What muslims are arguing now


#1

They are arguing this
TO KILL OR NOT TO KILL

By AMIR TAHERI
Email Archives
Print Reprint
June 10, 2005 – AN obscure Arabic word is making a comeback from centuries of oblivion to dominate the debate about whom Muslims are allowed to kill in the service of political goals.

The debate has been triggered by the killing of large numbers of Muslims, including women and children, by Islamist insurgents in Iraq. Are such acts permissible? Judging by fatwas (religious opinions) and articles by Muslim theologians and commentators, the Islamic ummah (community) is divided on the issue.

Those who believe that killing innocent people, including Muslims, is justified in certain cases, base their opinion on the principle of tattarrus. The word, which originally meant “dressing up,” was first used as a religious term in the book “Al-Mustasfa” (“The Place of Purification”) by Abu-Hamed al-Ghazali (d.1127), to mean “using ordinary Muslims as human shields for Islamic combatants against infidel fighters.”

In the 13th century, the theologian Ibn Tayimiah wove a whole doctrine around the term to justify the killing of Muslims while combating Mongol invaders. By century’s end, however, the concept had fallen into disuse and a new consensus developed against the killing of noncombatants.

But in 1995 Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian mentor of Osama bin Laden, used the concept in his book “The Rule for Suicide-Martyr Operations.” Arguing that the ends justify the means, al-Zawahiri insisted that the killing of Muslims, including women and children, was not a sinful act provided the combatants were fighting “the enemies of Islam.”

More recently, that view has been endorsed by Yussuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian sheik working in Qatar. Initially, al-Qaradawi had ruled that only three categories of unarmed individuals could be killed: apostates, who have turned their back to Islam; homosexuals, who “dirty” the pure society — and Israelis, including unborn children, who could grow up to join the Jewish army.

Now, however, al-Qaradawi has expanded his doctrine to allow for the killing of innocent Muslims in Iraq. His argument is stark: What matters is the broader interest of the Islamic ummah which could, under certain circumstances, necessitate operations in which Muslim civilians lose their lives.

That position is supported by several Saudi theologians, including Hammoud al-Uqalla, Ali al-Khudhair, Nasser al-Fahd, Ahmad al-Khalidi and Safar al-Hawali. Their argument is that the broader interest of the ummah requires the expulsion of the U.S.-led forces from Iraq and that the killing of innocent Iraqis in whatever numbers is of no concern to the combatants, whose place in paradise is assured.

Other Saudi theologians, including Abu-Muhammad al-Maqdasi and Abu-Basir al-Tartussi, go further and apply tattarrus to situations where no “infidel” troops are present. Thus they justify the killing of innocent Muslim Saudis in Saudi Arabia because, they claim, such actions could lead to the establishment of a “truly Islamic regime.”

The starkest defense of tattarrus in its new sense has come from Abu-Musaab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda mastermind in Iraq. “Islam establishes a hierarchy of values in all domains,” he wrote in a recent missive posted on Islamist Web sites. “In [that hierarchy], protecting the faith is more important than protecting the self. Killing the mutumarresoun * is necessary to prevent the faith of the infidel from striking root [in the land of Islam].”

The only point of dispute among supporters of tattarrus is related to procedural matters. Can Islamic combatants decide whom to kill and when or should they obtain a fatwa in every single case?

Showabel al-Zahrani, a Saudi militant and author of “Views of Theologians Concerning the Rules of Raids and Tattarrus” claims that what is needed is a “flexible understanding” of the concept. “To demand that a combatant get all his operations approved by a theologian in advance is a demand for inaction,” he writes. “The better rule is to allow the combatant to do as he sees fit and have his actions approved afterwards.”

Zarqawi, too, says there is no need for fatwas in each case: A fatwa issued by bin Laden in 1999 authorizing the killing of “enemies of Islam” is sufficient. It is up to the muqatelin (combatants) to decide who is an enemy of Islam.

Abu-Unus al-Shami, an insurgent leader killed in Baghdad last September, held a similar position. His claim was that the insurgents in Iraq had “permanent authority” to kill whomever they thought was necessary in order to “re-conquer Iraq for Islam.”

Abu-Hufus al-Masri, the mastermind of the 2004 Madrid massacre, also claimed that the combatants had had the authority to decide when and where and against whom to strike: “We are at war against the infidel and its apostate allies,” he wrote. “And in a war he who fights has the authority to decide what action is best, leaving the final judgment to The Most High.”*


#2

Sheik Muhammad Hussein Fadhlallah, the spiritual leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah, however, says that combatants do not have such authority and should refer each case to an authorized “mujtahid” (guide) such as himself. Fadhlallah is uncomfortable by the fact that the majority of those killed by the insurgents in Iraq are Shiites like himself.

While the majority view among Islamist activists seems to justify tattarrus, many other voices are raised against it.

Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani, the primus inter pares of Shiite theologians, condemns tattarrus in its current sense as an “innovation” (bid’aah) and has called on Iraqi Shiites not to embark on revenge killings against Sunni insurgents.

Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, dean of Cairo’s al-Azhar University, insists that Islamic law “rejects all attempts on human life and all attacks on civilians.”

