The Islamic Debate over the Human Bomb

The Islamic Debate over the Human Bomb
by Dr. Azzam Tamimi

Martyrdom – a Question of Faith

According to Tunisian Islamic thinker Rachid Ghannouchi, one of the basic features of the Islamic faith is that it generates within the believer a passion for freedom. Algerian thinker Malik Bennabi had earlier asserted that the Islamic faith accomplishes two objectives: first, it liberates man from servitude and renders him un-slaveable; and secondly, it prohibits him from enslaving others. Many contemporary Islamic thinkers agree with him and explain that this is exactly what the concept of jihad is about.

One of the meanings of Jihad is given as the constant endeavour to struggle against all forms of political or economic tyranny. Despite its sacredness, life has no value in the shade of despotism. Islamic text, both in the Qur’an and the Hadith (sayings of the Prophet) exhort Muslims to resist despotism and struggle against it by means of al-amr bilma`ruf wan-nahyu `anil-munkar (enjoining the good and forbidding the evil). On the basis of a hadith, Muslim scholars have articulated three levels of resistance or struggle. The minimum level is struggle by the heart. This is a psychological process whereby a Muslim prepares himself for the higher level up by means of boycotting evil and disliking it. The higher level of resistance entails condemning evil through the use of various means of non-violent means, such as speaking up, writing or demonstrating, or mobilising public opinion against evil. The highest level of all is resistance through the use of force. What really matters is that oppression should never be given a chance to establish itself in society. A Muslim is supposed to be a conscientious individual responding with appropriate action to whatever injustice that may be perpetrated in society provided the chosen action does not produce a greater evil that the one targeted with resistance. A Muslim is thus a force of positive change, a citizen whose faith reinforces within him a sense of responsibility.

It is in this way, according to Ghannouchi and Bennabi, that faith plays an important role in promoting civility and bolstering civil society. Not only does the Islamic faith permit a Muslim to resist despotism and rebel against it, but it makes it incumbent upon him or her to do so with whatever means available to him or her. It is understandable that a Muslim may lose his/her life struggling against oppression and for this he or she is promised a great reward in the life after death. In other words the effort made is not wasted and the sacrifice is not in vain.

The Prophet is quoted as saying: “The noblest of jihad is speaking out in defiance of an unjust ruler;” and “Hamza (Prophet’s uncle and one of the earlier martyrs in Islam) is the master of martyrs, and so is a man who stands up to an unjust ruler enjoining him and forbidding him, and gets killed for it.”

It would only be accurate to draw from this Prophetic tradition that martyrdom in the Islamic standard is not failure; a martyr is not a loser but a hopeful one who offers his life for what is much more valuable and, at the same time, eternal. For this reason martyrs are elevated to the highest of all ranks. A Muslim recites at least seventeen times a day in his salat (prayer):

Show us the straight way, the way of those on whom you have bestowed your Grace (1: 6-7)

Those on whom God has bestowed his grace belong to one of the categories listed in another Qur’anic verse which says:

All who obey Allah and the Messenger are in the company of those on whom is the Grace of Allah, of the Prophets, the sincere (lovers of truth), the martyrs, and the righteous (who do good). How beautiful is their Company. (4: 69)

By offering his life in the Cause of God, a martyr enters into a transaction with the Lord.

Allah has purchased of the believers their persons and their wealth; for theirs in return is the Garden (of Paradise): They fight in His Cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in Truth, through the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an. And who is more faithful to his Covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded: that is the achievement supreme. (9: 111)

O you who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Chastisement? That you believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that you strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons: that will be best for you if you only knew. (61:10-11)

Martyrdom or Suicide?

However, martyrdom today is not as straightforward as what it used to be. In the old days Muslims went to war in a jihad wishing either for victory or for martyrdom. Today, many of those that go on a jihad are almost certain it is the latter but not the former. This is so because they strap themselves in dynamite and predetermine their fate when they press the button. Their wars are not conventional ones. They know they cannot inflict damage on their enemy without exploding in his face.

The ‘suicide-bombing’ or what Muslims call ‘martyrdom operation’ was not invented by the Muslims. However, it is today identified with them and with their religion. Precursors of these operations in the Middle East were first introduced by Arab secular leftists who seemed to import the idea from elsewhere in the world. During those days such operations did not usually involve strapping oneself with dynamite; mostly, they involved daring attacks from which the attacker had almost no chance of escaping alive. The attack by members of the Japanese Red Army in 1972 at Lod Airport in Israel is considered one of the earlier such attacks in the Middle East. However, it was at the hands of the Lebanese Hezbollah, founded in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, that this modus operandi was refined throughout the 1980s. The most daring of such attacks was the suicide bombing attack that killed 241 US marines in Beirut in 1983.

