Voices of Islam (115 page)

One justification that the terrorists make is the following account from the life of the Prophet in which the Prophet’s paternal cousin Zubayr ibn al- ‘Awwam was participating in a battle against the Byzantine Army. Zubayr said to a group of Muslim soldiers, ‘‘Who will promise to go with me and fight our way through the enemy lines until we reach the end of their lines, then go around their camp back to our current position?’’ A group of fighters said, ‘‘We promise.’’ Zubayr led a group of fi s and fought their way through many enemy lines until they reached the end of the Roman camp. They then went around the Roman camp and returned to the Muslim army.

The logic the terrorists use is that Zubayr and his companions were certain to die and thus committed suicide while fi the enemy. In fact Zubayr did not tell his companions ‘‘Let us kill ourselves,’’ before going on this challenging task. He only exposed himself and them to what is commonly expected in any form of warfare—the possibility of being killed by the

246
Voices of the Spirit

enemy. He did not intend to die, but to fi and with God’s support to win, or else to die by the enemy’s hand. This is not suicide, rather it is bravery and heroism. Thus, the terrorists’ ‘‘logic’’ is shown for what it is, illogical.

Islam has always required perfect chivalry and discipline. For that reason, soldiers are ordered to endure and fight even in the face of tremendous odds. The Islamic rules of military conduct never permit using civilians as targets or as hostages. In Islam, even so-called ‘‘collateral damage’’ is unacceptable. Therefore, if a Muslim kills himself, along with innocents, it is a doubly forbidden act.

Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi issued a
fatwa
condemning the tragic suicide attacks of 9/11, stating: ‘‘Even in times of war, Muslims are not allowed to kill anybody save the one who engages in face-to-face confrontation with them.’’ He added that Muslims are not allowed to kill women, old persons, or children, and that haphazard killing is totally forbidden in Islam. Shaykh Qaradawi on another occasion defined terrorism as ‘‘the killing of innocent people
...
with no differentiation between the innocent and the foe.’’

Another widely followed religious scholar, Sayyid Tantawi, Grand Shaykh of Islam’s highest institution of learning, the University of Al-Azhar, has said that attacks against women and children are ‘‘not accepted by Islamic law.’’ Al-Azhar’s Research Academy, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, declared that a ‘‘Muslim should only fight those who fight him; children, women and the elderly must be spared.’’ Therefore, terrorism and its crime against civilians is impermissible under any interpretation of Islamic law. This ruling does not change based on geographical locality.

The Prophet said:

Whoever fights under the banner of a people whose cause is not clear, who gets fl up with family pride, calls people to fi in the cause of their family honor or fights to support his kith and kin, and is killed, dies in a state of spiritual and moral ignorance (
jahiliyya
).

Whoever indiscriminately attacks my Umma, killing the righteous and wicked among them, sparing not even those fi in faith, and fulfi ling not a pledge made with whoever was given a promise of security, has nothing to do with me and I have nothing to do with him.
64

This shows us very clearly that those who indiscriminately attack both Muslims and non-Muslims by suicide bombings, killing innocent people, and without focusing on anyone in particular, are rejected completely by the Prophet. Such is the case in many Muslim countries today, including the land of Hijaz, Pakistan, Darfur, Egypt, Algeria, Iraq, and so forth. What is taking place in these nations today is clearly described in this hadith, ‘‘Whoever indiscriminately attacks my Umma, killing the righteous and wicked among them, sparing not even those firm in faith.’’

Jihad in Islam
247

Emphasis in this hadith on ‘‘fulfilling not the pledge made with whoever was given a promise of security’’ is reference to those citizens who keep their civic obligations by paying taxes and pledging their allegiance to the government. Thus, both Muslim and non-Muslim citizens are encompassed in the scope of meaning of this hadith, and as for those who aggress against them, ‘‘he has nothing to do with’’ the Prophet and the Prophet has ‘‘nothing to do with him.’’

If someone asks, ‘‘What about suicide bombings against non-Muslims?’’ We say: ‘‘This is utterly wrong.’’

