Refuting Islamophobic Claims That Jihadists Represent Traditional and Mainstream Interpretations of Islam: Part 6 On Targeting Civilians in Revenge
Targeting
Civilians in Revenge or Otherwise Is Forbidden in Islam
Main
Points
·
Targeting civilians as a legitimate response to
attacks against Muslim civilians is only a part of the Wahabi-Jihadist
narrative
·
Texts of the Jihadists and the classical scholars
about Targeting Civilians
·
Impermissibility of Targeting Civilians in the
Classical Islamic Literature
·
The Hadith clearly implies that the common
civilians cannot be targeted for the oppressive acts of coreligionist
oppressors
·
Jihadists have opposed and violated the Quran and
Sunnah by justifying the killing of civilians in retaliation
·
Therefore, Islamophobic claim that the Jihadist
narrative is based on classical interpretation of Islam is completely at the wrong
……………..
By New Age
Islam Special Correspondent
17 Jun
2021
The
Jihadists have presented a version of Jihad that violates classical
interpretation of Islamic humanitarian concerns and justifies indiscriminate
targeting of civilians. The Jihadist process as such has greatly benefitted the
Islamophobic propaganda worldwide to argue that the process is inspired
by the classical interpretation of Islam; this argument is completely baseless
and merely serves as an Islamophobic narrative but needs to be refuted
for the good cause of humanity.
The
idea that targeting civilians is a legitimate response to attacks against
Muslim civilians is only a part of the Jihadist narrative which, the Jihadists
falsely argue, is permissible given the Quranic verse:
“So when anyone aggresses against you, aggress
against him in the same way as he did against you.” (2:194)
Right
after we present below some Jihadist quotations to refute them more
comprehensively, we will discuss the classical and traditional interpretation
of this verse (2:194) as compared to what is wrongly meant by the Jihadists.
Justification
of Targeting Civilians in the Jihadist Literature
Regarding
killing non-combatant civilians as equal retaliation, several contemporary Wahhabi
Jihadists have given justification under certain circumstances.
Yusuf Al-‘Uyayri writes:
لقد سقنا أدلة حرمة قتل النساء
والصبيان والشيوخ ومن في حكمهم من غير المقاتلة من الكفار، إلا أن هؤلاء المعصومين
من الكفار ليست عصمتهم مطلقة، بل إن هناك حالات يجوز فيها قتلهم سواء قصدا أو
تبعا. ومن الحالات التي يجوز فيها قتل أولئك المعصومين قصدا أن يعاقب المسلمون
الكفار بنفس ما عوقبوا به فإذا كان الكفار يستهدفون النساء والأطفال والشيوخ من
المسلمين بالقتل، فإنه يجوز في هذه الحالة أن يفعل معهم الشيء نفسه لقول الله
تعالى (فمن اعتدى عليكم فاعتدوا عليه بمثل ما اعتدى عليكم) (حقيقة الحرب
الصليبية الجديدة للشيخ يوسف العييري، ص 24)
Translation:
“Undoubtedly we have seen the clear proofs which forbid killing women,
children, the elderly and those like them have the same ruling; however, the
protection (‘Ismah) provided to these disbelievers is not unrestricted. Rather,
there are situations in which it is lawful to kill them, whether intentionally
or unintentionally. So from amongst the situations in which it is lawful to
kill those protected disbelievers (kuffar) is when the Muslims punish
the kuffar with the likeness of which they (i.e. the Muslims) were
punished. So if the kuffar target the women, children, and the elderly
of the Muslims, then indeed it is lawful in this situation to do the same thing
to the kuffar, as Allah has said, “So whoever has assaulted you, then
assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you.” (2:194) (Yusuf
Al-‘Uyayri, Haqiqat al-Harb al-Saleebiyyah al-Jadidah, p.24)
In his
fatwa regarding the Blessed Raids, entitled, “The Clarification of what
Occurred in America”, a Saudi-born influential Wahhabi cleric, Hamud Ibn
‘Uqla’ Ash-Shu’aybi (who died in late 2001) justifies targeting civilians in
equivalence if it is done while taking revenge. His fatwa quotes Ibn Taymiyyah,
Ibn Hazm and Ibn Al-Qayyim to argue that targeting civilians in equivalence for
taking revenge is permissible. To express this point he says:
“It is permitted to do to the Kuffar what they do
to us”. (Hamud Ibn ‘Uqla’ Ash-Shu’aybi, cited in At-Tibyan Fi Istihdaf
An-Nisa’I Was-Sibyan, At-Tibyan Publications, p.69)
Ibn Salih Al-Uthaymin, one of the leading clerics
of Wahhabi Salafism, said in a tape recording regarding targeting civilians:
“And the second matter is the forbiddance
of killing women and children in times of war. But if it is said: “If they (the
Kuffar) do this to us- meaning that they kill our children and women-
then do we then kill them?”. The apparent [Zahir) is that it is
permissible for us to kill their women and children”. (Ibn Salih
Al-Uthaymin, cited in At-Tibyan Fi Istihdaf An-Nisa’I Was-Sibyan, At-Tibyan
Publications, p.72)
Saudi Salafist Jihadist cleric Nasir Ibn Hamad
Al-Fahd said while discussing the permissibility of using weapons of mass
destruction:
“So if a nuclear bomb was dropped upon the
Americans, killing 10 million civilians, and destroying their lands to the
extent that they have destroyed our lands – this would be permissible without
any need to even mention any other evidence. More evidence would only be
required if wanted to kill more than this number!!” (Nasir bin Hamad
Al-Fahd, “Hukm istikhdam aslihat al-damar al-shamil didd al-kuffar”, cited in
At-Tibyan Fi Istihdaf An-Nisa’I Was-Sibyan, At-Tibyan Publications, p.75)
Saudi
Jihadist cleric Faris Ahmed Jamaan al-Showeel al-Zahrani argues:
“So it is permissible for the Muslims to treat
enemies with the likeness of everything, they perpetrate against the Muslims.
