Summing Up: Refutation of Sheikh Yousuf Al-Abeeri's Fatwa Supporting Wanton Killing of Innocent Civilians under Special Circumstances and Thus Justifying the 9-11 Attacks – Part 8
By
Muhammad Yunus, New Age Islam
(Co-author
(Jointly with Ashfaque Ullah Syed), Essential Message of Islam, Amana
Publications, USA, 2009)
August 8,
2013
Part-1 The
Fatwa begins with the redefinition of 'innocence' in a relative manner to
suggest that the civilians killed in 9/11 attacks shared ‘the guilt’, and
deserved to be killed. This notion negates the principle of universal justice
as enjoined by the Qur'an (VI Terms of Reference, Part-1). It then argues that
"If the infidels kill Muslim women, children and the elderly, meting out
the same treatment to the infidels is justified” and moves on to a very gory
and totally unrelated topic: mutilation of the corpse of the Prophet Muhammad’s
uncle Hamza in the battlefield of Uhad, giving revolting details. It repeatedly
references unrelated Qur'anic verses/passages 2:194, 16:126-128, and 42:39-42
exhorting restraint and patience in warfare, apparently to lend authority to
its statements.
This
incongruous referencing is conceivably tailored to give an association of the
barbaric act of mutilation with the Qur’an to its ignorant and unsuspecting
readers, unaware that mutilation of corpses was purely a pre-Islamic tradition
and is neither mentioned in the Qur’an, nor ever practiced by any Muslim army.
Some of the arguments tabled contradict the Qur'an on many counts, are self-contradictory,
bizarre and untenable, and others, suicidal for Islam and the broader Muslim
community and a grave threat to human civilization. The discourse, however,
concludes by citing authentic Hadith (Imam Bukhari and Muslim) on the
forbiddance of this sadistic practice.
The
discourse is laid out in a scholastic style that the present-day reader may
find complex, discordant and challenging and succumb to it rather than
questioning its logic and rationale.
Part-2 continues to dwell on the gory theme
of mutilation of corpses, repeats the unrelated verses 2:194 and 16:126 and
adds another unrelated verse, 17:15 and a tradition on the Prophet’s
forbiddance of this pre-Islamic custom. However, as in Part-1, it adopts a complex
discourse structure, that, with tautological impact, creates an association
rather than disconnection between the barbaric custom of mutilation and Islamic
message. Thus, a casual, fanatic or not too critical reader may appropriate
sadism in his religious thoughts and thus get spiritually indoctrinated to
committing acts of wanton terror.
Part-3
cites following three already repeatedly quoted unrelated Qur’anic verses:
· 2:194 quoted once each in Part-1, and
2 respectively
· 16:126, quoted four times in Part-1,
and once in Part-2, and
· 42:30, quoted once in Part-1 as part
of the passage 42:39-42.
It also
refers to the themes of two other verses, 2:178 and 59:6 (without mentioning
their Sura/ serial) in a superfluous manner to force fit them with the ongoing
theme of the Fatwa – inflicting barbaric punishments, like forcing to drown or
chopping off body parts or mutilating corpses, stoning to death, pushing from a
height, battering to death with wood or confining without food and water until
death in like for like retaliation.
The Fatwa,
cumulatively, continues to draw on the past Fatwas. But as mentioned under the
terms of reference, point II (Part-1), the validity a fatwa as 'religious
edict' remains contingent to its compatibility with the Qur'anic message. Since
the Fatwa’s theme is incompatible with the Qur’anic message, citing past Fatwas
to justify the theme carries no religious/ Qur’anic legitimacy.
Hence, this
third part, and cumulatively, the first three parts of the Fatwa fail to draw
any legitimacy from the Qur’an and stand refuted.
Part-4
abruptly changes its theme, fast forwarding to this era and merits elaboration.
