RSS Feed
Legitimate and Illegitimate Acts of Violence
Why is Islam such a violent religion? Does the Qur'an condone acts of terrorism? Why haven’t Muslims denounced the 9/11 attacks and suicide bombing?
Whether in the media or public discussions, these are common and persistent questions. But, in fact, major Muslim religious leaders and Muslim organizations have and do speak out. The media tends not to find these fatwas and statements newsworthy but they are available on the internet.
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, for example, Muhammad Abdur-Rashid, the most senior Muslim chaplain in the American Armed forces, asked for a fatwa about whether American Muslim military could participate in the war in Afghanistan and in other Muslim countries. A group of prominent religious authorities concluded that “All Muslims ought to be united against all those who terrorize the innocents, and those who permit the killing of non-combatants without a justifiable reason” and that it was acceptable “to partake in the fighting in the upcoming battles, against whomever their country decides has perpetrated terrorism against them.”
Islam, like other religions, distinguishes between legitimate and illegitimate acts of violence. The Qur’an does not advocate or condone illegitimate violence or terrorism. The Islamic tradition places extensive limits on the use of violence and rejects terrorism, hijackings, and hostage taking. However, Muslims are permitted, indeed at times required to defend their religion, their families, and the Islamic community from aggression.
What about suicide bombers? What about violence against non-combatants? Since the late twentieth century, these issues have resurfaced in Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, America and Europe as suicide-bombing has come to be equated with martyrdom, relinquishing one’s life for defense of Islam and the community.
Debates over legitimate vs. illegitimate violence have been highlighted by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Prophetic traditions (narrative stories about Muhammad’s words and deeds) clearly and absolutely prohibit suicide because only God has the right to take the life he has granted. Historically both Sunni and Shii Muslims have generally forbidden religious suicide and acts of terrorism.
The issue of suicide bombing and the question of its legitimacy or illegitimacy crystallized in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during the second intifada. Increased Israeli military violence and targeted assassinations reinforced the belief among many Palestinians that suicide bombers were committing not an act of suicide but one of self-sacrifice, the only option for resistance and retaliation against an enemy with overwhelming military power and foreign support. As student posters at universities in the West Bank and Gaza declared: “Israel has nuclear bombs, we have human bombs.”
Suicide attacks, especially those that target innocent civilians or noncombatants, have precipitated a sharp debate among prominent religious authorities in the Muslim world. Their advice and fatwas (religious legal opinions) of prominent religious authorities illustrate the debate today. Sheikh Ahmad Yasin, the late religious leader and founder of Hamas, and Akram Sabri, the Mufti of Jerusalem, as well as many other Arab and Palestinian religious leaders, have argued that suicide bombing is necessary and justified when faced with Israel’s illegal occupation and overwhelming military power.
Others condemn suicide bombings, in particular those that target civilians, as terrorism. The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia condemns all suicide bombing as un-Islamic and forbidden by Islam. Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the former Grand Mufti of Egypt and current Sheikh of al-Azhar, and thus a major religious authority, draws a sharp distinction between suicide bombings that are acts of self-sacrifice and self-defense to defend one’s land and help the oppressed and the killing of noncombatants, women, and children, which he has consistently opposed. As he says: “Attacking innocent people is not courageous, it is stupid and will be punished on the day of judgment. ... It’s not courageous to attack innocent children, women and civilians. It is courageous to protect freedom; it is courageous to defend oneself and not to attack.”
Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, whom many regard as the most preeminent and influential religious authority in the Arab and Muslim world, condemned the 9/11 terrorist attacks and other acts of terrorism. His opinions stress that Muslims are not allowed to kill anyone except those fighting Muslims directly and that it is immoral to kill innocent civilians for their government’s actions. However, he was also one of the first religious scholars to approve suicide bombings in Israel.
A key issue that has emerged in these debates is that of proportionality, that the response or retaliation must be in proportion to the crime committed. Those who seek to justify the killing of civilians argue that in Israel there are no innocent civilians both because Israeli society is a military society (men and women have to serve in the military and continue to serve in the reserves) and because Israeli occupation and policies indiscriminately kill Palestinian civilians.
The debate, what some call the war of fatwas, among religious leaders, is reflected in Qaradawi’s harsh criticism in the Arab media of Shaykh Tantawi who condemned the suicide attack that killed 26 Israelis in December 2001:
"How can the head of Al-Azhar incriminate mujahedin (Islamic fighters) who fight against aggressors? How can he consider these aggressors as innocent civilians?...Has fighting colonisers become a criminal and terrorist act for some sheikhs? …I am astonished that some sheikhs deliver fatwas that betray the mujahedin, instead of supporting them and urging them to sacrifice and martyrdom."