If they target our women and children- then it is the right of the Muslims to
equally retaliate by targeting their women and children- and this is because of
the generality of the Verses” (Al-Zahrani, cited in al-tibyan fi istihdaf
al-nisa’ wa’l-sibyan (The clarification regarding intentionally targeting women
and children), (At-Tibyan Publications, 2004), p.83.)
Among
its eight reasons for engaging in Jihad, Lashkar-e-Taiba says, is “to
avenge the blood of Muslims killed by unbelievers”. (Hum Jihad kyon kar rahe
hain? (Why are we waging Jihad?)
……………
Impermissibility
of Targeting Civilians in the Classical Islamic Literature
Having
seen the Wahhabi Jihadist literature which justifies targeting civilians
in revenge, we must now observe the Quran, Sunnah and the traditional
Islamic literature. According to the Quran and Sunnah, every person is
responsible for his or her actions. Only the person who commits an act of
injustice is liable to punishment, and no one else can be held responsible for
that. According to this rule, if a non-Muslim kills or targets the Muslim
civilians, only he will be liable to punishment and no other non-Muslim can be
held responsible for that. The punishment for his crime cannot be awarded to
his family, tribe, friends or co-citizens. Allah Almighty clearly says in the
Quran:
“And whatever [sin] every soul earns [its evil
outcome] falls back upon it. And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of
another. Then to your Lord is your return and He will inform you concerning
that over which you used to differ.” (6:164)
This
verse makes it clear that if any oppressor kills or targets Muslim civilians,
only he will be responsible for that and the common civilians cannot be
punished for the oppressive acts of coreligionist oppressors. The system of
Islamic law is based on justice and it does not allow anyone to target
civilians in return for the crimes of oppressors.
The
Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
“No person amongst them [the peaceful non-Muslim
civilians] shall be punished as a penalty for the injustice of a coreligionist”
(Cited in Imam Abu Yusuf’s Kitab al-Kharaj, p.78, and al-Baladhuri in Futuh
al-Buldan, p.90)
All of
this substantiates that those who seek to take revenge by targeting and killing
civilians from other nations violate the clear injunctions of the Quran and Sunnah.
Classical
Interpretation of verse 2:194 misused by the Jihadists
We have
seen above that the Jihadists have used the Quranic verse 2:194 to
develop their narrative of targeting civilians. The full verse is as follows:
“The holy month for the holy month, and the
sanctities are subject to retribution. So when anyone aggresses against you,
aggress against him in the same way as he did against you. And fear Allah and
be sure that Allah is with the God-fearing” (2:194)
In the
verse, ‘aggress against him in the same way as he did against you’ aggression
renders I’tada, a word that can also mean “transgression”. Which type of
‘transgression’ or ‘aggression’ is it that was made permissible? The
traditional commentators interpret that before Islam, fighting in the four
sacred months; Dhul-Qa’dah, Dhul-Hijjah, Muharram and Rajab was
considered unlawful and the disbelievers of Makkah too used to observe
their sanctity. Even in the early days of Islam, this ruling was in force which
is why the noble Companions were perplexed. Later when the companions were in
confusion concerning whether or not to fight in defence during these four
sacred months, this verse was revealed to allow them to fight in defence in
these months. It can be said that to initiate fighting in these sacred months
was an act of transgression but when the enemies initiated fighting in these
months, this transgression or ‘aggression in the same way’ was permissible for
the sake of defence.
