Here is an interesting article I read recently and decided to share (of course, this is the best time to share such an article judging by what's happening)

For the past four days I had been working on the following article, which I intended to post yesterday evening. However, I then heard about the vile and sadistic act of violence carried out by two men with knives and a meat cleaver in Woolwich. So I thought it best to review the blog post in light of the event, to see if I should develop it in any way. But barring a few edits here and there, I am posting the article more or less as it was originally written.

This is a brief overview of what Islam has to say about jihad, terrorism and the sanctity of human life. It bases itself, not on the need to please policy makers or the powers to be, nor on a colonialised mindset desperate to fit Islam into some acceptable liberal mould, but upon the texts of the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and the consensus (ijma') and considerations of mainstream Muslim jurists.

On a personal note, combating terrorism, and its ideological underpinnings, has long been a significant part of my da'wah or outreach programme; and all praise is for God. It was animated long before the events of 9-11 or 7-7; since 1992 in fact, when a few of my teachers in shari'ah alerted me to its realities, dangers and its unIslamic character. What follows is, as stated earlier, a brief trek across some of that terrain:

1. The first thing to mention in this regards is Islam's outlook concerning the sanctity (hurmah) of human life. For as Islam views it, the human creature is indeed a sacred creation; so much so that: Whoever kills a person for other than crimes of manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he has killed the whole of humanity; and whosoever saves the life of one person, it shall be as if he has saved the whole of humanity. [5:32] Such, then, is the extraordinary value placed on human life in the Qur'an. And thus, as will be shown, acts of terror where women, children and other civilians are intentionally targeted and killed is categorically repudiated by Islam and by the agreement of those versed in law and learning among the Muslims.

2. Jihad as a word stems from jahada, which means: to strive, to exert oneself, to take extraordinary pains. As for its religious sense, al-Raghib al-Asbahani (d.425H/1034CE) defines it thus: 'Exerting one's utmost ability in repelling an enemy, and it is of three kinds: namely, contending against the outward enemy, the devil, and one's ego. Each of these enters into God's statement, exalted is He: And strive for God as He rightly must be striven for. [22:78] And strive with your wealth and your lives in the cause of God. [9:41] Also: Those who believed and left their homes and strove with their wealth and their lives in the cause of God. [8:72]'1

3. In Islam, the decision about war and peace is not left to scholars, soldiers, or anyone else. Rather it rests with the head of state who wields executive authority. This being a cardinal rule of warfare in Islam. Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi (d.620H/1223CE) explains the rule like so: 'The question of declaring war [or not] is entrusted to the head of state and his decision (amr al-jihad mawkulun ila'l-imām wa ijtihadihi). Compliance with the decision is the subject's duty in terms of what the authorities deem fit in the matter.'2 Al-Buhuti (1051H/1641CE) echoes the principle: 'Declaring jihad or not is entrusted to the head of state and his decision, for he best knows the condition of the Muslims and of the enemy.'3

4. The classical Islamic doctrine that forbids killing non-combatants and civilians in an outward (military) jihad takes its cue from the Prophet's words, peace be upon him: 'March forth in the name of God, trusting in God and adhering to the religion of God. Do not kill elderly men, infants, young children or women.'4 And Ibn 'Umar relates that the Prophet, peace be upon him, 'forbade the killing of women and children.'5

5. After quoting the last hadith, imām al-Nawawi (d.676H/1277CE) typified the juristic consensus on the issue when he said: 'Scholars concur upon acting by this hadith and forbid the killing of women and children, provided that they do not engage in combat. But if they do, the overwhelming majority of scholars (jamahir al-'ulema) hold that they may be fought.'6 Ibn Qudamah, explaining the logic behind the consensus against not fighting women, the elderly, children, monks or traders, writes that each of these 'are non-combatants (laysa min ahl al-qital).'7 Again, he states: 'It is not permissible to kill a child among them, nor the insane, nor a woman, monk, elderly man, someone with a debilitating illness, and nor a blind man – except if they fight.'8

