Discussion of two anti-terrorism Fatwas.

1. The Saudi Arabian Anti-Terrorism Ruling of 2003

On May 20, 2003, IISNA, a Melbourne-based Islamic group distributed through its mailing list a "Statement of the Committee of Major Scholars on the Bombings in Riyadh". The original was also posted on www.salafipublications.com with the title "The Major Scholars on the Salafee Position the Suicide Bombings in Riyaadh (May 2003)."

This was a ruling by the leading Muslim scholars of Saudi Arabia on the subject of terrorism. They found against "killing the soul that has been protected without any due right", that is, against killing a protected person whom you have no right to kill. This statement argues that in Islam certain peoples lives are protected from killing. First, and most importantly, Muslim lives are sacrosanct and may not be taken. Then, among non-Muslims, those whose lives are protected in Islam are:

"1) those (non-Muslims) who are given agreements (guarantees);

1. the dhimmees, and
2. those who seek protection (from the Muslims)"

"Dhimmi" is the term for conquered non-Muslim populations living under Islamic conditions. Historically the Copts and the Armenians were examples of Dhimmis. The dhimmis were allowed to live by virtue of their pact of surrender (the dhimma) and an annual head tax (the jizya) by which they purchased their right to life from the Muslims. The other two categories (1 & 3) refer to people who have either been given the right of protection by Muslims, or who present themselves to Muslims as people seeking protection.

Excluded from these protections are non-Muslims living under non-Islamic rule, who lack the promise of protection from Muslims. Such would normally include all the citizens of non-Muslim states which do not have a treaty with Muslims These are, in classical Islamic terms, the "harbis", or inhabitants of the Dar al-Harb, the "Lands of War" which is the default status for countries outside the Islamic caliphate. Such as these have no protection for their lives in Islam. The standard Islamic laws of jihad allowed "harbis" to be killed or enslaved by Muslim forces. In former times such practices as Barbary piracy (Barbary pirates would launch attacks on European communities all the way to Iceland) and the black slave trade in Africa were shaped by these theological principles. This principled approach to warfare has also been applied in recent times in jihad conflicts in the Sudan and Indonesia.

It should also be noted that despite the statement above, there are circumstances under which taking the lives of other Muslims may be regarded as lawful. Muslims are not afforded protection if they become classified as "hypocrites" who have rejected lawful Islamic authority and doctrine. Warfare between Shi'ites and Sunnis would appeal to this principle.

So, according to these leading Saudi scholars, the crime of the terrorist attack in Riyadh, apart from the indiscriminate taking of Muslim lives, lay in the fact that the non-Muslim foreigners who were killed had been extended rights of protection by Muslims, so their lives were protected. This right of protection had been given to them by the Saudi authorities, in welcoming them into Saudi Arabia.

On the one hand this argument has the desirable effect of banning terrorism. On the other hand, the whole arrangement could seek convoluted and ultimately deeply offensive to non-Muslims, because it proceeds on the assumption that non-Muslims have no inalienable right for their lives to be protected. They only have such conceded rights to life as are granted by Muslims. This framework to human rights accurately reflects the principles of the classical model of jihad, which proclaims that the Muslim community has the right and the duty to wage war against non-Muslims until they convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule through a dhimma pact. .

It must be emphasized that I am not here describing "what most Muslims believe", but rather the normal, standard teachings of Islam which applied century after century during most of Islamic history, which are still taught and upheld by many Islamic scholars, especially those from the more rigorous or "fundamental" schools.

Bernard Lewis has described this religious world view succinctly in his book The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror, p. 30-31.

Some modern Muslims, particularly when addressing the outside world, explain the duty of jihad in a spiritual and moral sense. The overwhelming majority of early authorities, citing the relevant passages in the Qur'an, the commentaries, and the traditions of the Prophet, discuss jihad in military terms

For most of the fourteen centuries of recorded Muslim history, jihad was most commonly interpreted to mean armed struggle for the defense or advancement of Muslim power. In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: the House of Islam (Dar al-Islam), in which Muslim governments rule and Muslim law prevails, and the House of War (Dar al-Harb), the rest of the world, still inhabited, and more important, ruled by infidels. The presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule. Those who fight in the jihad qualify for rewards in both worlds " booty in this one, paradise in the next".

Lewis goes on to discuss the hadith traditions, saying many of these deal with the holy war. The following are a few samples:

""Jihad is your duty under any ruler, be he godly or wicked.

"A day and a night of fighting on the frontier is better than a month of fasting and prayer.

"The nip of an ant hurts a martyr more than the thrust of a weapon, for these are more welcome to him than sweet, cold water on a hot summer day.

"He who dies without having taken part in a campaign dies in a kind of unbelief."

"God marvels at people [those to whom Islam is brought by conquest] who are dragged to Paradise in chains."

"Learn to shoot, for the space between the mark and the archer is one of the gardens of Paradise."

"Paradise is in the shadow of swords." (p.32)

This remains the mainstream understanding of jihad in Saudi Arabia, whose flag consists of the Muslim confession of faith and a sword. It is clearly explained in a widely-cited exegetical essay on Jihad in the Qur'an by the former Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Hamid.

