve, which means ‘to enter the ranks
of the enemy and attack’ so as to inflict damage on the enemy. They argue that
if such actions, which might well cause the death of the attackers themselves,
can help to put an end to aggression and war or can serve the larger interests
of Islam, they are permissible. If the death of the attackers is certain, they
do not consider such actions as tantamount to suicide, which is sternly
forbidden in Islam. To further back their stance, they invoke the fiqh principle
according to which if some enemy forces use some Muslims as human shields
(tatarus) in such a way that if the enemy is attacked the death of the human
shields is also certain, to attack the enemy is permissible if this serves the
greater good and the larger purposes of Islam. In such a case, the death of the
human shields would be treated as an unavoidable loss.
In
contrast, other Islamic scholars regard attacks and bombings by Muslims in which
the attackers are certain to lose their lives as wholly illegitimate and even
forbidden or haram. Numerous contemporary Saudi ulema, including the late Shaikh
Abdul Aziz Ibn Baz, Shaikh Nasiruddin Albani, Shaikh Mohammad Ibn Saleh
al-Uthaimeen, Shaikh Saleh al-Fauzan, and the present Grand Mufti of Saudi
Arabia, Shaikh Abdul Aziz Aal-e Shaikh, fall into this category. These ulema
regard even such attacks in occupied Palestine as suicide attacks and, hence, as
illegitimate in Islam. Obviously, then, fidayeen attacks in other countries,
including Muslim countries, would, according to this view, be even more
illegitimate. These scholars refer to verses in the Quran and references in the
Hadith that clearly declare suicide as haram in order to condemn such attacks as
illegitimate in Islam, as for instance, the Quranic commandment ‘make not your
own hands contribute to [your] destruction’ (2:195), and the statement of the
Prophet, as contained in the Sahih al-Bukhari, according to which what a person
uses to kill himself will be used to punish him.
Undeniably, the position of those who declare fidayeen attacks as
illegitimate is, on every count, much closer to the Quran and the Hadith and to
the spirit of the shariah than those who consider such attacks as permissible.
The verses in the Quran and the references in the Hadith that condemn suicide
provide clear, direct and obvious arguments (mohkam dala‘il), and the
commandment of the shariah in this regard can be easily understood from the
‘direct texts’ (dalat an-nass). In contrast, the position of those who regard
such attacks as legitimate is based on arguments that are not absolutely
evident. Rather, their arguments are indirect and ambiguous (mutashabeh
dala‘il). According to the principles of Muslim jurisprudence (usul al-fiqh),
such arguments must be interpreted, elaborated upon and clarified in the light
of clear, direct and obvious arguments from the scriptures.
In this
regard, those who legitimize such attacks seek to draw analogies with cases
considered permissible in the books of traditional fiqh, such as entering the
ranks of the enemy to destroy them and oneself for the greater good, or
inflicting grave damage on the enemy even if this means the loss of life of
innocents used by the enemy as human shields. This, however, is not proper or
justified. What their supporters hail as ‘martyrdom operations’ and their
critics as ‘suicide bombings’ cannot be regarded permissible analogies of these
instances described and legitimized in the books of medieval fiqh. Those who
enter the ranks of the enemy without caring about their own lives are not killed
at their own hands, which is the case in suicide, but, rather, are slain by
their enemies. Killing human shields is regarded as permissible in the fiqh
tradition only if and when there is no other way out, when the benefit of this
course of action is clear and obvious, and when such action is sanctioned by the
Imam or leader. For this rule to apply, it is imperative that the Muslims be
engaged in a genuine jihad in the path of God (jihad fi sabilillah) for the sake
of the protection and promotion of the faith. Such actions are wholly
impermissible if committed for communal or worldly purposes. It is obvious that
an oppressed people must defend themselves from aggression, but to use the
argument that attacking human shields is permissible in order to hit at the
enemy in order to legitimize fidayeen attacks is, in general, not permissible,
unless, of course, defence against the enemy is not possible without this or if
by doing so a greater evil is avoided. As the noted classical Islamic scholar
Imam Qurtubi writes in his book al-Jami‘ li Ahkam al-Quran:
‘Sometimes, the killing of a human shield (tatarus) is permissible
[…] and this is when the benefit of this action is certain and complete, when it
is not possible to attack the aggressor without attacking the human shield, and
also when [the benefit of this action] is absolute with regard to the entire
community […] Our ulema are unanimous on the legitimacy of this matter, provided
that these conditions are met […]’
The
stringent conditions that Imam Qurtubi has laid down for the permissibility of
killing human shields if this becomes unavoidable in order to take on the
aggressor do not appear to apply in the case of present-day fidayeen attacks.
