Talk Islam

abunoor 10:07 pm on November 9, 2009 | 6 Permalink | Reply
Tags: Haitham al-Haddad, jihad (11), Terrorism (399)

• 

  johnpi 12:10 am on November 10, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  

  Shorter Shaykh: Don’t try to tell violent ‘jihadists’ they’re wrong in any way, shape or form, period.

  Favorite quote:

  The scriptural texts quoted in most anti-jihadist literature to prove that killing innocent people is an act of great corruption and mischief on Earth is overplayed…

  Really. Overplayed.

  Furthermore, many of these statements and comments articulated by scholars and speakers have been welcomed by non-Muslim agencies with gratitude, something that ‘jihadists’ will undoubtedly claim confirms that these commentators are merely ‘agents of oppressive regimes’.

  Ummm…So what? Isn’t that giving power to the ‘non-Muslim agencies’ to determine what your religion is by setting a condition that your religion must always be set against what they agree with? The Shaykh is quick to condemn various approaches and responses to prevent violence, but he’s absolutely permissive and uncritical about the violent one’s responses.

  Upshot: The Shaykh does mention “methodology,” which should be enough to buffalo Thabet…

  • 

    Omar 8:11 am on November 10, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    

    The Shaykh does mention “methodology,” which should be enough to buffalo Thabet…

    Feel I need to respond to this, especially if by “methodology” you mean fiqh.

    Here’s a tafsîl (detailed legal discussion) which says that off-duty soldiers are treated as civilians:

    (Note: the original paper dismantles the legitimacy of suicide bombing, hence the reason it’s being mentioned.)

    Question IV

    If it is said: “When a bomber blows himself up he is not directing the attack towards civilians. On the contrary, the attack is designed to target off-duty soldiers (which I was told did not mean reservists, since most Israelis are technically reservists). The innocent civilians are unfortunate collateral damage in the targeting of soldiers.”

    We say: There are two details here.

    Tafsîl A: Off-duty soldiers are treated as civilians.

    Our jurists agree that during a valid war when there is no ceasefire, and when an attack is not aimed at a valid military target, a hostile soldier (whether male or female, whether conscripted or not) who is not on operational duty or not wearing a military uniform and when there is nothing in the soldier’s outward appearance to suggest that the soldier is in combat, then the soldier is considered a non-combatant [man lâ yuqâtilu] (and in this case must therefore be treated as a normal civilian).

    A valid military target is limited to either a battlefield [mahall al-ma'raka or sahat al-qitâl] or a military base [mu'askar; medieval examples are citadel or forts; modern examples are barracks, military depots, etc.]; and certainly never can anything else such as a restaurant, a hotel, a public bus, the area around a traffic light, or any other public place be considered a valid military target, since firstly, these are not places and bases from which an attack would normally originate [mahall al-ra'y]; secondly, because there is certain knowledge [yaqîn] that there is intermingling [ikhtilât] with non-combatants; and thirdly, the non-combatants have not been given the option to leave the place.

    As for when the soldiers are on the battlefield, the normal rules of engagement apply.

    As for when the soldiers are in a barracks or the like, there is further discussion on whether the soldiers become a legitimate target, and the Qawl Asahh [the More Correct Position] according to our jurists is that they do, albeit to attack them there is makrûh.

    Tafsil B: Non-combatants cannot be considered collateral damage
    …
    Source.

    Furthermore, some of the points above are re-emphasized in Shaykh Jihad Brown’s article recently on Ft. Hood. Shaykh Jihad Brown also talks of the importance of respecting covenants, some of the details are explained article here.

    • 

      johnpi 8:23 am on November 10, 2009 Permalink | Reply
      

      Mashallah, thank you.

      The “methodology’ comment was a reference to an earlier comment Thabet made that progressive Muslims (I self-identify) lack ‘methodology.’ My implied critique was a challenge as to whether the points I raised could or would be dismissed by a ‘process’ error because I don’t present them out of a religiously ‘technical’ approach, ie, methodology.

      • 

        johnpi 8:42 am on November 10, 2009 Permalink | Reply
        

        And don’t get me wrong. I’m not contemptuous of methodology, I’m antagonized by the argument that disagreements and critiques are inherently invalid and should be casually dismissed because they lack for methodology.

        I think I have a good insight that the drive of some of the extremists to always set themselves against non-Muslims leads them into hirabah. This was evident time and again during the Taliban reign in Afghanistan. If the non-Muslim world said something or did something (about women for example), the Taliban were at least in part driven by this oppositional impulse to other conduct that most of the rest of the Muslim world agrees is deviant and unIslamic.

      • 

        Omar 7:48 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink | Reply
        

        My implied critique was a challenge as to whether the points I raised could or would be dismissed by a ‘process’ error because I don’t present them out of a religiously ‘technical’ approach, ie, methodology.

        Well, there’s nothing wrong making arguments using basic common sense. Personally, when I used to blog, most of my posts regarding Islam were based on common sense and history.

        It’s just when people make arguments and also claim to speak on behalf of Islam (i.e. claim Islamic authenticity), then the Islamic authenticity of their arguments must be challenged. Like the examples of suicide bombing, killing off-duty soldiers and even governments or political movements which use Islam as a basis for their legitimacy.

• 

  Omar 8:13 am on November 11, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  

  Regarding common sense. It just occurred to me that there is sort of an “Islamic basis” for what I said. Read the section on Trusting Reason from Dr. Umar’s Living Islam with Purpose (PDF). The section on Respecting Dissent is interesting as well.

Reply Click here to cancel reply.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Web Site