John L. Esposito,professor of religion and international affairs at Georgetown University and founding director of its Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, has this column in the Lebanese Daily Star. In it, he looks at the debate taking place within the Islamic world over the use of violence. He finds that Islam has its theories about a ‘Just War’ and the terms of debate are opening being debated. The piece is worth reading for its overview of who is saying what and worth reading.
Violence in God’s name: the Islamists’ debate
John EspositoDoes the Koran condone acts of terrorism? Why haven’t Muslims denounced the 9/11 attacks and suicide bombing?
Whether in the media or public discussions, these are common and persistent questions. But, in fact, major Muslim religious leaders and Muslim organizations have and do speak out. The media tends not to find these fatwas (religious legal opinions) and statements newsworthy but they are available on the Internet.
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, for example, Muhammad Abdul-Rashid, the most senior Muslim chaplain in the American armed forces, asked for a fatwa about whether American Muslim military could participate in the war in Afghanistan and in other Muslim countries. A group of prominent religious authorities concluded that “[a]ll Muslims ought to be united against all those who terrorize the innocents, and those who permit the killing of non-combatants without a justifiable reason,” and that it was acceptable “to partake in the fighting in the upcoming battles, against whomever their country decides has perpetrated terrorism against them.”
Islam, like other religions, distinguishes between legitimate and illegitimate acts of violence. The Koran does not advocate or condone illegitimate violence or terrorism. The Islamic tradition places extensive limits on the use of violence and rejects terrorism, hijackings and hostage taking. However, Muslims are permitted, indeed at times required, to defend their religion, their families and the Islamic community from aggression.
What about suicide bombers? What about violence against non-combatants? Since the late 20th century, these issues have resurfaced in Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, America and Europe as suicide bombing has come to be equated with martyrdom, relinquishing one’s life for defense of Islam and the community.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
August:20:2007 - 12:15
The article is well thought out and makes the important points that need to be made.
The issue becomes clouded when the question is asked : does Islam allow this or that type of action ? But one should often look at the situation in purely “civilian” terms, without any religious connotations. Then the answers become easier to find.
For example, does one have the right to defend himself, his family, his community, his homeland against foreign occupation? Of course, he has that right, according to all the well-established rules of national and international law.
Does he have the right to use any means at his disposal to do that? One should look up the answer to this question in the military training manual of the major armies of the world. The answer may differ slightly from one manual to another, but I would guess the answer would generally be positive.
After all, the Allies bombed Dresden to shreds during WWII, killing a hundred thousand civilians, just to make a demonstration of their firing power, and to terrorize the German population into surrendering.
Truman ordered the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing several hundred thousand civilians, just to make the point that America did have an atomic bomb, and was willing to use it without any misgivings to destroy Japan.
The Americans in Vietnam used everything they could lay their hands on, including napalm, to fight the North Vietnamese.
So, it seems that in war, anything goes, when all is said and done, despite all the pretenses.
The other important question often raised is: Does one have the right to kill people just because they belong to a different religious community? The answer should be obvious. Of course, he has no right. All national laws (as well as international law) oppose that.
August:20:2007 - 13:38
The role of civilians is important as well. When does one cease to be a civilian and become a combatant? Israel is a good case in point for this one as all able bodied men, with the exception of the ultra orthodox, are required to serve in the military until retirement age. First as full time soldiers and later as reservists.
This fact makes it legitimate to ask if attacking targets with Israeli men, in or out of uniform, is legitimate. We are constantly told that AQ and it’s like do not wear uniforms, yet they remain targets, the same could be said of Israeli males as well.
So called “suicide attacks” have a long history in war. How many soldiers have been sent on missions where the assumption is that they are not going to come back? I guess the bigger difference would have to be on what constituted a valid target for such soldiers.
Dresden is a good example used by al Waleed. Thousands of civilians and wounded killed. The town was picked directly because of the terror factor it would cause. It was home to many who had fled the Russian forces, injured German soldiers and the like.
I dislike using Islam as a way of judging warfare doctrines many of which were around before Islam. If you have 30 people gathered you will get 30 different opinions as to what Islam allows or doesnt allow.
