[Dean's World] Aziz P: bin Laden's "fatwa" - a call to hirabah

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Aziz P:
bin Laden's "fatwa" - a call to hirabah
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1150068354.shtml


   [1]Z's dead, baby. But Osama bin Laden (OBL) remains alive.

   Nowadays, we don't hear from OBL much - but evidence overwhelmingly
   suggests he is still alive. Alive, OBL still poses an immense threat
   to the security of the United States. The threat is not necessarily
   from another personally-orchestrated massive attack upon US soil, but
   rather the rallying effect that OBL has upon rank and file jihadis
   worldwide. It is unlikely in fact that OBL has any direct operational
   control over Al Qaeda - the latter organization now more of a "version
   3.0" distributed entity rather than a coherent hierarchical chain of
   command.

   OBL's primary influence comes from his fatwa (pronouncements).
   Traditionally, a fatwa has simply been a ruling on a religious matter
   - an [2]interpretation of fiqh. A believer who has a question on
   religious interpretation or action would go to the ulema (learned
   scholars or local religious authorities) and present their case; the
   ulema would render an opinion after consultation with the Qur'an and
   those hadith which their School considered valid.

   In the time of the Prophet [3]SAW of course there were no schools of
   thought, only Islam - hence any pronouncement by the Prophet was a
   fatwa by definition. Likewise, the various Caliphs and Sultans and
   Mughals and whatnot also issued fatwa that applied to their subjects,
   because their authority was religious as well as political. In modern
   times, with the exception of Iran, no Islamic government claims
   religious authority and hence they do not issue fatwas (though
   certainly they compel their citizens through other means).

   So how then can OBL claim such authority? Into the vacuum left by
   secular (tyrannical, to be sure) governments, stepped any charlatan
   with the desire to reshape Islam. Syed Qutb was that charlatan, and
   Bill Allison of now-defunct [4]Ideofact blog did truly yeoman's work
   in [5]deconstructing Qutb's writings. OBL simply took Qutb's ideas
   further, and has adopted a kind of "caliph in exile" mantle. Dan
   Darling has termed this dynamic "[6]Magneto appeal".

   The bottom line is that OBL has no authority to issue fatwa other than
   that granted to him by muslims themselves. To combat him, therefore,
   requires a systematic delegitimization of OBL as an authority. I
   [7]undertook one such delegitimization a few years ago and am
   re-posting it here.

   The primary text of OBL's fatwa in 2002 was as follows:

     The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and
     military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in
     any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate
     the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in
     order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam,
     defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance
     with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together
     as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no
     more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in
     God." . . .

     We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God
     and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the
     Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find
     it.

   The very first statement asserts that "killing Americans and their
   allies" is an "individual duty". The Qur'an does in fact support
   violence if in defense against attack, but here OBL explicitly
   describes the targets as "civilians and military." Note that if you
   make the argument that there is [8]no such thing as a civilian, then
   that qualification is unnecessary. Presumably then OBL does make such
   a distinction, and thus he is knowingly calling for the murder of
   innocents.

   What does the Qur'an have to say on the matter of killing innocents?

     We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one 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. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear
     signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit
     excesses in the land. Those who wage war against Allah and His
     prophet, kill the believers and plunder their property shall be
     disgraced in this world, and for them is a dreadful doom in the
     hereafter. (5:32-33)

   The contrast is crystal clear. What OBL is calling for violates
   Qur'anic precepts. His assertion that this is the "duty" of all
   Muslims is thus ignorant and self-refuting. His gross ignorance of the
   Qur'an demonstrates that he is an impostor of religious authority.

   (With irony, note that the very same ayats are interpreted by jihadis
   and [9]Islamophobes alike to mean the opposite. Then again,
   translations of the Qur'an are [10]inherently flawed...)

   Also consider the following ayat, invoked by OBL, and a perennial
   favorite of Islam "debunkers" as well:

     Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah's
     ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth,
     of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore
     be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the
     polytheists all together as they fight you all together; and know
     that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). (9:36)

   This is directed at two targets. First, the polytheists (or more
   accurately, pagans or idolaters) here are specifically the tribes of
   Saudi Arabia before Islam, who used to observe a year of 13 months
   after two years to combine the solar and lunar years, due to which
   they had to transfer the observance of Muharram to the succeeding
   month, Safar. This verse condemns their interference with the lunar
   calendar. Note that wrongful interpretations of the ayat usually hinge
   on mis-translating "polytheists".