Qaradawi also criticized Shaykh Muhammad bin ‘Abdallah as-Sabil, the imam of the grand mosque in Mecca, for declaring that killing Israelis is not permissible. In an interview with Al-Jazeera, Qaradawi rejected the term "suicide operations,” maintaining that ‘martyrdom’ operations should not be attributed to suicide. Distinguishing between terrorism and "martyrdom," Qaradawi declared:
"The Palestinian who blows himself up is a person who is defending his homeland. When he attacks an occupier enemy, he is attacking a legitimate target. This is different from someone who leaves his country and goes to strike a target with which he has no dispute.”
In contrast, Timothy Winter (Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad) of Cambridge University in “The Poverty of Fanaticism”, says "this kind of targeting of civilians, for instance, the aberrant use of terrorist violence is something that really is very new.… It hasn’t gained much inroad into the leadership of the religion, but in the masses on the streets, as it were, particularly in very tense, unnatural places like Gaza, the slums of Baghdad and other places, it does have a certain standing unfortunately. And this is the great challenge of the leadership of the religion – how to reassert orthodoxy in the face of a growing groundswell of fundamentalist revolt.”
The point is this. Islam, like other religions, distinguishes between legitimate and illegitimate acts of violence.
In fact, Muslims are at least as likely as Americans to condemn targeting civilians as morally wrong. A recent study shows that 46% of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24% believe these attacks are “often or sometimes justified."
Contrast this with data taken the same year from some of the largest majority Muslim nations, where 74% of respondents in Indonesia agreed that terrorist attacks are "never justified"; in Pakistan, that figure was 86%; in Bangladesh, 81% , and in Iran 80%.
But what do Muslims across the world think about extremism and terrorism?
A Gallup study of some 40 majority Muslim countries, “Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Think,” reveals that Muslims everywhere are deeply concerned about extremism. Gallup also found that the primary driver for sympathy for terrorism was not piety, but politics.
Similar trends have been identified by other studies on suicide bombers.
The Qur’an does not advocate or condone illegitimate violence or terrorism. The Islamic tradition places extensive limits on the use of violence and rejects terrorism, hijackings, and hostage taking. However, Muslims are permitted, indeed at times required to defend their religion, their families, and the Islamic community from aggression.
Throughout history, given the power of religion to legitimate and inspire, the Quran like the Bible has been interpreted and misinterpreted to justify resistance and liberation struggles, extremism and terrorism, holy and unholy wars. The Qur’an and the Bible contain verses about fighting and warfare. Both their prophets (Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon and Muhammad were also warriors) and scriptures reflect the violent contexts in which their communities developed.
The Quran provides guidelines for conducting war: who is to fight and who is exempted (Quran 48:17, 9:91), when hostilities must stop (Quran 2:192), and how prisoners should be treated (Quran 47:4). Most important, verses such as 2:194 emphasize that warfare and the response to violence and aggression must be proportional: “Whoever transgresses against you, respond in kind.” According to Islamic law, for a war to be morally justifiable it must be fought in defense of the faith; cannot be waged primarily for material gain and possession; must respect the rights of non-combatants (lives, freedom, property); must not harm women, children, old people and invalids or torture prisoners of war or demolish places of worship and kill religious leaders.
John L. Esposito is University Professor and Professor of Religion and International Affairs, Georgetown University and author of What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam and Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam. He also is founding director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service
By John L. Esposito |
July 24, 2007; 9:42 AM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Violence, Morality and Islam's Call |
Next: Michael Bloomberg and His God Problem
Posted by: jafar | August 3, 2007 12:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
earlier today i posted a comment re: amrican universities selling their academic souls for money...mainly saudi money...the "comment" has already been disappeared from the list...very curious...apparently, money talks!...how sad for georgetown U.
Posted by: fred rothman | August 1, 2007 8:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I believe that Washington Post thru' its altruistic objectives, have opened up the Pandora's box. Islam is a theocracy, and even Prof. John L. Esposito has admitted it in various of his works on Islam. Thus, it follows as a corollary that politics and religion in Islam is very much intertwined, unlike Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism.