False Rulings Supporting Suicide Attacks

Often those who justify suicide attacks cite as evidence the story of the Companion Bara’ ibn Malik at the Battle of Yamama, in which the Muslims fought the false prophet Musaylima the Liar, who had begun the war by attacking the Muslims.

The Muslims gained ground against the idolaters the day of Yamama until they cornered them in a garden in which Musaylima was staying. Bara’ ibn Malik said: ‘‘O Muslims, throw me to them!’’ He was carried aloft until when he was above the wall, he penetrated [the enclosure]. Then he fought them inside the garden until he opened it for the Muslims and the Muslims entered. Then God killed Musaylima.

Bara’ threw himself onto them and fought them until he opened the gate after having received more than eighty cuts. Then he was carried away and tended. Khalid [ibn al-Walid] visited him for a month.
65

The Companion threw himself into the ranks of the enemy, in order to throw open the fortress door, knowing full well that he would likely be killed in the process.

Studying this analogy, one finds that it is not relevant, for in the incident cited the two combatant armies were fi face-to-face. In the process Bara’ did not kill innocent people. He threw himself at the enemy with the intention of either opening the door or dying in the attempt. In fact his death was expected at the hands of the enemy, not by his own action. And this, like the earlier example of Zubayr ibn al-‘Awwam, is exemplary of chivalry and bravery, not of the intent to commit suicide. In addition, Bara’ did not die, but survived his wounds.

Suicide bombings are actions in which innocent people are killed; some might even be supporters of one’s cause, while others are innocent. Thus, the above example does not apply. Such an act on the contrary is not suicidal; it is an act of bravery which is accepted in every nation and culture.

This means that whoever goes on his own and declares his own rulings, independent of the ruler of the Muslim Nation, falls under the label of

248
Voices of the Spirit

Jahiliyya
—pre-Islamic ignorance and unbelief. Such a person establishes his own group and his own false rulings on fighting, causing all people to fall into tribulation due to his aggression.

The Hadith demonstrate the Prophet Muhammad’s emphatic opposition to those who would declare a false combative Jihad. They also demonstrate that the Prophet predicted that people would arise who would create havoc and confusion, who would be arrogant and proud of themselves, and who despite appearances were in fact fi ing for the sake of their families and tribes. This is not Jihad by any means but in fact falsifies the concept of Jihad as a whole.

We have seen that the Prophet extended shelter to a combatant pagan who was promised shelter by a Muslim woman. How then can we allow today’s beheadings of those people who are working to help bring stability and support human rights in Iraq? The terrorists take innocent people, who have been given shelter by the existing government and are noncombatants, and behead them as combatants.

‘‘Whoever indiscriminately attacks my Nation killing the righteous and the wicked among them, and fulfilling not a pledge made with whoever was given a promise of security, has nothing to do with me and I have nothing to do with him.’’

This portion of the hadith makes it abundantly clear that if someone attacks a person whose safety has been pledged by the nation’s government to uphold, the Prophet abandons the attacker and disassociates himself from him. For the believer, nothing could be more distressing than for the Prophet to abandon him.

PRISONERS OF WAR

In regard to prisoners of war, God says:

At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens.

(Qur’an 47:4)

It was related from Umm Hani bint Abi Talib, who said to the Prophet, ‘‘My brother ‘Ali said he will kill a person to whom I gave shelter, so-and- so son of Hubayra,’’ who was a combatant pagan at that time. The Prophet said, ‘‘We shelter the person whom you have sheltered.’’
66

In a similar vein is the hadith where the Prophet said: ‘‘He who gives a promise of safety to a man in regards to his life, then kills him, I am innocent of the actions of the killer, even if the one killed was a disbeliever.’’

Jihad in Islam
249

It is established that the Prophet captured prisoners yet never did he compel or force anyone to embrace Islam. The same holds true for his Companions.

The Companions of the Messenger of God used to ransom captives and rejected killing them saying, ‘‘What would we gain from killing them?’’

