Understanding Islamist Terrorism: The Islamic Doctrine of War by Patrick Sookhdeo

Author:Patrick Sookhdeo [Sookhdeo, Patrick]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Isaac Publishing
Published: 2014-06-24T00:00:00+00:00

Contemporary Muslim Debate

8

Currently Islamic teaching on war is in a state of flux. The Muslim press, in particular Muslim cyberspace, is filled with debate and discussion about the Islamic doctrine of war. Although the traditional doctrine is no longer all-pervasive and unquestioned, it is nevertheless still very influential – as President Sadat of Egypt found to his cost.1 Before making a peace treaty with Israel, he took the precaution of obtaining a ruling from the respected Al-Azhar University to say that the treaty did not violate the Shari‘ah. Many Muslims however remained unconvinced, including those who assassinated him for neglecting what they asserted was the Islamic duty to fight non-Muslims.2

Parts of the traditional Islamic doctrine of war clearly run counter to modern international agreements such as the Geneva conventions and protocols and UN General Assembly resolutions. Even Sobhi Mahmassani, a renowned Lebanese legal expert whose general stance is that Islamic and international principles are compatible, admitted that rules about war are an exception to this.3

Much of the contemporary debate centres on the justification for war, in contrast to the pre-modern debate in which jurists focused mainly on devising rules for the conduct of war, the treatment of prisoners etc. Some argue for a stricter interpretation than classical Islam, others for a more lenient interpretation. Space permits only a few examples.

Is jihad defensive only?

A prominent Arab Muslim, Dr Muhammad Ma‘ruf al-Dawalibi, a counsellor to the King of Saudi Arabia and formerly a professor in the Faculty of Law at Damascus University, wrote an article in the Arab press4 outlining (amongst other things) many of the usual arguments of modern liberal Muslims against a militaristic and aggressive interpretation of jihad (see pages 12-18). Four weeks later the same Arab daily newspaper printed an article by Ahmad Naser al-Rajihi containing a pointby-point rebuttal of each of al-Dawalibi’s arguments, and asserting that jihad does indeed mean literal fighting of non-Muslims and that this is by no means limited to self-defence.5

Must Muslims engage in warfare?

Another area of discussion centres on whether Muslims must engage in jihad (the classical Islamic understanding) or whether they can refrain on the basis that God has already promised to annihilate the infidels so that Muslims themselves need not take responsibility for ensuring this annihilation. The Qur’anic verse which presents this possible get-out clause runs:

… we can expect for you either that God will send His punishment from Himself, or by our hands. Q 9:52

Seif al-Din al-Ansari6 argues strongly for the classical position i.e. that Muslims must engage in warfare. He agrees that “the elements of the collapse of western civilisation are proliferating” anyway, but disagrees that this absolves Muslims from working for the annihilation of the infidels. He argues that unless Muslims get involved in the annihilation of an “infidel country”, it might simply be replaced by another infidel regime, rather than by the Islamic state.

Does the end justify the means?

The respected Saudi Sheikh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen has condemned the activities of Palestinian suicide bombers, declaring that they “have wrongfully committed suicide”, they are not martyrs and they will go to hell.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.