Elsewhere in the world, the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers, who struggled for an independent Tamil state, began carrying out suicide bombings in 1987. It is estimated that they have since perpetrated over 200 such attacks. It was through this type of attacks that they assassinated former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991 and President Premadassa of Sri Lanka in 1993. In 1999, the Tigers attempted to assassinate Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunga using a female suicide bomber.

In the latter half of the nineties, it was the Palestinians organizations Hamas (the Islamic Resistance Movement) and Islamic Jihad that captured the attention of the world for what they described as ‘martyrdom operations’. The two organizations, which did not approve of the Oslo peace accords between the PLO and Israel, were undoubtedly aware of the tactic of the human bomb resorted to by Hizbollah and the Tamil Tigers. However, they did not consider employing the tactic until after more than six years of the eruption of the first Intifada and well into the second year of the era of the Palestinian Authority. It is widely believed that what triggered a change in tactic was the massacre perpetrated on 25 February 1994 by an American-born Jewish settler. Baruch Goldstein is believed to have secured the assistance of Israeli troops to sneak into Al-Haram al-Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron opening fire and throwing hand grenades at worshippers as they kneeled half way through the early morning Fajr (dawn) prayers killing twenty nine of them and wounding scores more. On 6 April 1994, a Hamas bomber blew himself up near a bus in Afula, killing eight Israelis. Hamas claimed responsibility saying it carried out the attack in response to the massacre of Palestinian worshippers by Baruch Goldstein less than two months earlier.

Although Palestinians were generally appreciative of such a sacrificial mission at a time when they felt more vulnerable than ever, with no means of self-defence or deterrence, the human bomb attacks triggered a debate that is far from over. The debate, which soon crossed the borders and stretched across the Muslim world, centres on a number of themes.

– The first and most crucial theme relates to a jurisprudential problem: assessing the nature of the operation itself; is it suicide or sacrifice?

– The second relates to a practicality: the viability of the tactic in deterring the Israelis from their oppression and persecution of the Palestinians.

– The third relates to the consequences of such attacks to the Palestinians themselves since the Israelis were bound, as has always been the case, to respond; their response has invariably involved imposing collective punishment on the Palestinians whenever an attack of this kind is launched.

– The fourth relates to the impact on peace making; the attacks are an embarrassment to the Palestinian Authority which is supposed to prevent any attacks on Israel or Israelis in fulfilment of its commitments to the Oslo Accords signed with Israel in September 1993.

– The fifth relates a legal aspect: the legitimacy of a discriminate attack that may, as is the case in many instances, result in killing innocent civilians, particularly children.

As the dividends of peace turned to be bitter fruits, and as more Palestinians were becoming convinced that they had been cheated, many of these issues were resolved. It soon became obvious to the Palestinians that whether such operations existed or not the Israelis were determined to confiscate more land and build more settlements. The largest proportion of confiscation of land happened actually during days of peace making between 1993 and 1999. The peace promised turned to be nothing but a security arrangement between Israel and the PLO leadership whereby the latter takes care of the task of providing Israel with security in exchange for recognition and VIP treatment. As for the bulk of the Palestinian population their economic conditions continued to deteriorate and the six million who live as refugees or in exile were told their right to return had to be sacrificed in exchange for such a humiliating peace. Both Hamas and Islamic Jihad managed to convince the majority of the Palestinians that their martyrdom operations served as the only deterrent in order to make the Israelis think twice before they attacked Palestinians villages, camps or towns. As regards the target, both organizations insisted that they never intend targeting children. They insist that they primarily target army personnel and that any attacks on civilians are either unintended or inevitable so long as Israel continues to target Palestinian civilians.

From a theological, or jurisprudential, point view, the assessing the nature of the operation had to be the most important issue to address so as to determine the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the ‘human bomb’. Since the Islamic religion has no one spokesperson or authority to refer to, it is not unusual in such turbulent times for politics to have a great bearing on the opinion of the religious scholars. Initially, supporters of the operations insisted they were acts of sacrifice while opponents claimed they were nothing but suicide. In the former case the perpetrator would be a martyr, a person who offers himself (or herself) for the sake of a noble cause and who will end up in the highest ranks of Paradise. From this perspective not only is the act permissible but it is highly commendable and greatly appreciated. There is no shortage of Qur’anic evidence to support this position. Take for instance Verse 111 of Chapter 9: “Allah has purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the Garden (of Paradise): they fight in His Cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in Truth, through the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur’an: and who is more faithful to his Covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.”