August:20:2007 - 15:46
Abu Sinan: I think it a bit of stretch to equate Israeli army reservists with un-uniformed terrorists. For one, except in the act of direct self-defense, the Israelis are not using their weapons. A second point might be in the type of weapons involved. Are the Israeli reservists now using car bombs and IEDs? Until they do, there’s no equation.
I’m also not as ready as either you or al Waleed to use Dresden as an example, nor to even declare it a war crime. I do not approve of the bombing of Dresden, but it was at least arguably a legitimate war target. It was not, after all, only a place of refuge. Among the reasons put forth at the planning of the raid was that it would serious complicate Nazi communications and transport, which it did in fact do. The fact that it was debatable was begrudingly admitted by the British who did not honor ‘Bomber Harris’ after the war, the only senior British officer not to be commended.
Take a look at the Wikipedia entry on the bombing of Dresden. It acknowledges the controversy and gives both sides of the argument. You will, of course, make your own decisions, but I caution against using today’s yardsticks to measure actions of over 60 years ago. The world both looked and worked differently then than it does today.
August:21:2007 - 08:12
I dont see too much difference in a missle launched from a helicopter into a crowded street and a car bomb. Both, by their very natures, are going to kill civilians, yet they are done anyway. Remember the 1,000 pound bomb that was dropped on an apartment building in Gaza a few years back in the middle of the night?
What is the difference between that and a car bomb? Both are done knowing that numerous, perhaps dozens of innocents will die. There is no difference. It is a casual indifference to civilian casualties that marks both such acts.
Besides, yes the Israelis and those working for them have used car bombs, and other such types of bombs. The Mossad is known for these things and did so many times during the civil war in Lebanon.
Dresden was not a legitimate war target, unless you accept the idea that tens of thousands of civilian deaths, no matter what the target, are legitimate. I do not. It would seem you, like the Israelis, think that sacrificing large amounts of civilians for a dubious military goal is worthwhile. I have a higher regard for civilian life than this.
Based on your rational we could argue that the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 was legitimate. The rational was that it would disrupt and seriously complicate American military communications and planning, which it did. It is a military command and control center, a legitimate target of war. Bin Laden declared war on the USA……Never mind the fact that innocent civilians were going to die in the attack.
Based on your rational we could argue that the twin towers attack was legit. The rational is that the attacks would seriously damage the American economy and force the US into over reacting abroad. Both legitimate aims in a war time setting. It did both of these things.
If you accept the idea that massive civilian casualties are okay to further a war target/aim, then we must apply this idea across the board.
I do not condone the use of massive civilian casualties for any reason. Unfortunatly I do not share your conclusion that the world looked and worked differently today than it did back then. Between the Iraqi sanctions and our invasion some 1,000,000 plus civilians have died. It looks all too much like the world in the 1940s.
It is sad to say we haven’t changed at all that much.
August:21:2007 - 09:19
Well, one difference might be that the use of the 1,000 pound bomb was both publicly criticized and the ones responsible for authorizing its use were punished. I don’t see that happening with car bombers much.
There’s also the matter of policy. A policy to cause civilian deaths, differs significantly from a policy that seeks to minimize them. Yes, for those who are killed, the difference is of little account. But in assigning blame, it’s an important difference.
The Pentagon was, very arguably, a legitimate target. What was illegitimate was killing the passengers of AA-77 to do so. The attacks on the WTC are seen as illegitimate because the relationship between those working in the buildings and any Islamic cause was extremely tenuous, to the point of insanity. It made sense to UBL and Ward Churchill, but that’s about it.
I do not approve of civilian casualties, mass or not. I do realize, though, as do the Geneva Conventions, that civilians do get killed in wars. When we have no war, we will have no civilian casualties. That was a very popular mantra during the 60s, but we’re not at that time yet. The numbers of civilians killed through war inadvertence has dropped significantly over the past decades. The numbers of civilians killed through intentional targeting by terrorists has risen. I can draw my own conclusions from that.
I do not accept your argument that anyone other than Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of Iraqis during the period of the UN sanctions. Why are you so quick to excuse his theft of the money intended to feed Iraqis and provide medical care to the children of Iraq? You don’t think he could have prevented those deaths by deferring his building of dozens of palaces during that time? You don’t think that he could have fed them had he used the money as it was intended, rather than seeking to acquire arms? And even with all the money he diverted, it was not enough: he had to corrupt UN officials and others to get even more.
