thegoodfellas/blogset-br huggingface dataset:
as the September 11th Hijackings is a viable option in jihad, even though for the Muslims living in America who are under covenant, it is not allowed to do operations similar to those done by the magnificent 19 on the 9/11. This article speaks about the covenant and what the scholars have said regarding Al Aqd Al Amaan - the covenant of security. [...] Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti's Fatwabismillahi r-rahman al-rahimal-hamdulillah alladhi yahuddu l-harba wa-la yuhibbu l-mu'tadina wa s-salatu wa-s-salamu 'ala qa'idi l-ummah alladhi huwa asbaru 'ala adha l-a'da'i bi-futuwwatin kamilatin wa-muru'atin shamilatin wa-'ala alihi wa-ashabihi wa-jayshihi ajma'in![In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. Praise be to God Who sets the boundaries of war and does not love transgressors! Blessings and peace on the General of the Community, the most patient of men in the face of the harm of enemies, with perfect chivalry and complete manliness, and upon all his Family, Companions, and Army!]This is a collection of masa'il, entitled: Mudafi' al-Mazlum bi-Radd al-Muhamil 'ala Qital Man La Yuqatil [Defending the Transgressed, by Censuring the Reckless against the Killing of Civilians], written in response to the fitna reeling this mercied Umma, day in and day out, which is partly caused by those who, wilfully or not, misunderstand the legal discussions of the chapter on warfare outside its proper contexts (of which the technical fiqh terminology varies with bab: siyar, jihad, or qital), which have been used by them to justify their wrong actions. May Allah open our eyes to the true meaning [haqiqa] of sabr and to the fact that only through it can we successfully endure the struggles we face in this dunya, especially during our darkest hours; for indeed He is with those who patiently endure tribulations!There is no khilaf that all the Shafi'i fuqaha' of today and other Sunni specialists in the Sacred Law from the Far East to the Middle East reject outright [mardud] the above opinion and consider it not only an anomaly [shadhdh] and very weak [wahin] but also completely wrong [batil] and a misguided innovation [bid'a dalala]: the 'amal cannot at all be adopted by any mukallaf. It is regrettable too that the above was written in a legal style at which any doctor of the Law should be horrified and appalled (since it is an immature yet persuasive attempt to mask a misguided personal opinion with authority from fiqh, and an effort to hijack our Law by invoking one of the many qadaya of this bab while recklessly neglecting others). It should serve to remind the students of fiqh of the importance of the forming in one's mind and being aware throughout of the thawabit and the dawabit when reading a furu' text, in order to ensure that those principal rules have not been breached in any given legal case.The above opinion is problematic in three legal particulars [fusul]: (1) the target [maqtul]: without doubt, civilians; (2) the authority for carrying out the killing [amir al-qital]: as no Muslim authority has declared war, or if there has been such a declaration
there is at the time a ceasefire [hudna]; and (3) the way in which the killing is carried out [maqtul bih]: since it is either haram and is also cursed as it is suicide [qatil nafsah], or at the very least doubtful [shubuhat] in a way such that it must be avoided by those who are religiously scrupulous [wara']. Any sane Muslim who would believe otherwise and think the above to be not a crime [jinaya] would be both reckless [muhmil] and deluded [maghrur]. Instead, whether he realizes it or not, by doing so he would be hijacking rules from our Law which are meant for the conventional (or authorized) army of a Muslim state and addressed to those with authority over it (such as the executive leaders, the military commanders and so forth), but not to individuals who are not connected to the military or those without the political authority of the state [dawla].The result in Islamic jurisprudence is: if a Muslim carries out such an attack voluntarily, he becomes a murderer and not a martyr or a hero, and he will be punished for that in the Next World.Fasl I. The Target: MaqtulThe proposition: "so it is acceptable for them to attack the non-Muslims in the west", where "non-Muslims" can be taken to mean, and indeed does mean in the document, non-combatants, civilians, or in the terminology of fiqh: those who are not engaged in direct combat [man la yuqatilu].This opinion violates a well known principal rule [dabit] from our Law:"la yajUzu qatlu nisA'ihim wa-la SibyAnihim idhA lam yuqAtilU" [it is not permissible to kill their [i.e., the opponents'] women and children if they are not in direct combat.]This is based on the Prophetic prohibition on soldiers from killing women and children, from the well known Hadith of Ibn 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both!) related by Imams Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, al-Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, al-Bayhaqi and al-Baghawi (may Allah be well pleased with them all!) and other Hadiths.Imam al-Subki ( may Allah be pleased with him!) made it unequivocally clear what scholars have understood from this prohibition in which the standard rule of engagement taken from it is that: "[a Muslim soldier] may not kill