In The Name of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful
 


Comment on a Recent Fatwa
 


All Praise and All Thanks are for Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) to whom we shall all return to be judged on The Last Day.

We praise Him and ask Him for help and forgiveness; and ask His protection from the mischief of our souls and the bad results of our deeds; whomsoever Allah guides, none can misguide; and whom He declares misguided, none can guide to the right path; and I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but Allah: He is Alone, without partner. And I bear witness that Muhammad (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is the Messenger and Servant of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala)
 


What follows are some comments on the fatwa relating to the martyrdom operations which took place in the Land of the Two Holy Places on 11 Rabee' Al-Awal, 1424. The fatwa was issued by the following scholars:
 

Abdul-Azeez bin Abdullaah bin Muhammad Aal ash-Shaykh
Saalih bin Muhammad al-Lahaydaan
Abdullaah bin Sulaymaan al-Munee'
Abdullaah bin Abdur-Rahmaan al-Ghudayaan
Dr. Saalih bin Saalih al-Fawzaan
Hasan bin Ja'far al-'Atamee
Muhammad bin Abdullaah as-Subayyil
Dr. Abdullaah bin Muhammad bin Ibraaheem Aal ash-Shaykh
Muhammad bin Sulaymaan al-Badr
Dr. Abdullaah bin Muhsin al-Turkee
Muhammad bin Zaid as-Sulaymaan
Dr. Bakr bin Abdullaah Abu Zaid
Dr. Abdul-Wahhaab bin Ibraaheem as-Sulaymaan
Dr. Saalih bin Abdullaah al-Humayd
Dr. Ahmad bin Sayr al-Mubaarakee
Dr. Abdullaah bin 'Alee ar-Rukbaan
Dr. Abdullaah bin Muhammad al-Mutlaq
 


 



"From what has preceded, the prohibition of killing the soul that has been protected without any due right, becomes clear."
 

Comment:

The crucial and accepted point here is "without due right."  As Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) says:
 

"It is not for a believer to kill a believer except (that it be) by mistake..." (4:92 Interpretation of Meaning]

 

Were those killed in the attacks killed "by mistake"? Was the intention of those who undertook this particular martyrdom operation to kill Muslims - or harm the kuffar? The primary intention most certainly was to harm the kuffar, and a reasoned judgement is that the Muslims killed were killed by mistake.
 

 

"Also from the lives that are protected in Islaam, are the lives of those (non-Muslims) who are given agreements, the dhimmees, and those who seek protection (from the Muslims). From 'Abdullah bin Amr bin al-Aaas (radiallahu anhumaa) from the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) who said, "Whoever killed a person having a treaty with the Muslims, shall not smell the smell of Paradise though its smell is perceived from a distance of forty years." Related by al-Bukari."

 

Comment:
 

The crucial point to consider here is who has the authority to make a treaty with non-Muslims? This must surely be a Khalifah who has received bay'ah from Muslims and who rules according to Quran and Sunnah, in accordance with Shariah.
 

Does the government, the regime, of what is called Saudi Arabia have the authority to enter into treaties, on behalf of the Muslims, with the dhimmees and the kuffar? Is that government of that land an Islamic one, ruling according to Quran and Sunnah. Is the leader of that country the Khalifah, the Ameer-ul-Mumineen?
 

The answer is that, judged according to Quran and Sunnah, that particular government - by its aiding of the kuffar, especially Amerika, and by its treatment of  those scholars and Imams who disagree with its alliance with the kuffar - is not an Islamic one. As Sheikh ul-Mujahideen Usama Bin Muhammad Bin Ladin (hafidhahullah) has said in his fatwa "Expel the kuffar from the Arabian Peninsula" :

 

"Through its course of actions the regime has torn off its legitimacy:

(1)  Suspension of the Islamic Shari’ah law and exchanging it with man made civil law. The regime entered into a bloody confrontation with the truthful Ulamah and the righteous youths (we sanctify nobody; Allah sanctify Whom He pleaseth).

(2)  The inability of the regime to protect the country, and allowing the enemy of the Ummah - the American crusader forces- to occupy the land for the longest of years. The crusader forces became the main cause of our disastrous condition, particularly in the economical aspect of it due to the unjustified heavy spending on these forces. As a result of the policy imposed on the country, especially in the field of oil industry where production is restricted or expanded and prices are fixed to suit the American economy ignoring the economy of the country....."
 


