ibnu-musafir.com

Practices Forbidden by Islam, Practiced by Militant Groups Attributed to Islam

Main Part · Full-text chapter from the book Islam's Strict Prohibitions Against Killing Women, Children and Other Defenceless People · Read as PDF

In recent decades, there have been numerous crimes and gross violations of the reappraised prohibitions defined by Islamic martial law. Of these, the most important are briefly mentioned below:

The so-called “Islamic State's” un-Islamic appeal: to attack civilians

One of the most famous cases is the so-called “IS”. Its transgressions in this regard have reached the extent, that Abu Muhammad al-'Adnani – who was one of the leading figures of the “IS” till his death – in his now-famous speech, called upon his supporters to carry out attacks in every way possible worldwide and especially in the West. He explicitly drafted the utterly perverse scenario that supporters of the group should refashion their cars into weapons, with which they should target and kill women and children.

Preposterous Arguments by al-Qa'idah's Leadership to Legitimise Attacks on Civilians

Prior to that, Abu Qatadah al-Filastini, whose ideology can be attributed to al-Qa'idah and who is yet another visionary authority of this strand of thought, raised a furore by issuing a fatwa which likewise dealt with attacks on women and children.

Aiman adh-Dhawahiri, the successive leader of al-Qa'idah following Usamah ibn Ladin, also justified attacks against the general public of Western countries. He argues, aberrantly, that the general public had voted for their leaders and therefore should be held responsible for the actions of their governments.

In 2010 I already commented on that:

“Al-Qa'idah claims – as already mentioned – that all citizens of democracies had approved of the war against them. They say this, even though they know very well that many millions, and maybe even a majority of the people, do not share this stance. There have been large demonstrations against the war. It is an utter fallacy to generalize in this case, and to state that every citizen would support the war through their vote or their taxes.

Based on such reasoning, al-Qa'idah allows itself to carry out attacks, in which women and children would potentially be killed. Moreover, many people whom al-Qa'idah itself considers to be proper Muslims, are also bound to be killed.

This is, in both cases, very problematic. The killing of women and children is, in principle, completely forbidden. The same applies to those who are unable to fight, like the elderly, but also to priests and others. People, for example women, who are directly involved in warfare are excluded from this ruling. Keeping in mind that the premise is direct participation in combat.

Otherwise, this entire ban makes no sense at all. For, whether democracy or kingship, in any case, the combatant parts of society are in some way (always) supported by their families. If that were reason enough to lift the ban, this ban could never materialise.

It is conspicuous how, in this issue and also in the issue of killing Muslims, al-Qa'idah's leaders simply just argue in their own favour.

Even in legitimate, conventional military operations, Muslims are required to beware of harming the innocent. Scholars stress that if this commandment were to be ignored it would mean a severe liability and major detriment from an Islamic perspective, which had to be avoided at all costs.

In this light, how are operations to be judged in which a group – from their point of view – kills 20 innocent Muslim civilians, among them women and children, in a bombing, for the purpose of attaining a “great” victory over one or two Americans?

Aiman adh-Dhawahiri, for example, is someone who consistently promotes and presents these views. Yet it is precisely him, who excuses Shiite scholars for their extreme Kufr- and Shirk-beliefs29, with their ignorance.

It is strange how he then, on the other hand, tries to find justifications for bombing 50 Shiites or even Sunnis, under this directive.”

As stated in the excerpt, al-Qa'idah's line of argumentation is utterly unreasonable because e.g. every wife is bound to support her husband in some way or another, in times of peace and war alike. The question to ask is, where does she directly engage in combat, as the narrations have explicitly named a condition? How to reconcile the grotesque reasoning of al-Qa'idah's leadership with the cited words of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم “But this woman was not even fighting!”?!

The answer is: both cannot be reconciled. Combatant groups, for their part, suffer from a core problem; a problem of first drawing conclusions based on their personal views and assessments and then trying to legitimise these conclusions through arbitrary Islamic texts.

Muslims are no Machiavellians. The End Does not Justify the Means

Muslims are, however, no Machiavellians. Said methods of deduction are, from an Islamic perspective, unacceptable. In 2010, I wrote about this too:

“The Main Goals of Many of These Groups are not Derived from Islamic Sources

Many organisations, groups and even individuals do not base their actions on the Qur'anic texts nor the Sunnah. Their beginnings are rather that they witness a certain reality and discover the strong will to change it.

Looking into the history of al-Qa'idah and similar groups, this initial point will consistently reappear to have played a greater role. They are people who have faced oppression from tyrannical regents. They witnessed the daily injustices against themselves and their people. Many of them have also been incarcerated at some point in their life.

Under these circumstances, the fixed idea developed, that one must eliminate injustice by all means. After a period of intellectual debate and numerous discussions, one party concludes that violence is the only way to avert the violence of the unjust. That is how the phrase – which is widely used in these movements – “al-jihadu huwa-l-hall”30 came into being.

The goal was now clearly defined. It can be summarised easily: To do the utmost to eliminate injustice.

Anyone who defines such a goal and attributes themselves to Islam will undoubtedly try to justify it Islamically. For that purpose, one could certainly consult many Islamic core-principles. One of them being, to help the madhlum31 and to counter the dhalim32.”

It further reads:

“The problem arises when, based on an improper and un-Islamic deduction, a judgement is rendered. Muslims must not pass judgements based on but their own observations of reality. Rather they must derive a course of action for their particular situation from the Islamic texts.

First, one has to ask whether the said goal is Islamically justifiable. Secondly, it must be resolved whether the shari'ah designates the means. However the outcome, Machiavellianism is a concept alien to Islam. The end does not justify the means; the end and the means are prescribed by the creator of humankind.