However, in defence of such attacks, some scholars and others claim that they
are permissible because they are resorted to for noble aims. In response, one
can argue that this claim is an obvious contradiction of the fiqh rule: ‘No aim, no matter how lofty, can justify the
use of any wrongful means’ (al-ghayatu la tubarrirul wasilah).
In this
regard, it is crucial to note that all over the world, including in Palestine,
wherever such fidayeen attacks are being undertaken by Muslim groups, generally
in the name of Islam, it is the Muslims who suffer the most—not just in terms of
loss of life, but also in the form of heightened anti-Islamic and anti-Muslim
sentiments which such attacks inevitably provoke. Numerous fidayeen attacks by
Palestinian groups in Israel have only made the Israelis even more violent and
aggressive, provoking them to stage revenge attacks that have caused the deaths
of thousands of innocent Palestinians. In other words, such attacks have proven
to be counter-productive from the Muslim point of view.
There is
yet another reason why such attacks are impermissible. Those who participate in
fidayeen attacks present themselves before other people as ordinary, unarmed
people with no violent aim or intention, although they are heavily armed and
their sole objective is to inflict violence and cause death and destruction.
This is, needless to say, a form of cheating, which is incompatible with Islamic
rules governing the conduct of the affairs of war.
In this
connection, it is undeniable that contemporary Islamic political thought in
general is characterized by great confusion and extremism. The noted Egyptian
Islamic scholar, Allama Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, who argues that fidayeen attacks in
Palestine are legitimate, discusses this aspect of marked imbalance in current
Islamic political thought in great detail in his recently published book Fiqh
al-Jihad (‘Jurisprudence of Jihad’). This imbalance, the lack of proper
religious awareness among ongoing Islamic movements and the vast numbers of
Muslim youth who are fired by emotionalism make it impossible for fidayeen
attacks to abide by the rules and restrictions laid down in the shariah. Thus,
numerous Arab ulema who had regarded fidayeen attacks in Palestine as
permissible and even considered all Israeli citizens as legitimate targets
(muharib or ‘rebels’), when faced with the reality that today more such attacks
are occurring in Pakistan than in Palestine, are now loudly condemning such
attacks as impermissible ‘strife on earth’ (fasad fi al-arz), which the Quran
sternly condemns, and a grave danger to the Muslims themselves.
As
regards all matters, including the vexed issue of fidayeen strikes, it is
absolutely necessary to consider not just the present context but also present
and possible future consequences of actions. Lamentably, our ulema have not
devoted any attention at all to developing a ‘fiqh of consequences’ (fiqh ul-
ma‘al) and a ‘future-oriented fiqh’ (fiqh al-mustaqbaliyat). However, this is
really necessary in order to develop rules and issue fatwas regarding the
permissibility or impermissibility of certain actions, keeping in mind their
possible consequences.
Seen in
this light, one can argue that the fatwas that have been issued in favour of
fidayeen attacks, even in the context of Palestine, are wholly incorrect
because, as has been indicated above, the radical Muslim movements active today
that claim to be engaged in protecting Islam or enforcing the shariah are based
not so much on a proper understanding of Islamic teachings as on passion and
emotionalism, and a profound and pervasive desire for revenge. They are, in
general, ignorant of, or insensitive to, the difference between what is
legitimate in Islam and what is not, particularly on issues related to violence.
This lamentable state of affairs calls for serious introspection and for a
proper ascertainment of methods and priorities on their part.
In
actual fact, the opinion of the Saudi ulema who I referred to earlier, who
condemn all forms of fidayeen attacks, is the right one and is, I believe, in
accordance with the spirit and rules of the shariah.
Maulana Waris Mazhari is the editor of the New
Delhi-based monthly Tarjuman Dar ul-Uloom, the official organ of the Graduates’
Association of the Deoband madrasa. He can be contacted on w.mazhari@gmail.com
Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study
of Social Exclusion at the National Law School,
Bangalore.
12:30 AM
Sultan Shahin
0 comments:
Post a Comment