Are Martyrdom Operations Lawful

Islamic law (the Shariah), correctly understood, is very different from Western law. Furthermore, it is impossible to combine the two: any attempt to do so is un-Islamic because it is an imitation of the kuffar and an abandonment of what Allah has decreed.

An Islamic society, an Islamic community, is by definition one where the Shariah is upheld and where it is used to regulate and guide the conduct of the individuals of that society or community. For the Shariah is the Way to Allah, as its very name indicates.

However, due to Western influence in what were once Islamic countries, there have been many attempts, by Muslims to adopt Western legal ideas and concepts. Thus, nominally Islamic societies such as that in Saudi Arabia, have introduced Western-style laws, Courts and punishments, just as they have accepted many fundamental Western legal concepts such as that of treaties involving the extradition of suspects.

Indeed, things have gone so far that many "modernist" Islamic scholars have sought to to "adapt the Shariah" to what is called (by the West) "the modern world" and in the process they have seriously weakened Islam and greatly increased the influence of the West. For the Way of Al-Islam (Dar al-Islam) is complete and perfect, and the opposite of the Way of Ignorance (Dar al-Kufr) which dominates the societies of the West.

It is wrong for Muslims to accept, and submit to, Western laws - and those who enforce them - because such laws are man-made laws based upon man-made ideas, and the Muslim is duty-bound to submit only to Allah: to recognize and obey only the authority of those who are Allah's rightful representatives on Earth. These rightful representatives are those who are honourable and pious, who themselves accept the supreme authority of Allah, and who are acting on His behalf. That is, a Muslim obeys no one unless obeying that person is tantamount to obeying Allah. This fundamental Islamic principle is one of those that has been ignored by those Muslims who have sought and who do seek to "modernize" Islam: that is, who seek to compromise with the kuffar or who seek to imitate the kuffar.

The loyalty which a Muslim gives is a loyalty to Allah and those - such as the Khalifah and his appointed representatives - who are Allah's vicegerents. Thus, because of this, a Muslim has a duty to either live in a genuine Islamic society, governed by the Shariah, or strive to create an Islamic society.

The Shariah defines types of unlawful behaviour and acts (see, for example, Introduction to Shariah ) as it defines the procedures which should be used to judge the individuals accused of such behaviour and acts.

It is important to understand that in Islamic law there is no concept of arresting a person "on suspicion" of having committed some unlawful act, and detaining that person in some prison. Similarly, the Western legal ideas of "conspiracy", "incitement" and "extradition" do not exist in Islamic law.

In Islamic law, the victim of an unlawful act, or a blood-relative, was the person responsible for accusing an individual before an Islamic Court. That is, Islamic law in its pure form does not involve nor accept the Western idea of some government or State appointed prosecutor.

Islamic law has a "due process of law". This involves notice of the claim made by the injured or offended person, the right of the accused to remain silent, and the presumption of innocence in a fair and public trial before an honourable, learned and pious Judge (there were no Juries), with both the individual making the claim and the defendant presenting their own cases. What is especially important to note is the weight given to an oath made by the person accused, and the fact that circumstantial evidence is not allowed. In addition, written evidence, the testimony of so-called "experts" and the evidence of documents, is generally inadmissible, since the trial essentially revolves around the character, the honour, of the accused and the accuser, with the Judge assessing these and not abstract "evidence" or someone else's opinion. Since there are no so-called professional "lawyers" and no Juries, there is none of the clever rhetoric that is such a feature of Western Courts with their lawyers trying to impress both Judge and Jury and trying to outdo their colleagues with impassioned speeches or courtroom tricks.

Also, a confession made by the accused is only admissible if it is made by the accused during a public trial.

At an Islamic trial, the Judge (Qadi) first asked the defendant about the claim or claims made against him. If the defendant denied the claim, the Qadi then ask his accuser to produce evidence. Evidence mostly was the testimony of witnesses known for their good, their Islamic, character. These witnesses are first questioned by the accuser, then the defendant, and if deemed necessary, by the Qadi. If there were no direct witnesses (and the direct is important, since hearsay or rumour is inadmissible) then the accuser could demand that the defendant take an oath, before Allah, that he was innocent.

This principle of the oath is extremely important, for it is reported that the Prophet Muhammad said: "Your evidence or his oath." If the defendant then, on oath, swore he was innocent, the Qadi dismissed the case.

The Nobility of Islam:

The above principles and ideals, and only them, represent genuine Islamic law. These principles and ideals represent true nobility and true justice, and are in direct opposition to the inhuman, the tyrannical, principles and ideas which have come to dominate Western law. For Islamic law respects, and allows for, the judging of personal character, just as it respects, and allows for, a person to personally defend their character, their honour.