There is certainly no Ameer-ul-Mumineen in that country. Therefore, it cannot make treaties on behalf of the Muslims, so that any treaties it does have, with whomsoever, are irrelevant from the viewpoint of Quran and Sunnah. According to Sheikh Hammoud Al-Uqlaa Ash-Shuaybi:

 "It is agreed that it is permissible to use weapons which may unintentionally result in the deaths of those other than the enemies of Islam. As 

Muslim commanders have always used Catapult when fighting the Kuffar, and it is obvious that a Catapult when applied in a war does not differentiate between a fighter and others, hence it may afflict some those so-called 'innocent souls', but that not withstanding this is an established practice among Muslims in their wars.

Ibn Qudamah may Allah have mercy on him, said: "And it is permissible to use Catapult because the Prophet may the Salaat and Salaam be with him used Catapult on the people of Ta'if; and Amr bin al-As did the same to the people of Alexandria (Al-Mughniy, vol. 10, p503).

And Ibn al-Qasim said "it is permissible to use Catapult against Kuffar even if children, women and old men and monks are killed inadvertently, because 'Nikayah' (doing what will weaken the enemy) is allowed according to the consensus of Ulama. Ibn Rushd said: "'Nikayah' is permissible according to Ijama' and on any type of polytheists" (Al-Hashiyah ala' Ar-Raudh, vol. 4, p 271)"  [Fatwa on Recent Events]

 

Thus the adillah quoted in relation to treaties is not relevant in relation to this and similar attacks.
 

In addition, have those kuffar who reside in the Land of the Two Holy Places formally given an agreement, as dhimmees? Have they formally saught protection? The answer is no.
 

 

"And whomever the wali ul-amr allows entry (into the land) with the covenant and promise of granting safety, security, then his life and wealth are protected, it is not permissible to harm him, and whoever kills him, then he is as the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) said, "...he will not smell the smell of Paradise...". And this is a very severe warning for the one who turns upon those who have been given agreements.

And it is known that the custody, protection of the people of Islaam is a single entity (i.e. a collective whole, equal), the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said, "The blood of the Believers is equal (one to another), and the least of them strives for their protection..."

And when Umm Haani (radiallaahu anhaa) granted sanctuary to a man from the Mushriks in the year of the conquest, and when Alee bin Abee Taalib (radiallaahu anhu) desired to kill him, she went to the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), and informed him (of that) so he (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam) said, "We have granted sanctuary to the one you have granted sanctuary O Umm Haani" reported by al-Bukhaari and Muslim.

The intent here is that the one who entered (the land) with an agreement of personal security, or who had a pledge, agreement from the one in authority, due to a maslahah (benefit) that he saw (in giving this person that pledge), then it is not permissible to turn upon him and nor to transgress upon him or his wealth."


 

Comment:
 

The crucial point here is the nature of the "one in authority." Is this authority an Islamic one, that is, a Khalifah? Again, no. Therefore the adillah do not apply in the martyrdom operation in question.
 


"When all of this has become clear, then what occurred of the bombing incidents in the city of Riyaadh is a prohibited matter that the religion of Islaam does not affirm, and its unlawfulness has come from numerous angles:

1) That this action is a transgression upon the sanctity of the land of the Muslims, and frightening of those who are secure and safe therein
2) That it contains the killing of lives that the Islaamic Sharee'ah protects
3) That it is causing corruption upon the earth
4) That it contains damage to wealth and belonging that is protected"

Comment:

The greatest transgression upon the sanctity of the Land of the Two Holy Places occurred by the government allowing Amerikan troops to be stationed there, as Sheikh ul-Mujahideen Usama Bin Muhammad Bin Ladin (hafidhahullah) has said in his fatwa "Expel the kuffar from the Arabian Peninsula." A more recent transgression is the aiding of the kuffar - especially the Amerikans - in their war against Muslims such as Sheikh ul-Mujahideen Usama Bin Muhammad Bin Ladin (hafidhahullah). That is, this regime has dishonoured Muslims, and has imitated the kuffar. As Sheikh Safar bin 'Abdir-Rahmaan al-Hawaali said:
 

"Aiding the Non-Muslims over Muslims - no matter which form of aid or co-operation it be, even if it is merely in speech - this is clear Kufr and sheer hypocrisy. The one who does this has perpetrated one of the actions which negates Islam, as has been specifically stated by the Imams of the Dawah and others, and such a person is not a believer in the aqeeda of al-Wala and al-Bara (being a patron of someone or disassociating solely for Allah)."


Therefore the four points mentioned above by the scholars of the regime are not relevant in regard to this martyrdom operation.
 



"And what was done by those who performed these actions, of killing themselves by blowing themselves up, then that enters into the generality of the saying of the Prophet (sallallaahu alaihi wasallam), "Whoever killed himself in the world with anything, then Allaah will punish him by that same thing on the Day of Judgement", reported by Abu Awaanah in his Mustakhraj from the hadeeth of Thaabit bin ad-Dahak, (radiallaahu anhu).