6. Thus, as has been shown, the intentional targeting and killing of civilians, which a fringe minority now seek to pass off as a bonafide jihad, is a gross departure from the classical juristic consensus and a perversion of the prophetic teachings. The wanton carnage and urban mayhem unleashed upon civilian lives, and the twisted re-readings of Islam's scriptural sources by the current vanguards of terrorism, must continue to be denounced, repudiated and textually exposed. In unmasking terrorism (hiraba) for what it truly is, it has been aptly contended that: 'Terrorism is to jihad what adultery is to marriage.'9 The Qur'an says: 'What! Have you slain an innocent soul though he has killed nobody? Truly you have done a thing most foul.' [18:73]

7. One argument extremists use to justify their acts of terror is to allege that civilians living in a democracy aren't innocent at all. Their logic runs like this: In a democracy the government represents the will of the people, therefore civilian populations are complicit in their government's foreign policies and are thus legitimate targets in war. This allegation is as false as it is factually distorted. What this reductionist everyone's-guilty-in-a-democracy argument ignores or overlooks is that large swathes of citizens in a democracy may not agree with their government's foreign policies, or even have voted them into power! So how can such citizens be complicit in their government's actions? The anti-war demonstrations and protests against the Iraq war, for instance, which scores of millions of ordinary citizens across Western Europe and the United States rallied behind, is enough to show the fallacy of such logic. Moreover, as we shall see below, the shari'ah still considers such people as not being min ahl al-qital – “actual combatants”.

8. A more direct rebuttal of this twisted logic would be to look at the context in which the Prophet, peace be upon him, prohibited the killing of women, children and other civilians in war. This injunction was given when the Prophet, peace be upon him, and the early Muslims were in the midst of war with the pagan Arabs of Mecca, whose goal was no less than the extermination of Muslims. The Makkan idolators were a tightly–knit confederacy whose tribal elders would make decisions collectively at their tribal councils. The average person in such a society had far greater access to their elders and leaders and far more influence on policies than any citizen in today's Western democracies. In fact, it was not uncommon for women (either married or related to tribal leaders, or those with social influence) to pressurise, cajole and even threaten their husbands into war with the Muslims, on pain of family disgrace and tribal ignominy, if they did not do so. During the battle of Uhud, women, led by Hind, even went out onto the battlefield to lend moral support to the aggressors. In spite of knowing all this, the Prophet, peace be upon him, still insisted: 'Do not kill elderly men, young children, or women.'10 And when he once saw a woman that had been killed, he said: 'This is not one who should have been fought.'11

9. Another proof used to justify the killing of civilians is a hadith in which the Prophet was asked about some of the idolators whose settlements had been attacked at night and which resulted in a few women and children being killed. This led him to say: 'They are from them (hum minhum).'12 There are two reasons why this hadith cannot be used in this manner: Firstly, a large body of jurists consider the hadith to have been abrogated by the explicit command to 'not kill civilians in war.'13 Secondly, jurists who do permit night raids that could result in civilian loss clearly state: 'This is provided they [women, children and other non-combatants] are not deliberately targeted.'14 It is also interesting that a leading jurist of early Islam, as well as the actual sub-narrator of this hadith, imām al-Zuhri, would qualify the above hadith by immediately relating the hadith which forbids killing civilians. Thus: 'Whenever al-Zuhri related this hadith, he would say: “Ka'b b. Malik's son narrated to me; from his uncle … that the Prophet, peace be upon him, forbade the killing of women and children.”'15

10. Another aspect of the shari'ah which bears on the subject, but which has also come under extremism's aberrant re-readings, is the notion of 'aqd al-aman – “the covenant of security”. What this implies is that Muslims residing, for instance, in a non-Muslim land – either native born, naturalised or legal resident – are under an explicit pact or contract which renders all non-Muslim life, property and honour sacrosanct. That is, Muslim citizens of non-Muslim countries cannot engage in acts of aggression against their own state of fellow citizens. Ibn Qudamah said: 'As for treachery towards them, this is expressly forbidden. For they only granted him security on condition that he not betray them and that they be safe from his harm. If this is not stipulated in explicit terms, it is implicitly implied. …This being so, it is unlawful for us to be treacherous to them, since this is betrayal; and our religion has no place for betrayal. The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: “The Muslims fulfil their contracts.”16'17