I find it hypocritical that many of these so-called Islamic scholars are now issuing their own feel-good fatwas on suicide bombing and attack of the non-combatants by the jihadists. Just reading the views of this mullah Muhamamd Sayyid Tantawi (grand mufti in Egypt), is quite disgusting. He states that justifying the acts of suicide bombing to kill non-combatants is bad; but that "bad" is in the eyes of the jihadi. This is just double-speak. Islam has always found ways to justify its bloodlust on innocents because it defined (according to its own convenience) that such aggression was justified because Islam's interests need to protected. Thus, in this perspective, the "non-combatants" are actually "combatants". For example, because the US government is at odds with the Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Israel, Hizb-ul-Mujahadeen in Kashmir and Lashkar-e-Tayiba in India, Al-Qaeeda and Taliban in Afghanistan, the jihadists may well declare that attacking any US taxpayer is fully justified because that taxpayer is contributing to the cause of Jihad against Islam. What's wrong with this position of the Jihadists ?(In fact, Abu Musab-al Zarqawi used this line of thinking to decapitate Nick Berg, Ken Bigley and Eugene Anderson - all non-combatants by western standards.) By continuing the same line of argument Jihadis are totally justified in attacking all other non-Muslim countries, because an un-Islamic existence is a threat to Islam. This view of mullah Tantawi also acknowledges the us (dar-al-islam) vs. them (dar-al-harb) syndrome.
Sheikh Sayyid Abul-ala-Maududi and Sayyid Qutb, the two orthodox thinkers and Islamic scholars who have influenced the radical Muslim movement globally, have stated (in their works, JIHAD IN ISLAM and MILESTONES, respectively) that it is the duty of the Islamic countries to pre-emptively attack those un-Islamic countries and uphold the Islamic laws there because such acts are obligatory for Muslims (believers). To that end, Quran (004:095) states the following, that lends ideological support for "suicide bombing, fighting and terrorism" and reads as:
YUSUFALI: "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-"
Again, Islamic apologists can spin this to confuse by stating it is "taken out of context" - thus trying to stall any debate and criticism. But, for the contextual explanations one may refer to that given by Sayyid Maududi. The entire surah plus explanations are available at:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html
I thus find it hard to accept the feel-good fatwas on suicide bombing when other Islamic scholars, equally reputed like the ones we have read here, have totally different opinions. If two competing opinions are equally valid, then why one should be accepted and other rejected ? Hypocrisy, political correctness, US elections 2008 - all lining up perhaps ?
Posted by: Deb Chatterjee | August 1, 2007 12:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
John,
Very good article. See you in September.
Tom Michel
Posted by: Anonymous | July 25, 2007 4:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Terry, the Quran verses are in context with the article by Esposito. All I did was print them.
What I really don't get is this: We can not find any Western / Christian leaders using Bible verses to justify war and killing, yet, the Islamic world uses the Quran and we are all suppose to respect this? If an OT verse was used in reference to war by a Western politician, it would not matter if it was in context or out of context; there would be an uproar. Why worry about OT verses when they have no political will behind them as politicians are practically banned from any reference to the OT?
The context we should be concerned about is the everyday use of the Quran, including by Esposito. This is what is wrong in places like Saudi Arabia with religious police to enforce the call to prayer. And Iran where nobody has any religious freedom. Quran culture kind of restricts with all the rules and regulations, dress codes, call to prayer and all the rest, don’t you think? Oh I know some of the stuff is not in the Quran so we have to pull in the Shariah and the Hadith. Take the three together and you have a real 14th century mentality that is kind of scary to people who enjoy their freedom of religion and speech.
Because the Islamic world uses the Quran to justify war and form governments and exercise political control, the quotation of the Quran either in context or out of context is relevant and it is important to pay attention to what is being quoted. You can try all you want to paper over what is in the Quran but it would be like trying to paper over some of the things in the OT. It just does not work. The standard line is that something is out of context or miss interpreted or miss translated. Someone told me recently that 2:191 did not even exists in the Quran as the translation I had was in error. Now that is a real good one!
We do not live in the middle ages so why not start treating the Quran as we in the West treat the OT. The OT is an important book to many of us but we don't try to shoehorn the principles and logic into today’s modern, progressive democracies. Nor do we in great detail codify the OT to force others to bow down to our God. For this reason, Terry, do not concern yourself with OT verses that are disturbing to you because they do not have the force of law behind them. Be concerned about verses in the Quran because they do, in many cases, have Governmental force backing them as well as a network of terrorists. That is the big difference.