In their teaching of these doctrines the Saudis are not adopting extreme positions: they gain support from classical sources on Islam. For example, the famous Muslim historian al-Tabiri in his history Ta'rikh al-rusul wa'l-muluk describes a series of pronouncements by the Caliph Umar at the time of the conquest of Syria and Palestine. These related to the division of booty, and the treatment of the conquered peoples. Umar's instructions concerning the conquered peoples were:

"Summon the people to God; those who respond unto your call, accept it from them, but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency." (Vol XII, p.167 of the History of al-Tabiri, Bibliotheca Persica. State University of New York Press.)

There are Muslim writers today who claim that jihad is essentially defensive. In one sense this is true. Umar, according to al-Tabari’s history cited above, repeatedly refers to the capture of booty and land as an act of liberation. The conquered territories of Syria and Palestine were "property which God has restored to you." (Vol XII p.154). Thus some Muslims regard the military expansion of Islam, including the conquest of Constantinople, as a series of acts of liberation.

According to this world view, all the earth belongs to Allah and therefore to the Muslim Umma, his caliphs, or representatives on this earth. Muhammad informed the Jews of Arabia: "The land belongs to Allah and to his Messenger."; This is a secure hadith found in Bukhari and Muslim:

"the Messenger of Allah " came to us and said: (Let us) go to the Jews". The Messenger of Allah " stood up and called out to them (saying): O ye assembly of Jews, accept Islam (and) you will be safe. [And after repeating this another two times, he said]: You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I wish that I should expel you from this land. Those of you who have any property with them should sell it, otherwise they should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle (and they may have to go away leaving everything behind)." Sahih Muslim 4363.

If all earthly authority not submitted to Islam is usurped authority, then all warfare which seeks to wrest control from ungodly authorities is defensive in nature, taking property which rightfully belongs to Islam and the Muslims. Taking booty in jihad is also an act of liberation. It is this world view which allows Muslim writers to refer to the Islamic expansion in the Middle Ages as a series of liberations. Abdullah Saeed, in his Islam in Australia describes all Muhammad's conquests as a series of acts of self-defence, and when speaking of the Islamic military expansion, he places the word "conquered" in quotation marks.

1. The London Anti-Terrorism Declaration of 2002.

A confirmation of these reflections is found in the "London Islamic Declaration of Co-existence and Peace within a Multi-Group Community". This statement from London Muslim leaders was distributed to the FAMSY mailing list based here in Australia on Sunday, December 8, 2002. This, like the Saudi statement, was against terrorism. The declaration argues that non-Muslims in Western nations have a right to "protection" because they come under a "pledge" whereby "the souls, property, and honor of non-Muslims are inviolable by virtue of the pledge that has allowed them to enjoy residence."In other words, because Western nations have an implicit covenant of good will with Muslim immigrants, the non-Muslims' lives and property are protected under Islamic law. The reasoning employed is not that non-Muslims have inalienable human rights to their life and property, but only concessional rights due to their behaving in a nurturing, supportive relationship towards the Muslims in their midst.

This statement, it must be stressed, represents a position opposes terrorism. Some might therefore call it a moderate position. However it presupposes a world view in which non-Muslims do not have an inalienable right to life and freedom, but only conceded rights, which are dependent upon their being willing to serve the interests of the Muslim community, including the freedom to propagate Islam. If on the other hand the "pact" is broken, which means that it comes to be considered that non-Muslim authorities are not protecting Muslims or supporting their cause, then the lives and property of these non-Muslims become "violable". The difference between a terrorist and a non-terrorist, by this reasoning, could boil down to a ruling on whether non-Muslims were giving Muslims the rights they expected. Such a ruling could therefore be interpreted as a license for terrorism as much as a prohibition of it, depending upon someone's assessment of the whether the non-Muslims' "pledge" of hospitality towards Muslims is being met.

If the "pledge" were not being met, then there could emerge a situation which perhaps Yasser Soliman of the Islamic Council of Victoria was referring to when he was commenting on the possibility that Muslims could act in fear against non-Muslims: "If you have enough fear in the community, you don't need terrorists, we'll do the job for them." (The Age 5 Jan 2003). In other words, if Muslims could not be guaranteed safety, then they might rise up against non-Muslims without considering themselves to be terrorists.

Of course in a situation such as Palestine, where Muslims believe their rights are not being guaranteed by the non-Muslims, terror attacks are, by this reasoning, legitimate, and the non-Muslims' lives are no longer "inviolable"

Some conclusions

Non-Muslims should read condemnations of "terror" by Muslim scholars with considerable care, to consider what they are saying, and what they are not saying. What would a truly profound rejection of terror look like? It might be worded something like this:

"It is never justifiable to attack civilian populations, no matter what the provocation. These attacks are cowardly, and represent unmitigated evil. Those who commit such crimes claim to be Muslims, but we regard their Islam as of no benefit to them, and they prove by their actions that they are apostates who have abandoned the most fundamental principles of the Islamic faith. Their cause is hopeless and irredeemable, and their destiny is not paradise, but hell fire. Every human being on this earth has an equal, inalienable right to life, to live in peace, and to enjoy their freedom without being attacked, maimed or killed as they go about their daily affairs. We utterly and completely reject the culture of death which draws young men into immoral suicidal attacks on civilians. The "war" they claim to be fighting is no war at all, but a criminal and barbaric assault against ordinary people " men and women, boys and girls " who have done them no wrong and deserve their respect, not their hatred. We utterly reject these crimes and will do all in our power to oppose and uproot those who lie behind them"