Whenever a Muslim is confronted with any situation they must, from the very beginning, derive their specific approach from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. They are not allowed to form their own concepts and then use Islamic texts to vindicate them.

Thus, many groups elevated jihad to their highest principle. It became the solution to all problems, the best answer to any conflict. Fighting became the most important orientation among these groups, clearly directing all their actions and views. Whoever fought, was a good and courageous Muslim, and whoever did not fight, was a bad and cowardly munafiq33. Whoever fights, is a friend and whoever does not fight, is a foe.

The idea formed that everyone who fights is of exceptional rank. Whatever they, and especially the leadership, said, was the law. It was not to be questioned nor critically assessed. Blind obedience to a leading figure is indeed common to many other movements, and is always demanded under the same pretext: “Do not question him for he is better than us, he is more knowledgeable, et cetera…””

In 2010, I also commented on the main arguments with which the combatant groups try to legitimise attacks:

“Whenever al-Qa'idah is faced with criticism for their attacks in the West, their leaders often respond with the following arguments:

  • The principle of retaliation (i.e. an eye for an eye)34.
  • The argument, that the entire population would ratify the military campaigns of their governments, as they had voted for those governments in democratic elections.

Here it is to be noted:

While the earlier-mentioned principle is often readily pointed out, it is not universally applicable. Reading the commentary by esteemed scholars of tafsir to the respective ayat, one comes to know that the Muslim is not allowed to retaliate every deed exactly the same way as it was done onto him. Whenever an action itself is forbidden, it is in principle also not allowed to be carried out in retaliation.

The subject of differences of opinions or favouring one opinion over the other is not to be dealt with here. The goal is only to remark that it is not all that easy as it is propagated by the leaders of those groups. This argument cannot be used indiscriminately, to justify everything.”

Grotesque Claims by Abu Mus'ab as-Suri

Abu Mus'ab as-Suri, who by writing a 1600-page paper with the title Da'watu l-Muqawamati l-Islamiyyati l-'Alamiyyah was hailed one of the leading visionaries of various militant groups, also argues in the way of Aiman adh-Dhawahiri and the leadership of al-Qa'idah, to legitimise attacks on the populace.

In his book, his justifications for such attacks follow the pattern of reasoning common to this movement. His arguments – which he believes are Islamically sound – to justify such attacks are as follows:

In his book he summarises his fallacious argumentation35:

وذلك مثلا .. رداً على عمل وحشي قامت به أمريكا وقواتها الحليفة. فالهدف الذي يردع الدول ويسقط الحكومات هو المجازر البشرية الجماعية. وذلك باستهداف التجمعات البشرية لإحداث أكبر كمية ممكنة من الخسائر البشرية. وهذا سهل جداً لكثرة الأهداف كالملاعب الرياضية الحاشدة والحفلات السنوية الجماعية والمعارض الدولية الكبرى. والأسواق المزدحمة وناطحات السحاب والعمارات المزدحمة...الخ

Hence, this, for example, … as a response to a gruesome deed (perpetrated) by the USA and their allies. Because deadly attacks on communities (are the thing, that) will deter states (from doing that) and that will overthrow governments. This is done by targeting crowds of people to cause a maximum of loss of human life.

And this is especially easy to carry out due to the many possible targets, like e.g. sports arenas, annual community festivals, large international conventions, packed markets, skyscrapers, buildings with great numbers of people, etc.

Here again it becomes apparent how as-Suri tries to justify all of these actions by arguing with the principle of retaliation and the gaining of strategic benefits!

Attacks on Mosques and Places of Worship of Other Religions

Attacks against places of worship are just as unsettling as attacks targeting women, children and other defenceless people. Targets of such attacks are often Shiite mosques, but also Sunni mosques, which represent different theological positions or hold different opinions.

This practice, not uncommon to groups earlier mentioned, i.e. the so-called “IS”, the al-Qa'idah, the Taliban and others, clearly contradicts Islam's elaborate ban against killing monks.

Monks and their housings are to be refrained from and they are not to be bothered in their endeavours. As is the confirmatory tenor of various narrations.

Other Deliberate Attacks

As some of these group's leaders legitimise targeting women and children, it comes as no surprise when supporters, far more ignorant than their leaders, pick up these ideas and start planning attacks on nurseries, schools and school buses.

Often deeply unaware of the grave transgressions they are committing against Islamic teachings!

Over the years, plans as such have consistently gained media coverage. While it would be naive to form a view based on one reporting in the media, the multiplicity of such incidents as well as the information gathered in this paper, draw to the conclusion that these leaders' appeals are indeed being heard by their ignorant supporters.

Yet it is not only the so-called “IS” which is known for such acts. In recent years, the Pakistani Taliban have repeatedly made headlines because of attacks on schools. Even though the Afghani Taliban have, in turn, repeatedly distanced themselves from these acts, attacks like these happen in Afghanistan too.

Notes

  1. The Arabic word Shirk means evident polytheism. Kufr describes an act or a statement, that opposes Islam to the extent, that the Islam of a person is considered invalid; given that the act or statement cannot be excused. It should be noted that e.g. inner convictions, feelings and intentions are regarded “internal acts or statements” according to Islamic theology. ↩
  2. “Al-jihadu huwa-l-hall” means “jihad is the solution.” ↩
  3. The oppressed. ↩
  4. The unjust or the oppressor. ↩
  5. Hypocrite. ↩
  6. In Arabic: al-mu'amalatu bi-l-mithl. ↩
  7. As-Suri, Da'watu l-Muqawamati l-Islamiyyati l-'Alamiyyah, p. 1390. ↩