Another difference you ignore is that UBL had no authority to declare war, other than a revolution against his own country. (And that fades away when you realize he had no country.) Wars are between states (which is why the phrase ‘War on Terror’ is a misnomer). As a non-state actor, UBL could not legitimately kill civilians or anyone else. UBL may be a lot of things, but an army is not one of them.
August:21:2007 - 11:36
I dont think Israeli policy is to minimize civilian deaths. If so, they have done a rather poor job of it considering they have killed several thousand civilians in the last 5 or 6 years.
You miss the point about the twin towers. Do you accept that trying to cripple or destroy an enemy’s financial sector and economy is a legitimate act of war?
If so then the attack on the twin towers was as legit as the attack on Dresden.
We knew that Saddam was not using the money and goods he got properly and that the sanctions were thus killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. To continue the sanctions even though we knew they were not working and even though we knew that hundreds of thousands of people were dying, in my mind, was criminal.
Sanctions do not work. They didnt work in Iraq, they didnt work with Cuba, and they will not work with Iran. Knowing this, it is criminal to continue to use them whilst the poorest and the weakest suffer.
Saddam could have used the monies to save his people, but we knew that he wouldnt, we knew that hundreds of thousands were dying. Knowing that, the sanctions should have stopped.
Ah, so as a state actor you can legitimately kill civilians eh? I guess it pays to be a state actor, you are allowed to slaughter civilians.
As to the fact of his having no country, that is a bit bogus. Sure the Saudis revoked his citizenship, but in a normal democratic country that would have never happened. Bin Laden gained his citizenship on birth. What other normal democratic country allows for it’s citizens to be stripped of their citizenship in such a manner? Even Jonh Walker Lindh is still an American.
There really is a thin line between what the “terrorists” do and what the state actors involved in these conflicts do. I find no difference in firing helicopter rockets into crowded streets in Gaza and setting up IEDs that target Iraqi or American police and kill civilians. A legitimate target is struck without considering the civilians. No difference.
If you think wars are between states you are working on a rather dated idea of what war is. If war is between states, what state are we fighting against when Bush talks about a “war on terror” or states that “we are at war”? If war is nothing more than action between two or more states, then we are not at war? There is no war on terror? I think you ought to let the GOP know that.
August:21:2007 - 12:39
Destroying the WTC would have been a legitimate act of war had there been a legitimate war. Since UBL lacked the authority to enter into a formal state of war, his act is defined as terrorism. Had he been the head of a state, in a declared war against the US, the WTC would have been justly targetable.
So, we reward Saddam because he’s callous enough to let his citizens die while he builds palaces and armies, huh? Remind me not to be a citizen in whatever country you’re ruling.
State actors do, by international law, have a different set of responsibilities than non-state actors. Start reading up on the UN documents, the Vienna Conventions, the Hague Conventions, every diplomatic agreement that has led to the state of international law. Now, you may not like that fact, but fact it remains.
The nature of war is changing, I readily admit that. But we’re stuck with the laws we have until we can change them.
August:21:2007 - 13:08
[...] Posted by Ron Coleman on August 21st, 2007 John Burgess, who does the Crossroads Arabia blog, tries to keep it civil with commentors who have some trouble seeing the difference between terrorism and warfare. [...]
August:22:2007 - 08:04
John,
You are ignoring the fact that the US President has stated that we are at war. Obviously he believes that bin Laden, can and does have the ability to wage war.
The President thinks we are at war, most of Congress does as well. Are they all wrong? If so Bush is in a huge amount of trouble as he is justifying a lot of his actions based on the fact that the US is “at war”.
Realising that massive amounts of innocents were dying does not “reward Saddam” it recognises reality.
You point the finger at me and say “Remind me not to be a citizen in whatever country you’re ruling”. I am hardly Saddam Hussein and wouldnt have got myself into the position that he got himself into. Nor would I allow myself to let my own citizens starve. That is kind of a personal jab John, I expected better of you.
