Khalid Chraibi - SaudiDebate.

com
Muslim society issues - Islamic law –

Extremists cannot claim Koranic

justification for violence despite proud
boasts of ‘jihadis’:
Saturday, 28 July 2007

By Khalid Chraibi

Watching TV news programmes these days, one gets the impression that the whole Middle
East is in turmoil, with terrible acts of violence taking place routinely in a multiplicity of
settings. The distress is at its peak in Iraq where, every single day, trucks and cars laden with
explosives are rammed into crowded places, such as a central market or a mosque at the time
of the midday prayer, and detonated, killing dozens of civilians and wounding hundreds of
people.

This wave of violence is only marginally directed at foreign troops of occupation. The
overwhelming majority of the victims are civilians who are not even individually targeted, but
simply belong to a group that their adversaries have decided to attack, such as the employees
of some administration, or the members of a religious group (Sunni or Shi'a). Many of the
victims are accounted for merely as "collateral damage", i.e. people who happened to be
standing within the range of an explosive device, at the time of explosion.

The authors of these acts of violence proudly describe themselves as "jihadists", "salafi", etc.
to underline their Islamic affiliations. Based on this, Western governments and media lump all
these acts together under the generic label of "terrorism", attributing them to a resurgence of
religious extremism in the Muslim world. They either present them as symbols of an ongoing
"clash of civilizations" between Islamic countries and the West, or point at them as an
indication of the struggle between conservatism and modernity in Muslim societies.

Nevertheless, most Muslims find it hard to reconcile these acts of violence with the
teachings of their religion. But, the political/religious leaders who mastermind such actions
have developed their own "fatwas" about them, which they use to convince would-be suicide-
bombers of the righteousness of their acts of violence.

They justified their actions as follows, in a recent interview published by a major American
newspaper: "In the typical car bombing, God will identify those who deserve to die - for
example, anyone helping the enemy - and send them to hell. The other victims will go to
paradise. ‘The innocent who is hurt, he won't suffer. He becomes a martyr himself'." (1)

Nor, do they feel any distress about the random killing of children in such operations, because
"Children receive special consideration in death. They are not held accountable for any sins
until puberty, and if they are killed in a jihad operation they will go straight to heaven. There,
they will instantly age to their late 20s, and enjoy the same access to virgins and other benefits
as martyrs receive." (1)

Many Saudi youth have been associated, in recent years, with this type of violence, in such
diverse settings as Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, North Africa, etc. The Saudi
authorities are worried about this situation, and try to develop new guidelines to provide the
youth with the appropriate religious guidance, including within the environment of summer
camps this summer, to enable them to distinguish between true Islamic teachings and "deviant
ideology".

Thus, at a meeting with more than 600 imams and khateebs in late June 2007, Saudi Interior
Minister Prince Naif expressed his concern about Saudi youth involvement in acts of violence
in Iraq and Lebanon. He was quoted by the Saudi Press Agency as asking the imams, and
beyond them Saudi society more generally: "Do you know that your children who go to Iraq
are used only for blowing themselves up, causing the deaths of innocents? Are you happy for
your children to become instruments of murder?" He's reported to have added: "Do you want
people in your society who call you, your state and your leaders infidels?"

The Prince emphasized the positive role that imams and khateebs could play in the country's
fight against terrorism, "deviant ideology" and destructive thoughts and ideas, by regularly
using the Friday sermon in over 14 000 mosques to expose the "deviants" and their ideology.

In theory, the task of the imams and khateebs is quite straightforward and simple.