11. It isn't possible to stress enough how seriously orthodox Islam takes the obligation to honour contracts and covenants, or how unlawful it is for a Muslim who lives or resides in a land to then attack it or its citizens. What should also be appreciated is that a Muslim may even hold the following opinion with no internal contradiction with the above ten points: that America and Britain are waging wars of aggression in the Middle East; however, Muslims who are under a pledge of security may not attack their country, nor its soldiers, nor any of its citizens. One hadith has this threat of humiliation and ignominy: 'For every person who betrays a covenant will have a flag at his back on the Day of Judgement, which will be raised according to the level of his treachery.'18

To conclude: the chorus of condemnation from Islam's textual sources and religious authorities, against acts of terror, must continue to ring out urgently and loudly. If we wish to be dissenting voices on any issue of domestic or foreign policy, we must find legitimate ways within the democratic process to voice such dissent.

It is to their credit that Muslim scholars, despite differences between them on a whole array of theological and legal issues, have come out so unanimously against terrorism. What we also ask of them is to continue to strive to expose and eradicate the deviant notions and assumptions that underpin it. Our governments (British and American) also have a responsibility to act. For they can drain much of the extremists' anger by securing a fair resolution to the Palestinian problem, closing Guantanamo Bay prison, and enacting just foreign policies. It is for the Muslim scholars, however, to vanquish the twisted fiqh-cum-theology of the terrorists.

source: http://muslimmatters.org/2013/05/25/terrorism-is-to-jihad-as-adultery-is-to-marriage-shaykh-abu-aaliyah-shurkeel/

As much as I know the media will be quick to jump to the anti-islamic campaigns they are known for as soon as these extremists display their behaviours, I must also say that scholars should denounce these acts outrightly and call preachers of extremisms to order.

none-muslims need answers, telling them Islam is about peace is not the solution anymore. We all have to denounce these people and their devilish acts.

One need to read orthodox islam to know that Islam is not associated with extremism, but none-muslims don't, what they hear (and see) is what they know - islam is about jihad. No amount of preachings will change their notion about Islam.

So, I believe the only solution now is to act, we need to do something about these things, because whether we like it or not, each time things like this happens, the image of Islam suffers.

yusuf01: As much as I know the media will be quick to jump to the anti-islamic campaigns they are known for as soon as these extremists display their behaviours,

Can you honestly blame them?

I must also say that scholars should denounce these acts outrightly and call preachers of extremisms to order.

none-muslims need answers, telling them Islam is about peace is not the solution anymore. We all have to denounce these people and their devilish acts.

Well said... very well said.

One need to read orthodox islam to know that Islam is not associated with extremism, but none-muslims don't, what they hear (and see) is what they know - islam is about jihad. No amount of preachings will change their notion about Islam.

Islam has had quite bloody history,coupled with the recent unfortunate events where lunatics quote the Quran to justify their violence, any sane mind will put two and two together. Its not rocket science

So, I believe the only solution now is to act, we need to do something about these things, because whether we like it or not, each time things like this happens, the image of Islam suffers.

Again well said. Thats sense right there.

Can you honestly blame them?

No, I won't if there is not a tinge of bias in their report, We all know what the media said on the war on Iraq - "war against terrorism" even when it was an invasion.

I'm not playing the victim here, but you and I know the west is biased in giving report when it comes to Islam, it is always laced with hatred.

Islam has had quite bloody history

A student of history will know all major monotheistic religions were spread through violence, but some non-muslims of other faiths (being hyprocrites) will give reasons for their violent pasts. We all know the crusade against the muslims - by christians - in the early 1000AD that lasted more than 200 years.

And to say God does not support wars is also displaying one's hypocritic tendencies - Moses (as) was commanded to wage wars against 4 to 5 tribes in the bible, does that make him less of a prophet? but Muhammed (saw) is labelled a war monger, despite that prophets before him performed several military operations.

