Islam and Suicide Bombings

Does Islamic law justify suicide bombings? It's a difficult question to answer. But the folks at Jihad Watch, specifically Raymond Ibrahim, have made a sweeping statement that modern Muslim jurists have agreed that suicide bombings are legitimate under Islamic law.

Wow.

Here is what Ibrahim said:

Says Mullah Omar's spokesman: “They sacrificed some people, friends of Muhammad, for the sake of Islam. This is part of the jihad and part of the fighting." Indeed, many Muslim jurists have decreed that, based on the fact that the hadith and sira record any number of 7th century jihadis placing themselves in "suicidal" situations solely that Islam may triumph, that "suicide-operations" are in fact legitimate in Islam. When the first caliph was busy subjugating the Arabian Peninsula, for example, one fighter, in the battle of Yamama, though he knew he would most likely die, allowed himself to be catapulted into the city so he could open the gates for the rest of the jihadis -- which he did, dying as expected. Based on such accounts, and the Muslim technique of qiyas -- i.e., analogizing or finding precedent -- modern day jurists are agreed that today's suicide operations are legitimate, indeed, the height of praiseworthiness.

Maybe Ibrahim made a mistake because first he says that "many" Muslim jurists have permitted suicide bombings, but then he goes on to say that modern jurists are agreed that suicide bombings today are allowed.

That's a lot to swallow. The problem with suicide bombings as I see it is that the discussion surrounding them are clouded by politics. In the Middle East they are seen as the weapon of the weak. Obviously in the West they are viewed as despicable and cowardly acts of terrorism (although Randy Quaid blowing himself up against the aliens in the movie Independence Day didn't seem to offend anyone).

We have to remove ourselves from the political excuses and arguments surrounding the issue of suicide bombings to discover if the act is allowed under Islamic law. Firstly, the jihadis, no matter how they may want to portray themselves and no matter how others may want them to be viewed as legitimate Islamic actors, are not jurists or state authorities. This is essential to understanding this issue.

To get to the point, there is a growing consensus against suicide bombings in the Muslim world by its scholars. The twisting of Islamic history and law to justify these attacks is and has been used by the politically desperate, not by the scholars of Islam. Even the hard line Wahhabi scholars of Saudi Arabia have condemned these attacks. That may not say much since they usually just tow the line the royal family wants them to, but it does show that while there may not be a consensus on this issue, there is major opposition within the Sunni Muslim community to such tactics.

The best scholarly argument against suicide attacks both generally and specifically regarding Israelis is the fatwa written by Shaikh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti. While Ibrahim claims there is agreement or consensus amongst such actions, this fatwa by al-Akiti demonstrates that this is not true and even more that the arguments by the jihadis and their supporters are very weak legally. Al-Akiti is not some schmo either, he is a traditionally trained scholar in the Shafi'i legal school.

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.

While this may not make Robert Spencer sleep well at night since the Muslim state authority still has the power to declare war or jihad against non-Muslims (doesn't the leader of any nation have the authority to declare war on whomever and whatever he wants?), it at the very least shows that the basis for suicide bombings has no merit under classical Islamic law. This is important because it weakens the arguments of the jihadis who have no other recourse but to analogize actions of the Companions under completely different circumstances to justify their actions. This is not a strong scholarly basis for arguing your case under Islamic law.

A quick aside, Spencer can sleep in peace if he only realized that a Muslim ruler is not obligated to attack non-Muslim nations, despite the comments of jurists in their books. As I have noted before, Muslim rulers have done what they wanted to do in the past and could do the same in the future.

To conclude, suicide bombings are prohibited under Islamic law for any number of reasons. The arguments of the jihadis are weak and do not fall in line with the principles of Islamic law. Just reading al-Akiti's fatwa illuminates the discussion and demonstrates that the jihadis and their supporters are grasping at straws. Plus their continued escalation of violence has garnered them the hatred of both Muslims and non-Muslims to the point that sympathy for their cause has dwindled considerably. This is a blessing of God and I, at least, am grateful for it.