This
verse 2:194 has been interpreted in Tafsir-e-Qurtubi in details but
nowhere has it justified targeting civilians in return for the oppressive act
of oppressors. The part of the verse “So when anyone aggresses against you,
aggress against him in the same way as he did against you” is traditionally
interpreted to suggest that this verse is the basis for parity in retaliation
but not to exceed the limits by targeting those who have not committed crimes.
This, in the words of Tafsir-e-Qurtubi, implies that:
“If
someone kills someone, he is killed by the same method he used when he killed,
and that is the position of the majority, as long as the victim was not killed
by an iniquitous act such as sodomy or drinking wine. In that case, the killer
is killed with the sword.” (Tafsir-e-Qurtubi, verse 2:194)
Ibn al-Majishun
said:
“If
someone kills by fire or poison, he is not killed by the same method because
the Prophet said, “Only Allah punishes with fire”. Poison is an internal fire.
As for retaliation with a staff, Imam Malik said in one transmission that
killing with staff is prolonged and amounts to torture and so he should be
killed by the sword.” (ibid, verse 2:194)
Ibn
al-‘Arabi said:
“The sound view of our scholars is that the
similarity in retaliation is mandatory unless that falls under the definition of
torture. Then it is abandoned in favour of the sword”. (ibid, verse 2:194)
One
group of traditional scholars take a different view and say:
“Retaliation
is only taken by the sword. This is the school of Imam Abu Hanifa, Ash-Sh’abi
and An-Nakha’i. Their proof for that is what is related from the Prophet (peace
be upon him): “There is no retaliation except with iron (i.e. a blade),” There
is also the prohibition against mutilation and fire as the Prophet (peace be
upon him) said, “Only the Lord of the Fire punishes with fire”. (ibid, verse
2:194)
The
readers can understand from its upshot mentioned in the book Tafsir-e-Qurtubi
as follows:
“If anyone wrongs you, you may take your right
according to the way you were wronged, and if someone insults you, you may
respond with what he said but may not go beyond what he said. So if someone
insults you, you may insult him, but not insult his parents, son or relatives.
You are not permitted to lie about him even if he lies about you. Disobedience
may not be countered by disobedience. For instance, if someone says to you,
“You unbeliever!” you are permitted to say, ‘you are the unbeliever’. But if he
says, ‘Adulterer!’ then your retaliation is to say, ‘you liar, bearer of the
false witness!’ If you were to say, ‘Adulterer!’ then you would be a liar and
sin in the lie.” (ibid, verse 2:194)
It is
clear that the ayat “So when anyone aggresses against you, aggress
against him in the same way as he did against you” implies that if someone
kills someone, he will be punished by the same method he used when he killed,
and that is the position of the majority of the traditional scholars. No
classical or traditional scholars or clerics have ever justified targeting or
killing Muslim or non-Muslim civilians in retaliation even if the killer has
killed a large number of Muslims, as this would amount to injustice which is
disliked by Allah Almighty.
Let us
again read what Allah and His beloved Prophet have said. Allah Almighty says:
“And
whatever [sin] every soul earns [its evil outcome] falls back upon it. And no
bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your
return and He will inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.”
(6:164)
The
Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
“No person amongst them [the peaceful non-Muslim
civilians] shall be punished as a penalty for the injustice of a coreligionist”
(Cited in Imam Abu Yusuf’s Kitab al-Kharaj, p.78, and al-Baladhuri in Futuh
al-Buldan, p.90)
One must
also take into consideration the Quranic verse 2:190 which reads:
“And fight in the way of God against those who
fight against you, but do not transgress. Truly God does not love
transgressors”.
This
verse 2:190 is among the most direct in describing the limits of warfare.
Muslims are commanded to fight those who fight them first, to expel those who
first expel them, but in doing so they are subject to limits. The classical and
traditional scholars use this verse to discuss the usual rules of war, such as
the prohibition against killing women, children, monks, hermits, the
chronically ill, old men and peasants. (See Tafsir-e-Qurtubi)
For
example, Hazrat Ibn Abbas said:
“Do not
kill women, children, old men, or those who offer peace and restrain their hand.
If you do that, you will have transgressed against them”. (Tafsir-e-Tabari,
2:190)
Having
observed the afore-mentioned comparison between the Jihadists and the classical
scholars about the interpretation of the Quranic verse 2:194, it becomes
clear that the Jihadists have opposed and violated the Quran and Sunnah
by justifying the killing of civilians in retaliation. So the Islamophobic
claim that the Jihadist narrative is based on classical interpretation of Islam
is completely wrong and a depressed and failed effort to defame Islam around
the world.
Finally,
this should also be known to the readers that what has been proved in this
article is only related to the war-related situation and not applicable to the
era of peace under the just law and order of the Constitution.