REBELLION AGAINST RULERS

The scholar Ibn Nujaym said, ‘‘It is not permitted for there to be more than one state leader (
Imam
) in a time period. There may be many judges, even in one state, but the leader is one.’’
67
Bahjuri said, ‘‘It is an obligation to obey the leader, even if he is not fair or trustworthy or even if he commit- ted sins or mistakes.’’
68
Abu Hanifa’s school says that the head of state, the Imam, cannot be expelled for being a corrupt person (
fasiq
).
69

Bahjuri

Bahjuri said, ‘‘
.. .
You have to obey the Ruler even if he is oppressive.’’

This means that a group or an individual is not permitted to declare war against the ruler of a nation, especially by means of terrorizing the people through planting bombs and suicide attacks which kill innocents and incite mayhem.

And in his commentary on
Sahih Muslim
Bahjuri said, ‘‘It is forbidden to rise against the ruler.’’
70

Amin Ahsan Islahi

While commenting on the underlying reasons that form the basis of state authority for combative Jihad, Amin Ahsan Islahi writes:

The first reason [for this condition] is that God Almighty does not like the disso- lution and disintegration of even an evil system until a strong probability exists that those who are out to destroy the system will provide people with an alterna- tive and a righteous system. Anarchy and disorder are unnatural conditions. In fact, they are so contrary to human nature that even an unjust system is preferable to them
.. .
this confidence [that a group will be able to harmonize a disintegrated system and integrate it into a united whole] can be placed in such a group only if it has actually formed a political government and has such control and discipline within the confi of its authority that the group can be termed as
al-Jama‘a
[the State]. Until a group attains this position, it may strive [by religiously allow- able means] to become
al-Jama‘a
– and that endeavor would be its Jihad for that time – but it does not have the right to wage an ‘‘armed’’ Jihad.

250
Voices of the Spirit

The second reason is that the power which a group engaged in war acquires over the life and property of human beings is so great that the sanction to wield this power cannot be given to a group the control of whose leader over his followers is based merely on his spiritual and religious infl on them [rather than being based on legal authority]. When the control of a leader is based merely on his spiritual and religious infl there is not suffi ient guarantee that the leader will be able to stop his followers from
fasad fi’l-ard
(creating disorder in the society). Therefore, a religious leader does not have the right to allow his followers to take out their swords (that is to wage an armed struggle) merely on the basis of his spiritual infl over them, for once the sword is unsheathed there is great danger that it will not care for right and wrong and that those who drew it will end up doing all [the wrong which] they had sought to end. Such radical groups as desire revolution and the object of whom is nothing more than disruption of the existing system and deposition of the ruling party to seize power for themselves play such games – and they can, for in their eyes disruption of a system is no calamity, nor is it cruelty or any kind an evil. Everything is right to them [as long as it serves their purpose].
71

Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman narrated a hadith in which he said:

The Prophet said, ‘‘there will be after me leaders who do not follow my guidance and do not follow my
Sunna,
and there will be among them men whose hearts are like those of Satan in the body of a human being.’’ And I asked the Prophet, ‘‘What should I do at that time if I reach it?’’ He said, ‘‘listen and obey the ruler, even if he lashes your back and takes your money, listen and obey.’’
72

In another narration, Awf bin Malik said, ‘‘O Prophet of God, do you recommend that we fight them?’’ He said, ‘‘No, don’t fight them as long as they do not prevent you from your prayers. And if you see from them something that you dislike, dislike their acts, but do not dislike them. And do not take your hand out from obedience to them.’’
73

It is narrated from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas that the Prophet said:

If someone dislikes his ruler, he must be patient, because if he comes against the ruler in a rebellious or destructive manner by only a handspan and dies, he dies in a state of pre-Islamic ignorance (
jahiliyya
) and sin.
74

Other hadiths with similar purport are:

The Prophet said, ‘‘There will be over you leaders whom you will recognize and disapprove of; whoever rejects them is free, whoever hates them is safe as opposed to those who are pleased and obey them.’’ They said, ‘‘Should we not fight them?’’ He said, ‘‘No, as long as they pray.’’