Posted by: Tim | July 25, 2007 10:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Quote: "Mr. Tim have you ever heard of context?? You can do the same thing with bible verses that are much more explicit than those in the Qur-an."
One big difference being that virtually NO Christians actually BELIEVE or act on the violent crap in the Bible--it is disregarded and has been for centuries. Not so for a large part of the Muslim world in regard to their Qur-an. I'm wondering when the Muslim world is going to join the 21st century and stop using the Qur-an to justify their terrorism. And I'm not speaking as a Christian here--I left that behind me a long time ago.
Posted by: Lillie | July 25, 2007 9:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Tim have you ever heard of context?? You can do the same thing with bible verses that are much more explicit than those in the Qur-an.
Posted by: TERRY TAALIB-DIN | July 24, 2007 11:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Parsing these ancient political texts for some nugget of saving grace is a fruitless endeavor. The extent that a society is secular, is the extent that it is civilized. Literally, the more that the exact words of torah, the gospel, and the qu'ran are ignored, the better off society becomes.
The deity in all of these texts behaves in such a remarkably ungodlike fashion so often that their true aim towards political and social control is a dead giveaway. Religious law is an oxymoron. It took over 500 years for the West to figure this out. Only 400 more years to go for Islam to reach the same conclusion if it insists on going it alone.
Am I embarrassed by mistakes my country has made? Of course. It is in my fat American ignorance that I believed a decade of air support prevented the genocide of muslim and kurd alike in Iraq. In my foolishness I have also believed that western military action prevented the genocide of muslims in the Balkans, evicted the muslim occupiers of muslim Kuwait, made it possible for each muslim sect to once again visit their respective holy shrines in Iraq. This was all obviously unwarranted meddling by the Great Satan. I see this all so clearly now through the light of these infallible scriptures.
How could I have believed that Americans, Britains, and other westerners--among them, jews, christians, muslims, pagans, and atheists alike--have spilt oceans of their own blood for such a mindless secular cause without proper scriptural guidance?
--FIUS
Posted by: Faithless in US | July 24, 2007 11:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This guy thinks you are stupid. Here are the exact passages from the Quran that he quotes. He is quoting the Quran betting that you will not read it. If you don't believe me, just go do a search up on the web and read the passages he quotes for yourself.
He quotes this as a guideline from the Quran as to when hostilities must stop:
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.
[2.192] But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Here is the passage he uses on how to treat prisoners.
[47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwords either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.
Here is the guideline from the Quran he quotes on Who is to be Exempted from Islamic justice:
[48:17] The blind is not to be blamed, the crippled is not to be blamed, and the sick is not to be blamed. Those who obey GOD and His messenger, He will admit them into gardens with flowing streams. As for those who turn away, He will requite them with a painful retribution
91. There is no blame on those who are infirm, or ill, or who find no resources to spend (on the cause), if they are sincere (in duty) to Allah and His Messenger. no ground (of complaint) can there be against such as do right: and Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
Here is from the Quran what he says is most important about warfare:
[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and "religion should be only for Allah," (my quotations - important that the reader understand that no religious tolerance is to be accepted. No religious freedom. Only Allah) but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
[2.194] The Sacred month for the sacred month and all sacred things are (under the law of) retaliation; whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and be careful (of your duty) to Allah and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
Posted by: Tim | July 24, 2007 10:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Editor,
I would like to bring to your attention a couple of either typos or misnomers. The phrase "founding director of the Prince...." should read: funded director by the Prince blablabla. Sincerely, Raid Mohammad
Posted by: Raid Mohammad | July 24, 2007 8:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Your article does a good job of showing that terrorism has it's roots in political conflicts as opposed to religious ones. Especially, in places of occupation, it is a misguided attempt to fight back with an occupier that has a much superior military force. Your next article should highlight how agressors from other faiths have also used religion to justify whole sale slaughter of innocent people such as during the Crusades or in the occupied Palestinian lands and in Lebanon.
Posted by: Cascade | July 24, 2007 8:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Prof.Eposito,
Excellent and balanced articulation of this imporatant topic-Jihad-which has been distorted delibrately in and by western media-and especially by Israel and its supporters to distract from Israeli violnece to maitain its 60-year violent occupation, state terrorirsm and Apartheid against the Palestinian people.
The issue is not terrorism-rather it's the barbaric israeli occupation.Once the occupation is ended there will be no "terrorism." If the occupiers don't like "terrorism," why not end their brutal occupation? Really simple.