Those who oppose the operations on religious grounds argue that they involve suicide, an act that is strictly forbidden in Islam. Consequently, the perpetrator is a sinner who will end up in the Fire of Hell. However, no Muslim scholars inside Palestine today subscribe to this opinion. Even the official Mufti of the Palestinian Authority Sheikh Ikrima Sabri has not only considered these operations a noble act of sacrifice for the sake of God but also harshly criticized some Egyptian and Saudi scholars for denouncing them as suicide accusing them of failing to understand the context and therefore failing to apply the appropriate text.

As far as the Palestinians under occupation are concerned the overwhelming majority support these operations; they even demand that more of them are planned. However, some continue to argue against them on the grounds that they have caused more harm to the Palestinians than good and that they, even if inadvertently, result in killing innocent civilians. The Palestinian Authority is opposed to them on the grounds of its commitment to the peace process.

The attitude of scholars and religious institutions outside Palestine has been varied. Division seems to be prompted by political considerations. Official (governmental) religious institutions or scholars have maintained that these operations are illegitimate for two reasons:

1. They are suicide, and that is a major sin in Islam. An attacker cannot decide to take his own life, and if he does he will permanently be in the Hell-Fire.

2. These operations are indiscriminate and innocent people get killed, including children, and that contravenes the Islamic code of war ethics.

However, it is widely believed that these institutions or scholars are requested by their governments to adopt that position. These governments come under enormous pressure from the United States of America in order to denounce ‘suicide operations’ and stop all support for organizations engaged in them. The most outspoken scholars against these operations have been the Mufti of Saudi Arabia, who is appointed by a Royal Decree and is opposed in his position by hundreds of Saudi scholars; and the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, who is appointed by the President of Egypt, is under obligation to tow the official line in his fatwas and is opposed in his position by the bulk of Al-Azhar scholars represented by Al-Azhar Scholars Front. Whereas the Saudi Mufti office has been consistent in its position, Sheikh Al-Azhar Sayyid Tantawi has contradicted himself repeatedly on this issue, seemingly reflecting the political mood each time. His first fatwa was one of outright prohibition. Then he came out in full support considering the attackers to be martyrs of the highest degree. Speaking at conference on terrorism last year in Kuala Lumpur her reverted to his original position of outright condemnation.

In the meantime, independent scholars or institutions have opted for the position of considering these attacks inside Palestine to be ‘martyrdom operations’ of the noblest forms of Jihad. Prominent and renowned scholars in Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and many other Muslim countries have come out with their public endorsements and even encouragements. They base their arguments on the following principles:

1. These operations are not suicide by sacrifice of the highest quality

2. Israel is a military outpost and there are no civilians within it to spare apart from children. All men and women in Israel serve in the army. As long as attackers try their best to avoid children every other target is legitimate and if children are inadvertently hit it is because it is unavoidable.

3. The Palestinians have been left with no other choice since their enemy is armed to the teeth while they are deprived of the basic means of self-defence. So long as this situation continues the Palestinians cannot be blamed for engaging in these attacks.

4. If the Israelis want an end to these operations they should accept the offers of truce made to them repeatedly by Hamas and other Palestinian factions. However, to expect the Palestinians to unilaterally stop all resistance in the hope that the Israelis will stop attacking them is unfair and does not work.

However, as these types of operations started being carried out by Muslims elsewhere in the world, the debate became more intense and the divisions grew wider than ever. Few scholars provide a blanket support for any ‘martyrdom attack’ no matter where and when. Interestingly, a leading number of the scholars who support ‘martyrdom operations, in Palestine were among the first to condemn the attacks on 11 September and did also similarly condemn the bombings that were carried out later on in Bali, Riyadh, Rabat, Istnabul and Madrid. Here it is not a question of suicide or martyrdom but rather a question of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the target. These scholars do not see that attacking New York or Bali or Madrid was justified from an Islamic perspective and therefore they deemed those bombings to be acts of criminality rather than acts of jihad.

There are those who maintain the odd position of considering the perpetrators of all ‘suicide bombings’ as martyrs and their actions as legitimate. However, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi leads a group of scholars that disagrees. They consider the case of Palestine a unique one and therefore only in Palestine are such operations legitimate at the present time. When asked about ‘suicide bombings’ in Iraq during his recent visit to London, Qaradawi explained that although he supported the right of the Iraqi people to resist the US led invasion of Iraq and to fight to liberate their country from foreign occupation he did not believe that the use of human bombs was justified because, in his judgment, the Iraqis have an abundance of the conventional means of resistance and have not been forced to resort to such ‘desperate’ weapon as have the Palestinians.