All I'm saying is, the spread of faith and violence is as old as the faith itself. Hatred and love is part of human emotional tendencies, countries will wage wars against one another till the end of time. It is the way it is. Each person fights for what he believes to be worth fighting for.

But...

In Islam, the decision about war and peace is not left to scholars, soldiers, or anyone else. Rather it rests with the head of state who wields executive authority. This being a cardinal rule of warfare in Islam.

As you can see, only the islamic ruler "who wields executive authority" declares military operations. Just like the president of a country is responsible for such commands.

Islam has guidelines which must be followed before going on jihad (part of which I quoted), not launching guerrilla attacks all in the name of protecting Islam.

In fact, the rebellion by the kawaarij during the time of Uthman (ra) gave way to the fitnah we find ourselves today.

.

yusuf01:

A student of history will know all major monotheistic religions were spread through violence, but some non-muslims of other faiths (being hyprocrites) will give reasons for their violent pasts. We all know the crusade against the muslims - by christians - in the early 1000bc that lasted more than 200 years.

A real student of history would know that Christianity was spread throughout the middle east for the first 300 years without firing a single shot until the time of Constantine the Great who mixed religion and warfare and it led to the collapse of the Roman Empire. His attempt at killing for God and country partly led to his empires downfall.

A real student of history would know that as soon as the Prophet Mohammed passed away his followers began to spread Islam through UNPROVOKED wars of conquest by invading their neighbors and after 4 Centuries 2/3 of the Christian world was overrun; Lands of Iran, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Eygpt, Jordan, Turkey,Jerusalem, Spain, India, China. Tens of millions died in the hands of these invaders. It was in the course of invading Turkey that the Christian Emperor of Constantinople(modern day Turkey)called for aid against the invaders and in the year 1092 Pope Urban rallied troops to his aid and also to also free Jerusalem (where pilgrims were killed harassed and churches converted to stables).

That was what led to the Crusades; It was a belated attempt by Christendom to respond to Islamic expansion and aggression. As some point Christendom was in danger of being subsumed by Islam through a method it was least familiar with - Warfare.

Please study your history well. Don't depend on hearsay because if you had studied history well you would have known not to confuse dates as your "early 1000bc".

Now back to the thread.

wow, you are a real student of history

tiarabubu:
A real student of history would know that Christianity was spread throughout the middle east for the first 300 years without firing a single shot until the time of Constantine the Great who mixed religion and warfare and it led to the collapse of the Roman Empire. His attempt at killing for God and country partly led to his empires downfall.

but, why shoot yourself in the foot?

Wanted to let go but decided to respond, it's funny how hypocritical we can be, you gave 'reasons' why Constantine the Great went into wars - because he mixed religion and warfare. You even went on to say that that lead to the downfall of his empire, but ask yourself: had it been he was successful, wouldn't you have had another twist to the event? just asking...

Look, all I'm saying is no new faith comes without any millitary action (either in confrontation or oppression) it is the way it is.

You must look beyond military operations, if waging wars is the only way to know the truthfulness of a particular faith, then I believe you should denounce Moses (as) as one of the prophets because he went into quite a lot (and UNPROVOKED).

And talk about David, Saul... these are phophets of God, they all went into battles, lots of them. So, why single out one and decide to call him a war monger?

and just to let you know, I've corrected the honest mistake I made as regards date...

Anyways, don't wanna go into arguments... have a nice read!

tiarabubu:

A real student of history would know that Christianity was spread throughout the middle east for the first 300 years without firing a single shot until the time of Constantine the Great who mixed religion and warfare and it led to the collapse of the Roman Empire. His attempt at killing for God and country partly led to his empires downfall.

A real student of history would know that as soon as the Prophet Mohammed passed away his followers began to spread Islam through UNPROVOKED wars of conquest by invading their neighbors and after 4 Centuries 2/3 of the Christian world was overrun; Lands of Iran, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Eygpt, Jordan, Turkey,Jerusalem, Spain, India, China. Tens of millions died in the hands of these invaders. It was in the course of invading Turkey that the Christian Emperor of Constantinople(modern day Turkey)called for aid against the invaders and in the year 1092 Pope Urban rallied troops to his aid and also to also free Jerusalem (where pilgrims were killed harassed and churches converted to stables).