Posted by: Asim | July 24, 2007 6:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Maybe to inject a little bit of a Wiccan point of view on this:
Everyone's debating whether or not violence they want to do is 'ultimately' justifiable.
Anyone pointed out lately how this stuff has a way of escalating?
Posted by: Paganplace | July 24, 2007 1:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
While I have respect for much of the Islamic faith I think it falls short of Christianity when it comes to violence.
I am not a Christian but Jesus' message of peace and non violence to me is a more advanced stance on violence.
Also if we look historically and logically at conflict non violence is typically a more effective tool when trying to convince people to see things your way. Violence begets violence, peace begets peace. Be what you want to create.
Posted by: Rob Adams | July 24, 2007 1:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You said:
'The Qur’an does not advocate or condone illegitimate violence or terrorism.'
'Increased Israeli military violence and targeted assassinations reinforced the belief among many Palestinians that suicide bombers were committing not an act of suicide but one of self-sacrifice,..."
I suggest you read (or re-read) the Quran. Also, there you go blaming Israel for the murderous bombing of innocent people by so-called Palestinians, when history clearly records the bombing of innocent civilians long before Israel decided to retaliate in defense of its people and country. The manner in which we Americans reacted when we were bombed smacks of double standard when the same reaction is applied to Israel, who has had to live in those conditions since it reestablished its homeland. As for violence against a people I suggest you read "From Time Immemorial". Sheesh! You so-called scholars
Posted by: Sylvester | July 24, 2007 12:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dr. Esposito, Thank-you for your balanced and informative essay. I totally agree that the real motive behind terrorism is politics, not religion. After all, neither the IRA, Sendero Luminoso or the Tamil Tigers are Muslims. On the other hand, your comments pretty much torpedo the "Islam is a religion of peace" line. For instance:
"Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi.....draws a sharp distinction between suicide bombings that are acts of self-sacrifice and self-defense to defend one’s land and help the oppressed and the killing of noncombatants, women, and children, which he has consistently opposed."
Let me get this straight: Islamic authorities condemn the killing of noncombatants, but leave it up to the bomber's own conscience to decide who is and who is not a combatant. And of course all Israeli Jews (as well as, apparently, the Israeli Arabs who have died in suicide bombings) are combatants. How is this any different than Osama Bin Laden deciding that all Americans are anti-Islamic aggressors?
Anybody out there who can clarify this for me and explain how this line of thought does not justify and encourage violence against civilians? I don't need a list of all the non-Muslim freedom fighters out there, either. That's not an explanation, that's just balancing the scales. The fact is, other faiths have distinguished between political and moral acts. Even the Irgun tactics against the British were condemned by Jewish religious authorities.
Okay I'm posting this again because it seems to have disappeared into the ozone.
Posted by: Viejita del oeste | July 24, 2007 12:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dr. Esposito, Thank-you for your balanced and informative essay. I totally agree that the real motive behind terrorism is politics, not religion. After all, neither the IRA, Sendero Luminoso or the Tamil Tigers are Muslims. On the other hand, your comments pretty much torpedo the "Islam is a religion of peace" line. For instance:
"Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi.....draws a sharp distinction between suicide bombings that are acts of self-sacrifice and self-defense to defend one’s land and help the oppressed and the killing of noncombatants, women, and children, which he has consistently opposed."
Let me get this straight: Islamic authorities condemn the killing of noncombatants, but leave it up to the bomber's own conscience to decide who is and who is not a combatant. And of course all Israeli Jews (as well as, apparently, the Israeli Arabs who have died in suicide bombings) are combatants. How is this any different than Osama Bin Laden deciding that all Americans are anti-Islamic aggressors?
Anybody out there who can clarify this for me and explain how this line of thought does not justify and encourage violence against civilians? I don't need a list of all the non-Muslim freedom fighters out there, either. That's not an explanation, that's just balancing the scales. The fact is, other faiths have distinguished between political and moral acts. Even the Irgun tactics against the British were condemned by Jewish religious authorities.
Posted by: Viejita del oeste | July 24, 2007 11:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Tranlation of verse with Tim's comments
[2.193] And fight with them until there is no persecution, and "religion should be only for Allah," (my quotations - important that the reader understand that no religious tolerance is to be accepted. No religious freedom. Only Allah) but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.
I'm not sure why Tim ignored this part: "but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors." Does that have no meaning? Or is Tim only interested in the parts that validate his point of view? It is quite clear from all the passages quoted that hostilities are only allowed against the oppressors and the hostile.