It
singularly blames America for all the sufferings and devastations of the
Muslims and charges it of “overt and covert interference in the Muslim
countries in order to cause bloodshed and kill innocent people.” It also blames
America for whatever is happening in Philippines, Indonesia, Kashmir, Macedonia
and Bosnia and thus holds it responsible for all the trials and tribulations
the Muslims are going through. It charges US of attacking and laying siege from
remote bases, adopting a policy of “punishing the people for the crimes of
individuals”, refers to Israel’s military actions and gross human rights violations
of Palestinians as acts of terror even by the definition of US policy (on
protection of human rights) and thus describes the Jews as terrorists and the
US, a supporter of Zionist terrorism in Palestine, and accordingly claims the
right to pursue a corresponding course of action as part of like for like
retaliation it falsely argued in the preceding part (Part-3) of the Fatwa. It
invokes two previously cited verses (2:194, 16:126) and introduces a Maslah
(principle) that purports to conflate America’s foreign policy with common
American people and concludes: “The killing of American women, children and the
elderly people and other non-combatants is permissible (by Shariah), rather it
is one of the categories of jihad God and his prophet (PBUH) have ordered.”
The Fatwa
is refuted on five key grounds – one political (i), two recent histories
(ii-iii), one religious (iv) and one (v) Islam’s early history:
i)
Political:
America’s foreign policy that plunges it into war and dictates sanctions is
drawn by its political-cum-military bureaucrats and legislative bodies
(Congress and Senate) based on their joint assessment of the political
realities and global strategic issues and threats of the times. If anyone in
America is to be held accountable for the terrible consequences of sanctions
and wars, it must be those persons who were directly involved in policy making
at the given historical points that saw sanctions and wars. Common Americans at
those or later historical points (such as today) cannot and must not be held
responsible. If the principle of like for like retaliation were accepted as a
ground-rule for humanity regardless of changing politico-historical realities,
Bangladesh will have to take military action against Pakistan for its killing
of allegedly three million civilians in the liberation war, Israel will nuke
Germany to avenge Hitler’s barbaric and en-masse liquidation of Jews, China
will annihilate Japan for its atrocities against Chinese citizens during the
world war and all the nations of the world will be caught in a frenzy of
retaliatory wars, massacres and genocides as the case may be against their past
tormentors.
Ii) Its Disregard
Of Historical Relativism: Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been killed and many times more
put to grievous suffering by their own Islamic regimes or neighbouring Muslim
invaders such as Bangladesh war of liberation, Iran-Iraq war, Iraq’s invasion
of Kuwait, and oppression of Muslims outside of America or American sphere of
influence - notably China, Russia, Albanian peninsula, the central Asian states
in the erstwhile Soviet Russia. So, America cannot be singled out as the
archenemy of the Muslims.
iii) Its
disregard of America’s historic military role in defending and preserving the
Albanian Muslims and thus ensuring the presence and growth of Islam in Europe
and by extension, the Western hemisphere. This is besides its food aid,
emergency relief, technological/ infrastructural development role in all Muslim
countries, and being home to some five million Muslims – who enjoy greater
political and religious freedom and civil rights than in any other Muslim
country of the world.
Iv) Religious
Considerations: The
following Qur’anic verses exhort the Muslims / broader humanity to de-escalate
violence through collective forgiveness of past enemies (5:2), personalized
justice (5:8) unlawful killing of any innocent person (5:32) and returning evil
with good (13:22, 23:96, 41:34):
“...And let not the hatred of a people who
(once) obstructed you from (entering the) Sacred House, lead you to be hostile.
Therefore, help each other to virtue (birr) and piety (Taqwa), and do not
collaborate with each other in sin and enmity. Heed God, and (remember,) God is
severe in punishment” (5:2).
“You who believe, be upright before God as
witnesses to justice (Qist), and let not the hatred of any people prompt you to
detract from justice (‘Adl). Deal justly: this is nearest to heedfulness
(Taqwa); and heed God. Surely God is Informed of what you do” (5:8).
“For that reason We decreed for the Children of
Israel that whoever kills any person - unless it be (in punishment for) murder
or causing corruption on earth - it shall be, as if he had killed all humanity,
and whoso saves a life, it shall be, as if he had saved the life of all humanity…”
(5:32).
“Those who patiently seek the Countenance of
their Lord, keep up prayer and spend out of what We have provided them,
secretly or publicly and repel evil with good – such will attain the eternal
life” (13:22).
“Repel evil with that which is good. Indeed, We
are aware of what they are working (in their minds)” (23:96).
“Goodness and evil are not equal. Therefore,
repel the latter with that which is good, and then the one between whom and you
is hatred, will indeed become your friend (41:34).