Anyway, we knew Saddam had no issues killing his own people in large amounts, we were his best buddies when he was gassing the Kurds remember? Who in their right mind would think that Saddam would instantly starting caring for his own people when sanctions were set into place?
Anyone with half a mind would have known that the sanctions would not slow Saddam. He would just divert resources away from the people and continue as usual. It would have been clear that the sanctions would only hurt the innocent people, not Saddam. Seeing that, why institute them in the first place?
Empiral evidence, then should have trumped rhetoric. We knew thousands were dying, we knew the sanctions were not working, why not stop them? Why continue them knowing that the only effect there were having is massively raising the amount of dead children?
Sanctions just do not work, they never have, they never will. It is always the most vulnerable in any such society that pay the price, not the people the sanctions are targeted against.
August:22:2007 - 09:25
Saying, ‘We are at war,’ is not the same as a formal declaration of war. One of the major differences is that war can formally be declared only against a state. ‘War’ is here being used as a rhetorical devise, an exhortation (like the infamous ‘Crusade’). As such, it lacks certain elements necessary for the formal declaration, but its ambiguity does present problems (See the mess about those captured in Afghanistan and detained at Guantanamo.)
As I’ve noted, the rules and laws of war are in flux. The world is entering a new period where states do not have the monopoly on the use of violence on a large scale. In some regards, the various conventions are out of date.
I don’t accept your argument on the Iraq sanctions. The US had hoped that there was both a modicum of shame in Saddam, but also that other states obliged to enforce the sanctions would actually do so. We find that many, even our supposed allies in Europe, were content to look away when it came to a choice between sanctions or national income. Sanctions can work, but they are not always effective nor are they a precise instrument. Yes, innocents suffer, but the proximate cause is the behavior of their own leaders.
I’m sorry that you found my remark personally offensive. It was meant as a joke.
August:22:2007 - 10:51
So when the US “hopes” were not realised and it was clear that tens of thousands of the poorest and most endangered were dying in Iraq wouldnt it have made sense to stop the sanctions?
If they are not serving the purpose intended, rather are causing death, isnt it time to stop them? It doesnt really matter why they failed, they did. When that was clear they should have been stopped.
They were not stopped even when it was clear they had failed, the result was tens of thousands more dead children, elderly and sick.
August:22:2007 - 11:25
No it wouldn’t. It’s a cold equation, but true nevertheless that people do die as a consequence of the bad actions of their governments, not only other governments. You seem to keep ignoring that lots of money was going into Iraq to support humanitarian concerns, but Saddam wasn’t using it right.
The choice seems pretty clear: Remove Saddam so people can get the aid or keep sending money in the hope that the few pennies alloted to aid by Saddam might save a few lives.
(BTW, I don’t think you and I are going to be agreeing anytime soon on just what numbers are correct when counting those who died as a result of the embargo.)
Take a look at the kleptocracies in Africa. Should foreign assistance continue to be given because it might alleviate some suffering, even if the leaders of those countries are simply stealing most of the money? While those countries are not being formally boycotted, a reduction of foreign aid will necessarily lead to the death of innocents. So should the aid just keep coming in, no matter what? I would argue, “no.”
August:22:2007 - 12:19
I dont ignore the fact that Saddam was using the money for his own ends. How else would a mass murderer, a user of weapons of mass destruction be expected to act?
Let me guess, as soon as the sanctions started everyone expected Hussein to say “wow, I have seen the error of my ways. The people that I was murdering with chemical weapons, the women I was having raped, the men I was having shot in the head, the babies who my agents threw against the wall and murdered, they will all now be my top priority.”
We knew exactly what the consequences would be, hence the people that implemented the sanctions have a role in the deaths. Not an equal part with Hussein for sure, but they have a role in it no doubt.
I dont buy your lsit of choice. 1. Remove Saddam from power, but although international law doesnt really allow it, this shouldnt be an option. 2. Continue the sanctions and allow hundreds of thousands to die, clearly an immoral choice. 3. Not install immoral sanctions as the UN weapons program was clearly working as evidenced by some of it’s most senior inspectors.
Sanctions that directly result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands is not a moral act. Invading a country that does not pose a direct risk is not a moral act.
Numbers wise I think it is moot. The ones I have seen say about some 500,000 or more. I fail to see if the number is even 50,000 that the action of keeping the sanctions was moral. 50,000 or 500,000, the sanctions were immoral.