any women or any child-soldiers unless they are in combat directly, and they can only be killed in self-defence" [al-Nawawi, Majmu', 21:57].It goes without saying that men and innocent bystanders who are not direct combatants are also included in this prohibition. The nature of this prohibition is so specific and well-defined that there can be no legal justification, nor can there be a legitimate shar'i excuse, for circumventing this convention of war by targeting non-combatants or civilians whatsoever, and that the hukm shar'i of killing them is not only haram but also a Major Sin [Kabira] and contravenes one of the principal commandments of our way of life. II. The Authority: Amir al-QitalThe proposition: "so it is acceptable for them to attack the non-Muslims in the west whether in retaliation for constant bombing and murder taking place all over
the Muslim world at the hands of the non-Muslims," where it implies that a state of war exist with this particular non-Muslim state on account of its being perceived as the aggressor.This opinion violates the most basic rules of engagement from our Law: "amru l-jihAdi mawkulun ila l-imAmi wa-ijtihAdihi wa-yalzamu r-ra'iyyata TA'atuhu fImA yarAhu min dhalika" [The question of declaring war (or not) is entrusted to the executive authority and to its decision: compliance with that decision is the subject's duty with respect to what the authority has deemed apropriate in that matter.] and "wa-li-imamin aw amirin khiyarun bayna l-kaffi wa l-qitAli" [The executive or its subordinate authority has the option of whether or notto declare war ].Decisions of this kind for each Muslim state, such as those questions dealing with ceasefire ['aqd al-hudna], peace settlement ['aqd al-aman] and the judgment on prisoners of war [al-ikhtar fi asir] can only be dealt with by the executive or political authority [imam] or by a subordinate authority appointed by the former authority [amir mansubin min jihati l-imam]. This is something Muslims take for granted from the authority of our naql [scriptures] such that none will reject it except those who betray their 'aql [intellect]. The most basic legal reason ['illa asliyya] is that this matter is one that involves the public interest, and thus consideration of it belongs solely to the authority: li-anna hadhA l-amra mina l-masAliHi l-'Ammati allati yakhtassu l-imAmi bi-n-naZari fI-hA.All of this is based on the well known legal principle [qa'ida]:taSarrufu l-imAmi 'ala r-ra'iyyati manUTun bi l-maSlaHati [The decisions of the authority on behalf of the subjects are dependent upon the public good].And:fa-yaf'alu l-imAmu wujUban al-aHaZZa li-l-MuslimIna li-ijtihAdihi [So the authority must act for the greatest advantage of (all of) the Muslims in making its judgement].Nasiha: Uppermost in the minds of the authority during their deliberation over whether or not to wage war should be the awareness that war is only a means and not the end. Hence, if there are other ways of achieving the aim, and the highest aim is the right to practice our religion openly (as is indeed the case in modern day Spain, for example, unlike in medieval Reconquista Spain), then it is better [awla] not to go to war. This has been expressed in a few words by Imam al-Zarkashi ( may Allah be pleased with him!): wujUbuhu wujUbu l-wasA'ili lA l-maqASidi[Its necessity is the necessity of means, not ends.]The upshot is, whether one likes it or not, the decision and discretion and right to declare war or jihad for Muslims lie solely with the various authorities as represented today by the respective Muslim states - and not with any individual, even if he is a scholar or a soldier (and not just anyone is a soldier or a scholar) - in the same way that an authority (such as the qadi in a court of law: mahkamah) is the only one with the right to excommunicate or declare someone an apostate [murtad]. Otherwise, the killing would be extra-judicial and unauthorized.Even during the period of
the Ottoman caliphate, for example, another Muslim authority elsewhere, such as in the Indian subcontinent, could have been engaged in a war when at the same time the Khalifa's army was at peace with the same enemy. This is how it has been throughout our long history, and this is how it will always be, and this is the reality on the ground. Fasl III. The Method: Maqtul bihThe proposition: "attacks such as the September 11th Hijackings is a viable option in jihad," where such attacks employ tactics - analogous to the Japanese "kamikaze" missions during the Second World War - that have been described variously as self-sacrificing or martyrdom or suicide missions.There is no question among scholars, and there is no khilaf on this this question by any qadi, mufti or faqih, that this proposition and those who accept it are without doubt breaching the scholarly consensus [mukhalifun li-l-ijma'] of the Muslims since it resulted in the killing of non-combatants; moreover, the proposition is an attempt to legitimize the killing of indisputable non-combatants. As for the kamikaze method and tactic in which it was carried out, there is a difference of opinion with some jurists as to whether or not it constitutes suicide, which is not only Haram but also cursed. In this, there are further details. (Note that in all of the following cases, it is already assumed that the target is legitimate - i.e., a valid military