V) Islam’s
Early History:
There are irrefutable historical records that demonstrate the application of
the above noble principle even at times of war. Thus the eminent historian
Thomas Arnold quotes a contemporaneous Church record on the compassionate
treatment of the survivors of the 2nd crusade who were deceived by their Greek
allies (who refused to ship them back home to Europe) and lay at the mercy of
the Muslim warriors: “The situation of the survivors would have been utterly
hopeless, had not the sight of their misery melted the hearts of the
Muhammadans to pity. They tended the sick and relieved the poor and starving
with open-handed liberality... So great was the contrast between the kind
treatment the pilgrims received from the unbelievers and the cruelty of their fellow-Christians,
the Greeks, who imposed forced labour upon them, beat them and robbed them of
what little they had left, that many of them voluntarily embraced the faith of
their deliverers.”[1]
Conceivably,
a subconscious or conscious awareness of the Qur’an’s emphasis on mitigating
violence, the fatwa concludes with an abrupt about turn in its arguments by
declaring that “under no circumstances it is permissible and appropriate for
them to kill more than 4 million non-combatant Americans and render more than
ten million Americans homeless. If they do so they will be among those who
transgress in the act of Maslah.” However, recurrent quoting of unsupportive
Qur’anic verses 2:94, 16:129 reflects an indoctrinating strategy: bombard the
simple and innocent Muslims with what is most awe-inspiring and obscure to them
– the verses of the Qur’an and capitalizes on their reverential obscurity to
the meaning of the Qur’anic verses to sell them their own fatwa, however
un-Qur’anic it may really be – as God knows best.
Part–5 is built entirely around a Hadith that
contains a cryptic response of the Prophet regarding the permissibility of
attacking enemy citadels at night when children, women and the elderly could be
killed. It lays down several tiers of arguments, all drawn on mostly apocryphal
traditions (none from Bukhari or Muslim) and ‘unanimous opinion’ of scholars to
establish a Maslah (core principle) allowing for the killing of children, women
and the elderly among the pagans only when they are in a place or situation
when a distinction between a combatant and non-combatant cannot be made. In its
scholastic style of argument, the Fatwa parallels the enemy’s ‘citadels’ with
strategic centres and thus justifies sudden attack on the strategic centres of
the enemy killing its warriors. It then conveniently concludes that “he (the
Prophet) who permitted the killing of innocent people because of their
inability to be distinguished from the warriors will also permit the killing of
those killed as a result of the 9/11 attacks because they also could not be
identified and singled out in the strategic centres who were comparatively more
important than the combatants.” The Fatwa was refuted on the following grounds:
1. It
contradicts the Qur’anic ordinance to protecting the non-combatants and
reaching them to safe havens (9:6) and not to transgressing limits (2:190).
2. It contradicts the Prophet Muhammad’s
Qur’anic title of ‘mercy to all humanity’ – Rahmat al ‘Alamin (21:107) and
militates against the Qur’anic evidence made in full light of history (Terms of
Reference IX) that the Prophet was mild to his men even after their lapses in
Uhad expedition (3:159) and readily excused others from taking part in Tabuk
expedition (9:43).
3. Being essentially built around a very cryptic
response of the Prophet translated as ‘they are from among them’- it can be
interpreted as an instruction to protecting the non-combatants.
4. In an absurd analogy, it treats the civilian
casualties of 9/11 attacks as more important than combatants.
Part-6.
Like its preceding part (Part-5), this part also draws entirely on Ahadith and
‘unanimous opinion’ of scholars. It begins with pronouncing Islam’s prohibition
of the killing of women and children, elderly, clergy and non-combatants caught
in war,” which is consistent with the Qur’anic message (9:6, not referenced),
but in the same breadth justifies their killing when “they put up arms against
the Muslims or render such service that comes under co-operation or support in
the fight against the Muslims, be it through espionage, providing aid or taking
part in similar activities.” The discourse refers to the prohibition of killing
civilians/ non-combatants four times and quotes the justification for killing
them with slight textual variation eleven times. The monotonous reference to
the theme of ‘killing of children, women and the elderly’ either in prohibition
or justification argument conceivably aims at registering this crude and
sadistic notion as religious edict in the mind of its target audience – the traumatized
and disoriented witnesses to the horrifying
human tragedies of high-tech and politically justified wars. Thus, by
the time the target reader reaches the end part of the Fatwa, he/she is
mentally conditioned to accept as a religious dictate its concluding statement:
“the killing of women, children and the old will be permissible when they
co-operate with the enemy in any form.” Regardless of its political
justification or otherwise, the principle expressly violates the Qur’anic
commands to ensuring safety of the civilians from the enemy camp caught in
armed encounter (9:6), and prohibition of killing any innocent person except by
due process of law (5:32) as noted in Parts 5 and 4 of refutation. As such the
Fatwa stands refuted as a religious edict.
