Dear Guppies,
Came across this very interesting article by AMir Taheri, frankly speaking, this is a new concept which leads to some serious questioning and answers to whats happening in the Muslim world. Anyone with knowledge of this subject please do contribute. Thanks.
**To kill or not to kill is the issueBy Amir Taheri, Special to Gulf News
http://www.gulf-news.com/images/shim.gif
****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. **
The question is whether or not such acts are permissible. Judging by fatwas (religious opinions) and articles written 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 Ibn Tayimiah, a leading theologian, wove a whole doctrine around the term to justify the killing of Muslims while combating Mongol invaders. By the end of the 13th century, however, the concept had fallen into disuse and a new consensus developed against the killing of non-combatants.
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 Yousuf Al Qaradawi, an Egyptian shaikh working in Qatar. Now, however, Al Qaradawi has expanded his doctrine to allow for the killing of innocent Iraqi 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 US-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 Mohammad 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".
Point of dispute
The starkest defence of tattarrus in its new sense has come from Abu Musaab Al Zarqawi, the Al Qaida mastermind in Iraq.
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.”
Al Zarqawi, too, says there is no need for fatwas in each case. A fatwa issued by Bin Laden in 1999 authorising 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, one of the insurgent leaders killed in Baghdad in September 2004, 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, mastermind of the Madrid massacre in 2004, also claimed 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.”
Shaikh Mohammad Hussain Fadhlallah, the spiritual leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah, however, says that combatants do not have such authority and should refer each case to an authorised mujtahid (guide). He is uncomfortable by the fact that the majority of those killed by insurgents in Iraq are Shiites such as himself. While majority view among Islamist activists seems to justify tattarrus many voices are raised against it. Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, the primus inter pares of Shiite theologians, condemns tattarrus in its current sense as an “innovation” (bid’aah) and calls on Iraqi Shiites not to embark on revenge killings against Sunni insurgents.
Shaikh 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 Ebrahim, 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, Hesham Abdul Zahir, says the killing of Iraqi civilians by the insurgents in Iraq 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.”
Jassem 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.”
Shaikh Abdul Mohsin 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 licence to kill anyone, anywhere and anytime?” Al Ubaikan asks.
Amir Taheri is an Iranian author and journalist based in Europe. He’s a member of Benador Associates.
) and guns or whatever they have. They kill the soldiers and capture the tank and all the ammunition’.