target - and that the action is carried out during a valid war when there is no ceasefire [fi hal al-harb wa-la l-hudnata fihi], just as with the actual circumstance of the Japanese kamikaze attacks.) Tafsil I: If the attack involves a bomb placed on the body or placed so close to the bomber that when the bomber detonates it the bomber is certain [yaqin] to die, then the More Correct Position [Qawl Asahh] according to us is that it does constitute suicide. This is because the bomber, being also the maqtul [the one killed], is unquestionably the same as the qatil [the immediate and active agent that kills] = qatil nafsah [self-killing, i.e. suicide].Furu': If the attack involves a bomb (such as the lobbing of a grenade and the like), but the attacker thinks that when it is detonated , it is uncertain [zann] whether he will die in the process or survive the attack, then the Correct Position [Qawl Sahih] is that this does not constitute suicide, and were he to die in this selfless act, he becomes what we properly call a martyr or hero [shahid]. This is because the attacker, were he to die, is not the active, willing agent of his own death, since the qatil is probably someone else.An example [sura] of this is: when in its right place and circumstance, such as in the midst of an ongoing fierce battle against an opponent's military unit, whether ordered by his commanding officer or whether owing to his own initiative, the soldier makes a lone charge and as a result of that initiative manages to turn the
tide of the day's battle but dies in the process (and not intentionally at his own hand). That soldier died as a hero (and this circumstance is precisely the context of becoming a shahid - in Islamic terminology - as he died selflessly). If he survives, he wins a Medal of Honour or at the least becomes an honoured war hero and is remembered as a famous patriot (in our terminology, becoming a true mujahid).This is precisely the context of the mas'ala concerning the "lone charger" [al-hajim al-wahid] and the meaning of putting one's life in danger [al-taghrir bil-nafs] found in all of the fiqh chapters concerning warfare. The Umma's Doctor Angelicus, Imam al-Ghazali ( may Allah be pleased with him!) provides the best impartial summation:If it is said: What is the meaning of the words of the Most High:{wa-lA tulqU bi-aydIkum ila t-tahlukati}{and do not throw into destruction by your own hands!}(al-Baqara, 2:195)?"We say: There is no difference [of opinion amongst scholars] regarding the lone Muslim [soldier] who charges into the battle-lines of the [opposing] non-Muslim [army that is presently in a state of war with his army and is facing them in a battle] and fights [them] even if he knows that he will almost certainly be killed. The case might be thought to go against the requirements of the Verse, but that is not so. Indeed, Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be well pleased with both of them!) says: [the meaning of] "destruction" is not that [incident]. Instead, [its meaning] is to neglect providing [adequate] supplies [nafaqa: for the military campaign; and in the modern context, the state should provide the arms and equipment and so forth for that for which all of this is done] in obedience to God [as in the first part of the Verse which says:{wa-anfiqU fI sabIli LlAhi}{And spend for the sake of God} (al-Baqara, 2:195)]. That is, those who fail to do that will destroy themselves. [In another Sahabi authority:] al-Bara' Ibn 'Azib [al-Ansari (may Allah be well pleased with them both!)] says: [the meaning of] "destruction" is [a Muslim] committing a sin and then saying: 'my repentance will not be accepted'. [A Tabi'i authority] Abu 'Ubayda says: it [the meaning of "destruction"] is to commit a sin and then not perform a good deed after it before he perishes. [Ponder over this!]In the same way that it is permissible [for the Muslim soldier in the incident above] to fight the non-Muslim [army] until he is killed [in the process], that [extent and consequence] is also permissible for him [i.e., the enforcer of the Law, since the `a'id (antecedent) here goes back to the original pronoun [damir al-asl] for this bab: the muhtasib or enforcer, such as the police] in [matters of] law enforcement [hisba].However, [note the following qualification (qayd):] were he to know [zanni] that his charge will not cause harm to the non-Muslim [army], such as the blind or the weak throwing himself into the [hostile] battle-lines, then it is prohibited [haram], and [this latter incident] is included under the general meaning
['umum] of "destruction" from the Verse [for in this case, he will be literally throwing himself into destruction].It is only permissible for him to advance [and suffer the consequences] if he knows that he will be able to fight [effectively] until he is killed, or knows that he will be able to demoralize the hearts and minds of the non-Muslim [army]: by their witnessing his courage and by their conviction that the rest of the Muslim [army] are [also] selfless [qilla al-mubala] in their loyalty to sacrifice for the sake of God [the closest modern non-Muslim parallel would be 'to die for one's country']. By this, their will to fight [shawka] will become demoralized [and so this may cause panic and rout them and thereby be the cause of their battle-lines to collapse].