We invaded Iraq “because” of 3,000 dead Americans, so it is VERY clear that even numbers this small matter a great deal. So whether it is 5,000 or 500,000 the difference doesnt matter.
I wouldn’t want to argue about the numbers of dead because I find that such arguments are sick, looking at the dead as nothing more than cold hard numbers rather than living and breathing people who died when they didnt need to.
Kleptocracies in Africa? Since when does Africa matter? We invaded Iraq when far greater threats to human rights exist in Africa. That whole argument is a sham.
Of course you would argue no, because it isnt your family members that will die. If it was your family members that might die because of the actions of another country I would bet you would argue differently.
It is easy to sit here and discuss the lives of women and infants as if they are nothing more than cold numbers. 9/11 showed us what it is like to loose even a small number of people historically, less than 3,000. Look at how we, as a nation, overreacted about that. Imagine the hundreds of thousands that have died in Iraq from the first gulf war until now in a country much smaller than the USA in population.
Imagine the US loosing 10 million or so people based directly and indirectly on the actions of another nation.
It is very cold to sit and discuss the lives of women and children as if they were nothing more than pawns in a game.
It is too bad that as a country we dont view these people as our equals. It is over there, it is others that are dying, no big deal. It certainly became a big deal after 9/11, but that was “regular Americans” dying, not “others”.
I have children and their lives are just as valuable as are any child’s in Iraq. I wish for them what I’d wish for my own children. It is sad but most people do think this way. As long as ours arent dying here everything is okay.
It is too much.
August:22:2007 - 14:25
The purpose of the sanctions–their intent–was to make life difficult enough on the Iraqis that they (including members of the army, the Ba’ath apparatus, the middle class–would complain loudly and strongly enough that Hussein would comply with the UN resolutions against him (incidentally, that includes the one that would have ended the 1991 war). It was not anticipated that Saddam would kill tens of thousands of his own people.
I was not making an argument about African kleptocracies; I was making an example.
I do, indeed, value my own child’s life more than that of anyone else’s child. That you do not is passing strange. I do not wish other children worse than mine.
Not ‘Losing 10 million’ Americans is exactly what the war against terrorism and terrorists is about. That war included Saddam.
August:23:2007 - 09:57
Why wasnt it anticipated that Saddam would kill his own people? Saddam was KNOWN for killing his own people by whatever means, chemical weapons, mass murder. If someone didnt anticipate that Saddam would allow his own people to die they are either brain dead or cannot read.
It seems a pretty easy idea……he has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people directly, why wouldnt he let hundreds of thousands die indirectly as a part of sanctions?
You miss my point in regards to children. My children, in and of themselves, have equal value to anyone outside the situation looking in. Of course I would place higher value on my own children, that is because they are mine, not because they, in and of themselves, of a high value.
At the same time I realise that our actions, directly and indirectly, in Iraq have caused the deaths of thousands of children. I cannot forget them when I look at my boys. When I think of how much pain I would feel if I lost them and I know that hundreds of thousand of Iraqis are feeling that very pain as we speak partially because of our actions.
There will be a price to pay for this. Nothing goes unanswered or unpaid for in this life.
Saddam was never a part of the “war on terrorism” and he never will be. That was sold to the American people to try and gain support for the invasion. Our invasion of the country, the sanctions and how many Iraqis have died because of them now certainly is a central motivator for the terrorists.
The invasion of Iraq, as almost all intelligence experts have agreed, has made the US more at danger, not less. It has had the exact opposite effect.
Our attack on Iraq has made another attack on American soil MORE likely, not less likely.
August:23:2007 - 10:37
You know, it actually wasn’t anticipated that Saddam would get away with killing tens of thousands of his own citizens. It was believed that there were enough dissident and disaffected groups in Iraq, including within the Army, that he could have been pushed out of power. Obviously, that was wrong.
I agree with you about how one views one’s own children. But many–including me–extend that to groups outside my own family. That was one of the ways Saddam deceived both the West and his own people. One does tend to place a higher value on one’s own fellow citizens before others. Saddam did not: he was concerned with himself and his immediate family foremost and only.