The Prophet said, "He who commits suicide by stabbing himself with an iron (blade) shall that have that iron (blade) in his hand, and he will thrust it into his body in the fire of Hell, remaining therein forever (in that state), and whoever took poison and killed himself, then he will drink it in the Fire of Hell, remaining therein forever (in that state), and whoever threw himself off a mountain and killed himself, then he will be falling in the Fire of Hell, remaining therein for ever (in that state) ." And this is also in al-Bukhari with something similar."

Comment:

There are mistakes here it seems.
 

First, a martyrdom operation is not an intentional killing of one's self. It is an act of martyrdom. The Mujahid does not commit suicide. As I have written elsewhere - in Are Martyrdom Operations Lawful (According to Quran and Sunnah)? - 
 

Quite often, those who denounce martyrdom operations use translations of Hadith, or interpretations of the Holy Quran which use the word "suicide". For instance, Ahadith similar to the following are often cited:

The Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said, "He who commits suicide by throttling shall keep on throttling himself in the Hell-Fire (forever) and he who commits suicide by stabbing himself shall keep on stabbing himself in the Hell-Fire." (Sahih Bukhari)

However, as mentioned above, the use of English words such as "suicide" in such translations is often incorrect, for such modern English words often mean and imply different things than are meant and implied by the Arabic, even though, in the West, the term "suicide" is sometimes understood as an "act, malicious or otherwise, of self-murder". That is, as a basically selfish act done for personal reasons. (In origin the word suicide itself derives from a term for "self".)

Perhaps a better interpretation of the above Hadith would be along the following lines:

"The person who commits Intihar by hanging themselves shall keep hanging themselves in the Hell-Fire, just as those who commit Intihar by stabbing themselves will keep stabbing themselves in the Hell-Fire."

We shall consider two Quranic Ayat often cited by those who oppose Martyrdom Operations.

1) One Quranic Ayat which is often cited (see Note 2) is: laa taqtuluu anfusakum (4:29). This is often interpreted as meaning: "Do not kill yourselves..." However, considered in context, a more correct interpretation would be along the following lines:

"You who believe: do not unfairly squander your wealth on one another, save it be for some purpose mutually agreed upon among yourselves. Do not ruin yourself, or one another, for Allah is most Merciful toward you."

2) Another Ayat which is cited is 4:93 which is often interpreted to mean: "Whomsoever kills a believer intentionally, their punishment is hell..." The argument used here by the opponents of Martyrdom Operations is that the Mujahid involved in a Fidayee attack is a believer, who - by their Fidayee attack - intends to and does kill themselves. However, this argument is invalid because the context clearly refers to a believer intentionally killing another believer - for instance in 4:92 Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) says that if a believer kills a believer by mistake, then compensation must be paid.
 
Thus, not only are the oft-quoted Ahadith and Quranic verses quoted, and translated or interpreted, incorrectly and out of context, but they are in fact not relevant. For what it is important to understand is that killing oneself because of some personal reason - what is often called committing suicide - is quite different and distinct from martyrdom operations. That is, there is a clear distinction between Istishad (martyrdom) and Intihar ("suicide") - in both the intention of the individual, and what results from their act.

The person who commits suicide acts out of despair, or for some personal reason, whereas the Mujahid acts out of love for Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) and a desire to please Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala): to do what Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) has commanded, which in the specific instance of martyrdom operations is confronting and attacking the enemies of Islam, even if this means, InshaAllah, one's own death.

The intention of the Mujahid is - or rather should be - a pure intention, and if this is indeed the case then Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) may well accept their martyrdom and so admit them into Paradise. A pure intention in this instance is to: (1) harm, humiliate or kill the enemy; (2) to give strength and encouragement to Muslims; (3) to weaken the resolve of the enemy; (4) to seek the reward of martyrdom, which is Paradise.

In terms of results in Dunya, the Mujahid - if their attack is successful - harms, humiliates, or kills the enemies of the Muslims; or weakens their resolve; or gives encouragement to others Muslims to resist oppression, fight injustice, or undertake Jihad Fee Sabillah. That is, the act or actions of the Mujahid benefits Islam. In terms of results, the person who kills themselves (Intihar) does none of these things - their death does not benefit Islam at all. As Sheikh ul-Mujahideen Usama bin Laden (hafidhahullah) said: "We emphasize the great importance of martyrdom operations against the enemy - operations that have inflicted great damage on the United States and Israel, which damage is unprecedented in their history, thanks to Almighty Allah....

The adillah cited in fataawa by scholars who oppose Martyrdom Operations refer to Intihar not Istishad."



 


May Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala  forgive us for our mistakes and may He guide us to and keep us on the Right Path.

Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) knows best.

Abdul Aziz

23 Jumaada Al-Thaani 1424

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1