“Nothing in Islam justifies the deliberate killing of non-combatants,” Tantawi says. “Tattarrus applies to collateral damage in a war between two regular armies, and not to action perpetrated by self-styled combatants.”

Najih al-Ibrahim, another Egyptian theologian, also castigates what he terms “the abuse of tattarrus.”

“No one can use tattarrus to justify the shedding of innocent blood,” he says. “The only time that tattarrus is allowed is when Muslim combatants have to kill a fellow Muslim who is captured by the infidel and may, under torture, reveal secrets that could help the infidel against the true believers. Apart from that, shedding Muslim blood is the gravest of sins in Islam.”

Yet another Egyptian theologian, Hisham Abdul-Zahir, says the insurgents’ killing of Iraqi civilians is “totally unjustifiable under any circumstances.”

“Tattarrus is relevant only in the case of Muslim women and children who are captured in a war by the infidel,” he says. “In such a situation, it would be permissible to kill them to prevent them from being converted into other faiths by the infidel or abused by infidel soldiers.”

Jassim al-Shamri, a Saudi theologian, rejects the authority of the “self-styled ulema” to reinterpret Islamic concepts for political goals.

“These gentlemen sit in air-conditioned rooms and drink iced mango juice and issue fatwas for indiscriminate killing,” al-Shamri says. “We never see any of them or their children sent on suicide missions.”

Sheikh Abdul-Muhsin al-Ubaikan, a Saudi theologian, has proposed “a theological summit” to discuss tattarrus and related issues.

“Is it enough for an individual to say he is fighting for Islam in order to claim a license to kill anyone, anywhere and anytime?” al-Ubaikan asks.

Amir Taheri, an Iranian author and journalist based in Europe, is a member of Benador Associates.
nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/24965.htm

It´s necessary registating.

The respect for other religions isn´t in their agenda but other “primitive” things


#3

To hear some hear talk they are taught not to hurt anyone:nope: Would the real Islam stand up please.According to my ex-uncle who was Islamic you can lie to “unbelievers” and that is just fine so what to believe that is the question:confused:


#4

[quote=Lisa4Catholics]According to my ex-uncle who was Islamic you can lie to “unbelievers” and that is just fine so what to believe that is the question:confused:
[/quote]

I already said this in one of my posts that** lying is a major sin in Islam.**

Islam is based on absolute truth. So it means that I cannot and must not lie about it. The Quran tells us that believers must always tell the truth and stand firm for justice even if it is against ourselves and our families. The prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, told us that if anyone is a liar then he is not a believer.

So you can be assured I must either tell everyone what I am absolutely sure of or else tell that I will try to find the answer for the question and then get back as soon as I can.

Islam is all about believing without any doubt that there really is only One God, He alone is the creator and sustainer of the universe and as such, He alone is the only one worthy of worship and devotion. He will only accept worship that is exclusive for Him alone without any partners. Or more simply said, “Worship the Creator and not His creations.”

Your must provide authentic proof to back up his statement.

peace,

deen


#5

[quote=deen]I already said this in one of my posts that** lying is a major sin in Islam.**

Islam is based on absolute truth. So it means that I cannot and must not lie about it. The Quran tells us that believers must always tell the truth and stand firm for justice even if it is against ourselves and our families. The prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, told us that if anyone is a liar then he is not a believer.

So you can be assured I must either tell everyone what I am absolutely sure of or else tell that I will try to find the answer for the question and then get back as soon as I can.

Islam is all about believing without any doubt that there really is only One God, He alone is the creator and sustainer of the universe and as such, He alone is the only one worthy of worship and devotion. He will only accept worship that is exclusive for Him alone without any partners. Or more simply said, “Worship the Creator and not His creations.”

Your must provide authentic proof to back up his statement.

peace,

deen
[/quote]

So it is not true that you may lie to an unbeliver then?Is it only certain sects that teach that?


#6

[quote=deen]I already said this in one of my posts that** lying is a major sin in Islam.**
[/quote]

**taqiyya **( تقيّة )
the mostly Shi’a principle that one is allowed to hide one’s true beliefs in certain circumstances. 1

“though taqiya is usually seen as a Shia doctrine, it is practiced and taught also by Sunni Muslims” 2

"The Qur’an very emphatically demands that Muslims do NOT befriend non-Muslims. However, in some cases Allah permits his followers to lie and use deception against unbelievers who may think that Muslims are their friends.

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying. S. 3:28 Pickthall

Allah is basically telling Muslims that they can pretend to be friends to unbelievers in order to receive their protection, or to protect themselves from them" 3

"In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.’’ 4


all I know is what I read :cool:


#7

[quote=stumbler]**taqiyya **( تقيّة )
the mostly Shi’a principle that one is allowed to hide one’s true beliefs in certain circumstances. 1

“though taqiya is usually seen as a Shia doctrine, it is practiced and taught also by Sunni Muslims” 2

"The Qur’an very emphatically demands that Muslims do NOT befriend non-Muslims. However, in some cases Allah permits his followers to lie and use deception against unbelievers who may think that Muslims are their friends.

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying. S. 3:28 Pickthall

Allah is basically telling Muslims that they can pretend to be friends to unbelievers in order to receive their protection, or to protect themselves from them" 3

"In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.’’ 4


all I know is what I read :cool:
[/quote]

Thank Stambler, good point


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.