   Second, taken in a broader context, it says to fight them together as
   they fight you all together. Since Islam is not under attack by
   America or her allies (in fact, Muslims reside there as well, and none
   of the established schools of jurisprudence consider American muslims
   to be inferior or non-muslim), this ayat simply does not apply. One
   might argue as OBL does that America has attacked Islam, via proxy
   targets in Iraq, etc. but the very presence of muslims in the West
   essentially renders it moot. I can't speak to whether those who
   denounce Islam as inherently violent consider America to be at war
   with Islam or not; however it's probably accurate to say that if they
   don't, it's for lack of sufficient effort.

   Finally, we come to the following ayats:

     Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not
     transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And kill
     them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they
     drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do
     not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you
     in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the
     recompense of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely
     Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them on until there is no
     more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in
     Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those
     who practise oppression. (2:190-193)

   These ayats are often used by fanatics in a manner precisely opposite
   to their intent. The main points here are that fighting is only
   permitted in self-defense. If fighting starts, then kill them wherever
   they are found, unless they ask for mercy (an inherently
   [11]Jacksonian model). Most importantly, show mercy when one has the
   upper hand.

   Given that OBL calls for a campaign of violence against individual
   innocents, and relies on tortured readings (which could be lifted
   straight of JihadWatch) to buttress the claim, he is in fact calling
   not for jihad (which I have [12]discussed in detail) but rather
   hirabah, or war of intimidation.

   Hirabah is strongly condemned in the Qur'an, for example the explicit
   reference in 5:33 to those whose intent is "mischief through the
   land". AltMuslim.com wrote an [13]excellent piece on hirabah earlier,
   which observed:

     Because the word jihad roughly means "religious effort," the West
     can come off as attacking the daily life of ordinary Muslims, while
     terrorists get away with wrapping their crimes in religious
     phraseology. Muslim scholars are meeting in Washington with US
     officials to change this. "When people carelessly dump on jihad, it
     has an immediate polarizing effect," said Khaled Abou el Fadl, a
     professor of Islamic law at UCLA who will attend the meeting. "It
     may not change much, but it allows Muslims and non-Muslims to say
     something about terrorists without appearing to malign Islamic
     theology.

   [14]Speaking in God's Name (Khaled Abou el-Fadl) Khaled Abou el Fadl,
   referred to above, is an accomplished writer on Islamic law. His book,
   [15]Speaking in God's Name, is a very thorough look at how religious
   terminology is abused by the extremists. It is vitally important that
   these differences in terminology are understood - more than merely
   semantics, it is the framework for understanding the problem of
   radical fascist Islam and the underlying problem of tribalism. I urge
   other bloggers to make a point of calling terrorism harabah and not
   jihad, and to avoid labeling every frothing opinion of extremists as a
   fatwa.

   Islam is actually the solution to the problem. It is in our collective
   best interest, to understand the classical interpretations of Islam,
   because that understanding can shape policy. Consider post-war Iraq.
   If we simply set up a barbie dolls and rock and roll culture, then
   there will be a fundamentalist backlash. And as we saw with
   Afghanistan, should the fanatics gain power, they become incubators
   for terror groups like Al-Qaeda.

   This is the propaganda war we must fight against OBL. We can buy into
   his framing, and let him continue to hijack the faith (and even lend
   him aid and comfort as he does so by accepting his interpretations).
   Or, we can delegitimize his authority - and it starts by using a
   simple word in place of another.

References

   1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi
   2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh
   3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_be_upon_him
   4. http://ideofact.com/
   5. http://www.ideofact.com/archives/000553.html
   6. http://www.regnumcrucis.blogspot.com/2003_11_02_regnumcrucis_archive.html#106796671017215128
   7. http://cityofbrass.blogspot.com/2002/10/wretched-are-those-who-call-for.html
   8. http://denbeste.nu/essays/civilians.shtml
   9. http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009200.php
  10. http://cityofbrass.blogspot.com/2002_07_16_cityofbrass_archive.html#85254704
  11. http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Jacksonianforeignpolicy.shtml
  12. http://cityofbrass.blogspot.com/2002/07/this-post-is-jihad.html
  13. http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=613_0_26_0_C
  14. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=as2&path=ASIN/1851682627&tag=unmedia-20&camp=1789&creative=9325
  15. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=as2&path=ASIN/1851682627&tag=unmedia-20&camp=1789&creative=9325