A return to pure Islam - to the way of Ahlus Sunnah wal-Jamaa'h - involves upholding these Islamic legal principles and ideals, and only them. This involves us in accepting the guidance of As Salafus Saalih, the Righteous Predecessors. For the stark truth is that we, as Muslims, have strayed from the perfect way of Islam, especially in recent times when we have accepted or condoned the corruption of Islam by kufr ideas and kufr principles.

Allah knows best.

za...@psynet.net (Zaharuddin Fikri) wrote:
> Extradition is and has been practiced in Islam, specifically look at
> the example of the Prophet saws in the case of the people who escaped
> to Medina but were sent back to Mekkah because of the treaty the
> Muslims had with the Qureysh.

This, it seems, is very different from the extradition which has become
such a feature of this modern, Westernized, world. It is to do with
permission by individuals, and as such, I am struck by its humanity,
in contrast with the abstract extraditions of the present with their
concern for trangressing an abstract concept (a man-made law) and the
over-riding power of the State.

> I was also struck by the author's reference to Saudi Arabia as a
> "nominal Islamic society."

> The author is concerned with the adapting of the Shari^ah
> with "western" influences. I say, if the ends is to promote justice,
> security, freedom and morality and the means do not contravene any
> limits as set down in Qur'an, then it should not matter where the
> means come from, and Islam is enriched rather than weakened by these
> "new" ideas.

Perhaps you might inform me what Western ideas you consider have
enriched Islam?

> This call to blind allegiance or submission to men would lead to
> injustice as has been showed in many parts of the world and throughout
> history where so-called "representatives of God" have brought more
> misery than anything else. So how can this be Islamic?

> khalifah and other so-called representatives are just the details,
> these leaders can be called anything. Khalifah is just an Arabic word
> to describe leader anyway. A rose by any other name...

> Otherwise, provide proof with a qur'anic ayah which says we have to
> name the leader of a community, khalifah.

The contrast is between Khilafah, which I understand as a means to
implement Islamic principles and Islamic laws, and the Western type of
State or government: between the Unity of Tawhid, and the division
inherent in the secular modern West, with its *political life*, its
*religion* and so on.

> How I see it is, it was not practiced in our history. But just because
> it was not practiced does not make it against the religion to do this
> now. If it not against the religion, then there is no harm in it.

> If conspiracy is a western idea, what of the qur'anic aayaat where
> Allah warns the conspirators of the plots they are hatching in secret
> which ALlah knows of? If incitement is a Western idea, what about the
> punishments already set forth in the Qur'an wrt those who cause
> rebellion? If extradition is a Western idea, why did the Prophet saws
> send back those Muslims who sought him for relief from the Qureysh he
> had treaties with?

Incitement is an act or act which incites or may incite someone to do
something. It - and *incite* - are fairly recent Western words, as some
words go (around 900 AH give or take 50 or more years) but as used by
Western law implies a great deal: that a Court can assume, or guess or
judge the *intention* of a person, who is convicted on such an
assumption, guess or judgement. But as the Ayat clearly shows, only
Allah knows: it is not for us to guess, or assume, or judge, and
certainly not for us to condemn a person on the such a basis, that is,
without real evidence (from witnesses) and wihtout a deed actually
being done.

In particular, in modern Western law such *incitement* does not even
have to cause any act - that is, mere *incitement* is enough to
convict a person.

There is a very important principle here, a very important difference.
The Islamic way is one of reason, of humanity - of a true justice -
while, in my opinion, the Western way is flawed and fundamentally
unjust.

> This is from ahadith which reflected the conditions of 6th century
> Arabia. Please be aware that in areas not related to tawheed, the
> principle to be used is ihsan and justice, according to the needs and
> requirements of the times and climes. Nowadays, if a suspect is given
> license to roam free, he would most likely make a getaway and where
> would justice be then?

To confine an individual in prison, awaiting trial (sometimes for many
months) is to make a judgment about that person, and restrict their freedom
on the basis of that, possibly incorrect, judgment.

If such a person does indeed *make a getaway* then he/she does, and
will one day have to judged by Allah, who will be the final and most
just Judge.

The West, in my opinion, seeks to mete out *justice* and determine
*guilt* according to rigid criteria which make the individual
powerless before the might of the State, whereas Islam understands and
accepts that Allah sees and knows all, and that it is for Him to
really know and Judge, as it is from Him that true Justice arises.

The Justice of the Shari'ah is that arising from those who accept and
know this, and who themselves are aware that one day they will judged
for their decisions. So there is - as in the many wonderful examples
recorded in Ahadith - a wonderful humanity, a real manifestation of
mercy, compassion and forgiveness, which it seems to me is being
increasingly lost in the West.

> Not entirely true. There are cases of circumstantial evidence which
> can be used to incriminate, for example pregnancy.