Human Bombs: Tactic or Desperate Act

In the case of Palestine, debate has also raged over whether these ‘human bombs’ are prompted by dire economic conditions or are simply part of a strategy aimed at achieving certain political objectives. It would be wrong to suggest that it has to be an ‘either/or’ case. Many visitors to the occupied territories have privately or publicly expressed an understanding as to why the Palestinians resort to these operations. While it is true that the majority of ‘martyrs’ do not come from poor desperate backgrounds, and that many of them are well-educated and well-positioned inside the community, the general condition of despair and frustration contributes to the motivation. However, from the organizational point of view these operations are not simply reactions, though they are occasionally presented as such, to the dire economic crisis caused by occupation. More so, they are seen as the only means of pressuring the Israelis, both state and society, to recognize the rights of the Palestinians and to agree to a cease-fire deal that would at least spare the civilians. Hamas is explicit in its objectives. In a document written upon the request of a European government that was until recently in communication with the movement, the movement states that “these operations are in principle directed against military targets.” It explains that “targeting civilians is considered an aberration from Hamas’ fundamental position of hitting only military targets; they represent an exception necessitated by the Israeli insistence on targeting Palestinian civilians and by Israel’s refusal to agree to an understanding prohibiting the killing of civilians on both sides; an understanding comparable to the one reached between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.” This is a reference to the agreement signed between Hezbollah and Israel in the aftermath of the Qana massacre in the mid-90s.

Indeed, the former leader of the movement in Gaza, Sheikh Yassin, repeatedly offered the Israelis a truce only to be rejected by the Israelis. He is quoted in this same document as saying: “Hamas does not endorse the killing of civilians, but that it is sometimes the only option it has if it is to respond to the murdering of Palestinian civilians and the cold-blooded assassination of Palestinian activists. He himself was assassinated by Israel last March.

Hamas believes that such tactic, or other new ones for that matter, will force the Israelis to negotiate an honorable and acceptable deal. Since the movement does not recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist in Palestine as a matter of principle, its medium term objective is a cease-fire agreement. In exchange for a cessation of all hostilities, Israel would have to agree to the following:

the withdrawal of Israeli occupation troops from the West Bank and Gaza Strip;
the evacuation of all Jewish settlements in both the West Bank and Gaza; and
releasing all Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

Groups that struggle for the liberation of Chechnya from Russian occupation or Kashmir from Indian occupation may resort to the same tactic with some political objective in mind. Similarly those that employ the same methods in Iraq would easily claim they aspire for the end of occupation. However, the same cannot be said of clandestine and indefinable groups that carry out attacks such as the ones that took place on 11 September or subsequently in Bali, Riyadh, Rabat, Istanbul and Madrid. These attacks may be an expression of anger against the United States of America and its allies. However, there are so far no specified negotiable demands let alone, in many cases, a credible claim of responsibility. It is suspected that at least some of these attacks are carried by different groups that are not linked organizationally but have in common an anti-American (or anti-Western) sentiment provoked by local, regional or international politics.

Future of ‘suicide bombings’

While there is no shortage of recruits for this type of operations, they are becoming increasingly difficult to execute. With the heightened states of emergency, enhanced international cooperation to exchange information and suspects, and the introduction of more stringent and sophisticated security measures – and in the case of Israel the construction of an eight-meter high wall to cut off completely the Palestinian territories from Israel, the human bomb may become less frequent and eventually disappear altogether. In Palestine, where ‘martyrdom operations’ have not been seen for several months now, the Palestinians are already developing new tactics. We have seen in recent days a higher frequency of the launching of Qassam missiles against Israeli targets by Hamas fighters. The missiles have clearly been developed further, have become more accurate and have been causing casualties. Another tactic developed by Hamas is the ‘long tunnel’ which renders the wall useless.

Similarly, those bent on putting up a resistance to strong and well-established powers will not fail to discover or innovate new ways and new methods. Perhaps the only way to guarantee a safer world is to sincerely and seriously seek to resolve problems fairly. Most of the groups that fight the status quo today do so because it is an unjust status quo, one that violates the basic human rights of individuals and communities alike. If only the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were respected by the strong as they are demanded by the week, the world would be a much more comfortable, even more enjoyable, place to be in. Perhaps then, less and less people will consider killing themselves or killing others.

Azzam Tamimi

Visiting Professor, Kyoto University, Japan

Director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought, London