Part-7
begins with “unanimous opinion of scholars” that giving indirect support to
jihad is synonymous with directly taking part in jihad,” connects this
proposition with a ruling from Imam Ibn-e-Taimiya and infers “whatever applies
to the fighters will also apply to the rich and resourceful civilians of a
nation at war against the Muslims.” It stretches the argument further to
appropriate the “innocent and weak (women, children and the old) - whom we call
civilians in modern times” in this category. It then tables politically matured
arguments to implicate the American civilians in the second term election of
President Bush despite his invasion of Muslim lands, thereby speciously
appropriating them in the fighter category and as accomplice of the enemy and
justifying their killing.
As in the
last two parts (5 and 6) it draws entirely on the opinion of scholars and a few
very sparsely worded self-contradictory Ahadith and does not cite a single
Qur’anic verse in its support. It refers to an alleged burning of date palms of
the Jewish tribe Banu Nadir based on Hadith sources (Imam al-Bukhari, Vol. 5,
Acc. 365, 366, not expressly mentioned in the Fatwa), thus distorting the
Qur’anic testimony regarding the cutting down (not burning) of some date palms
(59:5). In a macabre twist of argument,
it parallels arson with gruesome acts like “leaving snakes, scorpions and other
dangerous insects among the defence establishments (domain) of the enemy and,
notably the abode of common Americans reflecting the Kharijite ideology that
justified “the killing of the children of the infidels, their own parents, and
all the non-Muslims of the world.” [2]. This calls for a brief introduction to
the Kharijites:
The term
Kharijite means “those who are expelled from the realm of Islam.” The sect was
born within decades after the Prophet’s death when an extremist band of the
followers of Caliph Ali broke away from the community in protest against his
holding negotiation with his rebellious governor of a province (Syria),
Mu‘awiyah. Philip K. Hitti refers to the Kharijites as a brutally fanatic
puritanical sect who abhorred the veneration of saints, readily killed their
opponents and “caused rivers of blood to flow in the first three centuries of
Islam” [3].
Part-8. This concluding part singularly
focuses on brutal and mass killing of the enemy. It begins with the lawfulness of burning the
enemy as it established earlier, and symbiotically appropriates “opening the dams of rivers and lakes” to
drown the inmates of a fort or besieged town, launching mortar attack and “releasing snakes and scorpions on the
enemy even if the women and children are also mixed with the men”. It then lays
down a few tiers of argument on the strength of several jurists on the
lawfulness of these measures to which It adds ‘demolishing their buildings,
spreading poison and smoke” if it is not possible to capture or dominate them
without resorting to these practices”. Having thus imperceptibly established
the justification of a terror attack through a succession of arguments the
Fatwa leapfrogs from medieval battlefield to the American cities and questions
the sanity of any Muslim who declares “killing the Americans even in New York
and Washington is unlawful.”
The
concluding claim of the Fatwa of being authenticated by the Qur’an and the
Hadith is a blatant lie, as each of its proposition is refuted on the strength
of the Qur’an and this concluding part of the Fatwa and the eight parts
cumulatively do not table a single Qur’anic verse or authenticated (Sahih) Hadith
narration (such as from Imam Bukhari or Muslim) to support its theme - though
any Hadith narration would not have lent it any credence as the Qur’an refutes
each part of the Fatwa and all the eight parts cumulatively.
Concluding
remarks of the author of this detailed refutation
1. The Taliban ideologue's Fatwa is targeted
at the oppressed, dispossessed, bereaved and marginalized segment of the global
Muslim community. These are the people who never hit the media and are largely
forgotten by the world or blamed for their misfortunes and seldom if ever
compensated for their losses. They do not belong to al-Qaida or the Taliban.