They have to explain to Saudi youth that Islam is based on the respect of life and property,
freedom, equality, solidarity and justice for all. It is the religion of "ummat al wassatt" (the
community of the Just, or of the Middle position) as explained in the following verse: "Thus
have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations,
and the Messenger a witness over yourselves;..." (Al-Baqarah II:143)

Islam opposes extremism in religion, as explained in the verse: "Say: O People of the Book!
exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor
follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by, who misled many, and
strayed (themselves) from the even Way." (Al-Maidah, V:77)

The Prophet also warned repeatedly and strongly against extremism in religion, emphasizing
that it was the cause of the disasters which befell earlier nations.
Thus, Islam abhors the indiscriminate killing of civilians and non-combatants. The high value
that Islam places on human life is clearly expressed in a multiplicity of Kor'anic verses such
as: "...take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth
He command you, that ye may learn wisdom." (Al-An'am, VI:151)

Or: "if anyone slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it
would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved
the life of the whole people." (Al-Maidah V:32)

The principle of sacredness of human life is also emphasized in the "Universal Islamic
Declaration of Human Rights" of 19 September 1981 (21 Dhul Qaidah 1401) which states:
"Human life is sacred and inviolable and every effort shall be made to protect it. In particular
no one shall be exposed to injury or death, except under the authority of the Law."

Islam also established very strict rules on how to deal with cases of murder. Capital
punishment can be applied by a court of law, which respects due process. But, no individual is
allowed to take the law into his own hands, to decide at his personal whim who is to live and
who is to die, etc. Such a situation, if it were to take place, would be comparable to a state of
"fitna", which is strongly denounced by Islam. The Muslim community is organized to handle
and resolve all the conflicts between its members through peaceful means, or using the
alternative means which the shari'ah has established.

The imams are also to remind the youth that, even in a situation of warfare, Islam has
established very strict rules, which all parties to the conflict have to respect. These rules were
observed during the life of the Prophet, with the objective of ensuring that damages were
limited to what was necessary, without unnecessary destruction of life (women, civilians, old
people, non-fighters) and property (trees, orchards, wells, cattle, etc.).

The Caliph Abu Bakr reminded his troops of these rules, on the eve of their departure for
battle, as follows:

"Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not
commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither
kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with
fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food.
You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them
alone."

It is clear from the preceding statements that Islam is definitely opposed to the
indiscriminate killing of people, no matter what the circumstances may be.

It also stands against takfeer, which is another aspect of extremism. Clearly, one cannot say on
a whim that other Muslim people are "kouffar" (infidels) who can therefore be killed without
any misgivings. This would be the most extreme case of "fitna". Resort to violence, even at
the State level, is the exception and not the rule. It must take place within strict rules: no
abuse of power, no excess, respect of non-combatants (civilians, women, children, elderly...),
respect of private property, which must not be destroyed except in extreme situations... One
can't say, in this respect, that he wants to promote the values and principles of Islam, while he
violates himself all its fundamental rules to achieve his own political objectives.
In short, in a modern State, people cannot take the law into their own hands. Individuals can't
declare war to foreign States. Nor can they declare war to their own established Government.
Otherwise, the community enters into a situation of anarchy, of "fitna".

The confusion between politics, religion and "fitna" is promoted by all the parties concerned
in the conflicts raging in the Middle East, because it fits with each participant's agenda.
Western Governments and media can point to the violence and explain it by religious
extremism, so that they don't have to delve into the complex political conflicts taking place in
Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc. The political authorities of a country can explain the
violence as the product of "religious extremism" or of a "deviant" ideology, rather than as a
rebellion against their authority. The "jihadists" can claim that they are merely trying to
achieve the objective of a unified "ummah" set by Islam, rather than the political objectives
they truly have in mind, such as the conquest of power in a given country.

The people at large may be left bewildered by all these conflicting claims. But, the
unquestionable fact is that Islam is the religion of "ummat al wassatt" (the nation of the Just
people, or the people of the Middle position) which abhors all acts of extremism in any aspect
of life. In particular, Islam is based on the respect of life and property, freedom, equality,
solidarity and justice for all. One can't do away with all the values it stands for, and
everything it teaches, and still assert with any credibility that he's acting on its behalf.

Notes :

(1) Michael Moss and Souad Mekhennet: 'The Guidebook For Taking A Life', The New York Times, Week in
Review, June 10, 2007)