That was what led to the Crusades; It was a belated attempt by Christendom to respond to Islamic expansion and aggression. As some point Christendom was in danger of being subsumed by Islam through a method it was least familiar with - Warfare.

Please study your history well. Don't depend on hearsay because if you had studied history well you would have known not to confuse dates as your "early 1000bc".

Now back to the thread.

Tiara, in the history of mankind there has not been a time when a message or a social order was propagated non-violently. Those who seek to spread their belief system among humankind must be prepared to meet monumental obstacle in fierce opposition to their ideology. The opposition create friction and antagonism which then lead to bloodletting. No religion whivh is today spread among mankind on every continent was without a violent and bloody past; none!

The war in Iraq was a war for natural resources to sustain Christian ideologues. It was not a war against terror. In retaliation for 3000 American lives the lives and livelihood of over a million people more is destroyed. Where is the sense in that? Regardless, all of the three mainstream religions have blood on their hands. No exception, you can call it terror, you can call it democracy, call it crusade or jihad, call it capitalism if you want, it's all bloody and destructive.

^^^^

Avail yourself of history books and records. Christianity spread all over the middle east and throughout the Roman Empire for 300 years after the death of Jesus without a conquests till Emperor Constantine started fighting. On the other hand Islam started on a war footing soon after the death of the Prophet by invading other land from Arabia to China . Please avail yourself the facts.


I dont believe in making sweeping statements such as the one you made: "The war in Iraq was a war for natural resources to sustain Christian ideologues" because (i)you can't prove it and (ii) its borne out of a desire to believe anything to justify your anger about what is happening.

You may feel the need to justify your faith. That's fine. I am not contesting anything but to interject and state the facts of the matter which I did. You will be wiser and can draw your own conclusions.

tiarabubu: ^^^^

Avail yourself of history books and records. Christianity spread all over the middle east and throughout the Roman Empire for 300 years after the death of Jesus without a conquests till Emperor Constantine started fighting. On the other hand Islam started on a war footing soon after the death of the Prophet by invading other land from Arabia to China . Please avail yourself the facts.


I dont believe in making sweeping statements such as the one you made: "The war in Iraq was a war for natural resources to sustain Christian ideologues" because (i)you can't prove it and (ii) its borne out of a desire to believe anything to justify your anger about what is happening.

You may feel the need to justify your faith. That's fine. I am not contesting anything but to interject and state the facts of the matter which I did. You will be wiser and can draw your own conclusions.

@the bolded: er, Islamic wars did not wait for him to die before breaking out. Islam was preached almost right from his first word with a sword in hand.

tiarabubu: ^^^^

Avail yourself of history books and records. Christianity spread all over the middle east and throughout the Roman Empire for 300 years after the death of Jesus without a conquests till Emperor Constantine started fighting. On the other hand Islam started on a war footing soon after the death of the Prophet by invading other land from Arabia to China . Please avail yourself the facts.


I dont believe in making sweeping statements such as the one you made: "The war in Iraq was a war for natural resources to sustain Christian ideologues" because (i)you can't prove it and (ii) its borne out of a desire to believe anything to justify your anger about what is happening.

You may feel the need to justify your faith. That's fine. I am not contesting anything but to interject and state the facts of the matter which I did. You will be wiser and can draw your own conclusions.

Whether it happened right away or 100yrs later is immaterial, all the religions have history of terrorism. You don't believe in making sweeping statements but you already made more than a fair share of them on this thread.

Terrorism is rampant in all religions, period!

Indebtness to society via the tools and ploy of capitalism is nothing but terrorism. Islam happens to be the only religion that prohibits indebtedness and we never hear people comment on this but everyone wants to beat the drum and play the tune of "Islam is Terror". No, Islam is not terror, mankind through his ego is a terror; depending on what ideology that ego chooses to express itself to torment and subdue people who do not share, and don't care to share its belief and values.