They are the unfortunate civilians – the underdogs of the global society who
have borne the brunt of the recent allegedly just invasions of Muslim lands
(Afghanistan, Iraq), the war on terror
by any country - non-Muslim (America, France, Britain) or Muslim (Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Syria), Israel’s occupation of Muslim lands and allegedly defensive
military operations, India’s counter-terror activities in Kashmir, repressive
actions and marginalization in any Muslim minority country from China in the
East to Spain in the West.
2. Violence is contagious and breeds violence.
Despite the escalating human and material cost of violence - whether of terror
or counter-terror nature including just wars, the sceptre of terror continues
to haunt the world and threaten its peace and stability. Hence, a peaceful path
must be explored to tackle the growing menace of Kharijite brand of Islam as
appropriated in the preservationist, puritanical Salafi/Jihadist ideology.
3. From a purely political and secular
perspective, if those in power in the democratic and self proclaimed just and
civilized world can redefine civilians caught in some military operations as
terrorist and remain mute witnesses to the colossal loss of civilian life in
modern high tech wars, the terror ideologues, groomed in the atavistic theology
of early terror outfits of Islam (the Kharijies) can do likewise by drawing on their
theological archives, and this refutation on religious ground may fall on deaf
ears, and this entire exercise beguiles like
mirage on the compassionless terrain of 21st century civilization – an
era when greed, glory, power, bigotry and overt or covert hatred occupy human
mind and justice, compassion and neutrality are mere rhetoric for public
consumption.
4. This Refutation can have no, or at best a
marginal impact in stemming the rising trend of militant jihad unless:
· General Muslim public as well as
target readers of the Fatwa are counter-indoctrinated against
jihadist-Kharijite ideology through exposure to Qur’anic message on the
“universal brotherhood of humanity that allows people of diverse faith,
culture, colour and language to live together, to know each other and to assist
each other to make life easy and peaceful for all human beings.” [4]
· The profoundly humanitarian crisis of
the Palestinians is resolved and Injustice and excessive use of violence
against Muslim civilians such as in wars and counter-terror measures is
mitigated.
· All kind of violence - riots, ethnic
cleansing against the Muslims in Muslim minority countries is curbed.
· The mainstream Muslim people are
exempted from any blame for the terror-crime of a lone or a handful of
ideological terrorists, for they may be as unconnected with a terror attack as
any non-Muslim citizen.
· The Muslim majority countries treat
the non-Muslim minority as their co-equal, effectively ban any form of mob
violence against them and extend them all the rights and privileges they expect
for themselves in Muslim minority countries.
· The Muslims in Muslim minority
countries take active part in pursuit of universal knowledge and all forms of
sports and cultural activities to gain equitable representation in professions,
academy, corporate business and all lawful sectors of society and appropriate
the cultural paradigms of the mainstream societies within the inclusive
framework of the Qur’an.
Notes:
1. Thomas W. Arnold, The Preaching of Islam,
(First publication 1896, 2nd extended edition 1913). Delhi 1990, p. 88.
2. Ghunit al-talebin, Urdu translation by
Shahir Shams Barelwi, Arshad Brothers, New Delhi p.178-180.
3. History of the Arabs, 1937, 10th edition;
London 1993, p. 247.]
4. Muhammad Yunus and Ashfaque Syed, Amana
Publications, Maryland, US-2009, Chap. 9.7]
Related
Articles:
Refutation of Sheikh Yousuf Al-Abeeri's Fatwa Supporting
Wanton Killing of Innocent Civilians-Part 6
Muhammad Yunus, a Chemical Engineering graduate from Indian Institute of Technology, and a retired corporate executive has been engaged in an in-depth study of the Qur’an since early 90’s, focusing on its core message. He has co-authored the referred exegetic work, which received the approval of al-Azhar al-Sharif, Cairo in 2002, and following restructuring and refinement was endorsed and authenticated by Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl of UCLA, and published by Amana Publications, Maryland, USA, 2009.
URL: https://newageislam.com/islam-terrorism-jihad/summing-up-refutation-sheikh-yousuf/d/12950
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism