Author: Amir Taheri
Publication: Wall Street Journal
Date: September 30, 2004
Who are we allowed to seize as hostage?
Who are we allowed to kill?
For the past few weeks these questions
have prompted much debate throughout the Muslim world. The emerging answer
to both questions is: Anyone you like!
Triggered by the tragedy at a school
in Beslan, southern Russia, last month, the debate has been further fuelled
by kidnappings and "exhibition killings" in Iraq. Non-Muslims may find
it strange that such practices are debated rather than condemned as despicable
crimes. But the fact is that the seizure of hostages and "exhibition killing"
go back to the early stages of Islamic history.
In the Arabia of the seventh century,
where Islam was born, seizing hostages was practiced by rival tribes, and
"exhibition killing" was a weapon of psychological war. The Prophet codified
those practices, ending freelance kidnappings and head-chopping. One principle
of the new code was that Muslims could not be held hostage by Muslims.
Nor could Muslims be subjected to "exhibition killing." Such methods were
to be used solely against non-Muslims, and then only in the context of
armed conflict.
Seized in combat, a non-Muslim would
be treated as a war prisoner, and could win freedom by converting to Islam.
He could also be ransomed or exchanged against a Muslim prisoner of war.
Non-Muslim women and children captured in war would become the property
of their Muslim captors. Female captives could be taken as concubines or
given as gifts to Muslims. The children, brought up as Muslims, would enjoy
Islamic rights.
Centuries later, the initial code
was elaborated by Imam Jaafar Sadeq, a descendant of the Prophet. He made
two key rulings. Whoever entered Islam was instantly granted "full guarantee
for his blood." And non-Muslims, as long as they paid their poll tax, or
jiziyah, to the Islamic authority would be protected.
Recalling this background is important
because what we witness in the Muslim world today is disregard of religious
tradition in favor of political considerations.
* * *
A survey of Muslim views over the
past weeks shows overwhelming, though not unanimous, condemnation of the
Beslan massacre. But in all cases the reasons given for the condemnation
are political rather than religious. Muslim commentators assert that Russia,
having supported "the Palestinian cause," did not deserve such treatment.
Sheik Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a Sunni
Muslim scholar based in Qatar, was among the first to condemn the Beslan
massacre. At the same time, however, he insists that a similar attack on
Israeli schools would be justified because Israeli schoolchildren, if not
killed, could grow up to become soldiers. (Sheik Qaradawi also justifies
the killing of unborn Israelis because, if born, they could become soldiers.)
That view is shared by Ayatollah
Imami Kashani, a cleric working for the Iranian government. He claims that,
regardless of what it has done against the people of Chechnya, Russia must
not be attacked because it has supported "the greater cause" of Palestine.
In other words Chechen Muslims are less worthy of consideration than Palestinian
ones. That view is shared by the Organization of the Islamic Conference,
a grouping of 57 Muslim countries. Its secretary-general, Abdelouahed Belkeziz,
has issued a strong condemnation of Beslan. But he has not said a word
about dozens of other terrorists attacks carried out by Islamists across
the globe.
Implicit in all this is that killing
innocent people in the lands of the "infidel" is justified for as long
as the victims are not citizens of states sympathetic to "the Arab cause,"
whatever it happens to be at any given time. That position was highlighted
in the Arab reaction to the kidnapping of two French journalists by Islamists
in Iraq last month. Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa led the call
for their release with these words: "France is a friend of the Arabs; we
cannot treat friends this way."
This was echoed by Mohammed Hussein
Fadlallah, spiritual leader of Hezbollah, who appealed for the release
of the Frenchmen, something he has not done for any of the 140 foreigners
who have been kidnapped in Iraq. Yasser Arafat has been more specific.
"These journalists support the Palestinian cause and the Iraqi cause,"
he said in a statement issued in Ramallah. "We need guarantees for the
security of friends who support us in battle."
In other words the Frenchmen must
be freed because they support the Arabs, not because holding hostages is
wrong.
The French authorities have reinforced
that sentiment. Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin speaks of the Iraqi
insurgency as "la résistance." And Foreign Minister Michel Barnier
has announced that France would reject the international conference on
Iraq, proposed by the Bush administration, unless "elements opposed to
the occupation," meaning the terrorists, are invited.
The OIC Secretary-General Belkeziz
has also promised to leave no stone unturned to ensure the release of the
French hostages. The same Mr. Belkeziz has said nothing about hostages
from some 30 other countries, including some members of his own organization.
Nor has he been moved by the cold-blooded murder of 41 hostages, including
Muslims, from 11 different nationalities.
Abbasi Madani, a former leader of
the Front for Islamic Salvation, has started a hunger strike "in solidarity
with our French brethren." This is rich coming from a man whose party and
its allies caused the death of some 200,000 people in his native Algeria
during the 1990s. Mr. Madani never missed a meal in solidarity with the
countless Algerians, including women and children, that his fellow Islamists
slaughtered.
Yet even more disturbing is the
attitude of Muslim organizations in France and Britain. Both have sent
delegations to Iraq to contact the terrorists and ask for the liberation
of two French, and one British, hostages. The French delegation, led by
Mohamed Bechari, went out of its way to advertise France's "heroic opposition"
to the Iraq war in 2003. "I am here to defend France's Arab policy," Mr.
Bechari told reporters. "In Iraq as well as in Palestine, France is for
the Arabs."
The two British Muslim delegates
made their case in a different way by arguing that, although Britain participated
in toppling Saddam Hussein, a majority of the British were opposed to the
war. Thus British hostage Ken Bigley should be released not because hostage-taking
is wrong but because such a move could strengthen anti-war sentiment in
Britain.
By refusing to come out with a categorical
rejection of terrorism, Muslim leaders and opinion-makers are helping perpetuate
a situation in which no one is safe. The 9/11 attacks against the United
States were based on the claim, made by al Qaeda's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri,
that all citizens of democratic countries could be murdered because, being
actual or potential voters, they have a share of responsibility for the
policies of their governments.
The assumption that only Americans
and Israelis are targeted has proved false as Islamists have murdered hundreds
of peoples from all faiths, including Islam, in a dozen countries in the
past three years. Today, it is enough for anyone to designate himself as
an Islamic "Mujahid," fighting for Palestine and opposing the "occupation"
in Iraq, to get carte blanche from millions of Muslims, including many
in authority, for kidnapping and "exhibition killing."
That no one, Muslim or "infidel,"
is safe was made clearer by a statement from Abu Anas al-Shami, the self-styled
"mufti" of al Qaeda, who was reportedly killed in Iraq in an American air
attack last month. "There are times when Mujahedeen cannot waste time finding
out who is who in the battlefield," he wrote. "There are times when we
have to assume that whoever is not on our side is the enemy."
Al-Shami's position echoes a fatwa
of the late Ayatollah Sadeq Khalkhali, one of the founders of the Islamic
Republic in Iran. Ayatollah Khalkhali wrote: "Among those we seize hostage
or kill, some may be innocent. In that case, Allah will take them to his
paradise. We do our job, He does His."
Mr. Taheri is an Iranian political
commentator based in Paris.