[al-Ghazali, Ihya', 2:315-6]It is clear that this selfless deed which any modern soldier, Muslim or non-Muslim, might perform in battle today is not suicide. It may hyperbolically be described as a 'suicidal' attack, but to endanger one's life is one thing and to commit suicide during the attack is obviously another. And as the passage shows, it is possible to have both situations: an attack that is taghrir bil-nafs, which is not prohibited; and an attack that is of the tahluka-type, which is prohibited.Tafsil II: If the attack involves ramming a vehicle into a military target and the attacker is certain to die, precisely like the historical Japanese kamikaze missions, then our jurists have disagreed over whether it does or does not constitute suicide. Qawl A: Those who consider it a suicide argue that there is the possibility [zanni] that the maqtul is the same as the qatil (as in Tafsil I above) and would therefore not allow for any other qualification whatsoever, since suicide is a cursed sin.Qawl B: Whereas those who consider otherwise, even with the possibility that the maqtul is the same as the qatil, will allow some other qualification such as the possibility that by carrying it out the battle of the day could be won. There are further details in this alternative position, such as that the commanding officer does not have the right to command anyone under him to perform this dangerous mission, so that were it to be sanctioned, it could only be when it is not under anyone else's orders and is the lone initiative of the concerned soldier (such as in defiance of the standing orders of his commanding officer).The first of the two positions is the Preferred Position [muttajih] among our jurists, as the second is the rarer because of the vagueness of a precedent, and its legal details are fraught with further difficulties and ambiguities, and its opposing position [muqabil] carries such a weighty consequence (namely, that of suicide, for which there is Ijma' that the one who commits suicide will be damned to committing it eternally forever).In addition to this juristic preference, the first position is also preferable and better since it is the original or starting state [asl], and by invoking the well-known and accepted legal principle:
al-khurUju mina l-khilAfi mustaHabbun [To avoid controversy is preferable.]Finally, the first position is religiously safer, since owing to the ambiguity itself of the legal status of the person performing the act - whether it will result in the maqtul being also the qatil - and since there is doubt and uncertainty over the possibility of its either being or not being the case, then this position falls under the type of doubtful matters [shubuhat] of the kind [naw'] that should be avoided by those who are religiously scrupulous [wara']. And here, the wisdom of our wise Prophet ( may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him!) is illuminated from the Hadith of al-Nu'man ( may Allah be well pleased with him!):"fa-mani ttaqA sh-shubuhAti istabra'a li-dInihi wa 'irDihi" [He who saves himself from doubtful matters will save his religion and his honour.](Related by Ahmad, al-Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, al-Tabarani, and al-Bayhaqi with variants.)Wa-Llahu a'lam bis-sawab! [God knows best what is right!]Fa'ida: The original ruling [al-asl] for using a bomb (the medieval precedents: Greek fire [qital bil-nar or ramy al-naft] and catapults [manjaniq]) as a weapon is that it is makruh [offensive] because it kills indiscriminately [ya'ummu man yuqatilu wa-man la yuqatilu], as opposed to using rifles (medieval example: a single bow and arrow). If the indiscriminate weapon is used in a place where there are civilians, it becomes haram except when used as a last resort [min darura] (and of course, by those military personnel authorised to do so).HasilFrom the consideration of the foregoing three legal particulars, it is evident that the opinion expressed regarding the 'amal in the above article is untenable by the standards of our Sacred Law.As to those who may still be persuaded by it and suppose that the action is something that can be excused on the pretext that there is scholarly khilaf on the details of Tafsil II from Fasl III above (and that therefore, the 'amal itself could at the end of the day be accommodated by invoking the guiding principle that one should be flexible with regards to legal controversies [masa'il khilafiyya] and agree to disagree); know then there is no khilaf among scholars that that rationale does not stand, since it is well known that:lA yunkaru l-mukhtalafu fIhi wa-innamA yunkaru l-mujma'u 'alayhi [The controversial cannot be denied; only (breach of) the unanimous can be denied.]Since at the very least, it is agreed upon by all that killing non-combatants is prohibited, there is no question whatsoever that the 'amal overall is outlawed. The qa'ida, which is expressed very tersely above, means, understood correctly, that an action about which there is khilaf may be excused, while an action that contravenes the Ijma' is categorically rejected.Masa'il MufassalaQuestion IIf it is said: "I have heard that Islam says the killing of civilians is allowed if they are non-Muslims."We say: On a joking note (but ponder over this so your hearts may be opened!): the authority is not with what Islam says but with what Allah (Exalted is He!) and His Messenger ( may His blessings and peace