Tweet
Anwar al-Awlaki is often cited by those who argue in favour of deliberately targeting and killing civilians – i.e with bombs, shootings etc. His statements are also used in AQ’s official publications as justifications for their attacks. However, one need only examine his “evidence” to see that it is riddled with contradictions as well as distortions of clear Islamic principles (which may be considered innovations). I want to refer to his own teachings and quotes here, although I do not want to cite them directly (which would of course be preferable) because of the risk to me as a result of spreading his literature (especially due to the climate in the wake of the Paris attacks). The articles can be found however by searching for the quotes which I will share.
Firstly, in the early days of Islam there was a principle called bayat which involved launching attacks at night. Since visibility was difficult, civilians were sometimes killed unintentionally since it was unavoidable, although they were NOT the target. We refer to this now as “collateral damage”. In this case, the civilians are NOT the intended target but were killed unintentionally. Awlaki contradicts himself with the two following sentences. Firstly:
"The attackers would ambush the enemy in their tents and houses and engage them in fighting. This would lead to the deaths of men, women and children who were in the tents or homes because of the difficulty distinguishing between man, woman and child.
He then concludes from this that:
"There is no difference in ruling between bayat and detonating a bomb in a populated center in a nation that is at war with the Muslims."
It is obvious that there is a BIG difference between bayat and leaving a bomb in a populated civilian area (i.e sports stadium, bus, tourist attraction or suchlike). In bayat, civilians die not because they are the primary target, whereas in the bomb attack, civilians ARE the target. This has thus been taken out of context and twisted/distorted to permit something that has been conclusively proven to be HARAAM.
Similarly, he does the same thing with the concept of collateral damage as a result of the use of mangonals. Mongonals were a type catapult used to destroy fortifications and walls in cities. Naturally these types of weapons were indiscriminate and inaccurate – even today “precision bombing” is notoriously deadly to civilians. It was permissible to use these weapons even if civilians were sometimes caught up as a result, although once again – this is an example of collateral damage, since it was not the civilians who were the express target of the attack. Awlaki used the precedent of mangonals to claim that it is permissible to leave a bomb in a civilian area to deliberately targets civilians - which is COMPLETELY different from the mangonal precedent.
Awlaki resorts to making up rulings based on his own ideas, for example:
“Therefore, if you ask me as a tactic, is targeting the civilian population of the West a good thing to do? I would say yes, because it is much more potent and powerful. Soldiers are expected to die anyway. That's why they sign up for the army, to fight and kill or be killed. So a soldier is at risk anyway and that risk is factored into his job. But a civilian is not. So when you hit the civilian you hit them where it hurts most and that is what our tactics are about”
This opinion is NOT based on sharia. He then basically refutes HIMSELF with the following quote:
“On the other hand, we know of the hadīth that prohibits the killing of women and children, so how can we combine what was mentioned below with such hadīth. The answer is that women and children should not be singled out, should not be specifically targeted and if they fall as prisoners of war it is not allowed to execute them. Throughout our history whenever women and children would fall captives there lives were spared unlike with the crusaders for example who slaughtered thousands of Muslim prisoners or the Moguls who wiped out the entire populations of numerous Muslims cities.”
Then he contradicts himself again:
“However when men, women and children are mixed and integrated such as in a city or village there is no doubt that it is allowed to target them while carrying the intentions of not specifically targeting the women and children. Therefore, an attack on a population center such as a US, British, French or German city with a bomb or a firearm attack is definitely allowed.”
All cities have men, women and children mixed. So then he makes the very bizarre conclusion that even though it’s not permissible to target women and children - a bomb or gun attack on a population centre is permissible. At best here he is contradicting himself and worst he is scraping the barrel and trying to find loopholes to try to circumvent the Sharia of Allah (this is a sin btw).
If this is the best attempt by a famous so-called “scholar of jihad”, then clearly the Islamic basis for deliberate attacks against civilians is extremely weak. This does not prevent some who claim that because that an opinion exists – the course of action is therefore valid.
Firstly, in the early days of Islam there was a principle called bayat which involved launching attacks at night. Since visibility was difficult, civilians were sometimes killed unintentionally since it was unavoidable, although they were NOT the target. We refer to this now as “collateral damage”. In this case, the civilians are NOT the intended target but were killed unintentionally. Awlaki contradicts himself with the two following sentences. Firstly:
"The attackers would ambush the enemy in their tents and houses and engage them in fighting. This would lead to the deaths of men, women and children who were in the tents or homes because of the difficulty distinguishing between man, woman and child.
He then concludes from this that:
"There is no difference in ruling between bayat and detonating a bomb in a populated center in a nation that is at war with the Muslims."
It is obvious that there is a BIG difference between bayat and leaving a bomb in a populated civilian area (i.e sports stadium, bus, tourist attraction or suchlike). In bayat, civilians die not because they are the primary target, whereas in the bomb attack, civilians ARE the target. This has thus been taken out of context and twisted/distorted to permit something that has been conclusively proven to be HARAAM.
Similarly, he does the same thing with the concept of collateral damage as a result of the use of mangonals. Mongonals were a type catapult used to destroy fortifications and walls in cities. Naturally these types of weapons were indiscriminate and inaccurate – even today “precision bombing” is notoriously deadly to civilians. It was permissible to use these weapons even if civilians were sometimes caught up as a result, although once again – this is an example of collateral damage, since it was not the civilians who were the express target of the attack. Awlaki used the precedent of mangonals to claim that it is permissible to leave a bomb in a civilian area to deliberately targets civilians - which is COMPLETELY different from the mangonal precedent.
Awlaki resorts to making up rulings based on his own ideas, for example:
“Therefore, if you ask me as a tactic, is targeting the civilian population of the West a good thing to do? I would say yes, because it is much more potent and powerful. Soldiers are expected to die anyway. That's why they sign up for the army, to fight and kill or be killed. So a soldier is at risk anyway and that risk is factored into his job. But a civilian is not. So when you hit the civilian you hit them where it hurts most and that is what our tactics are about”
This opinion is NOT based on sharia. He then basically refutes HIMSELF with the following quote:
“On the other hand, we know of the hadīth that prohibits the killing of women and children, so how can we combine what was mentioned below with such hadīth. The answer is that women and children should not be singled out, should not be specifically targeted and if they fall as prisoners of war it is not allowed to execute them. Throughout our history whenever women and children would fall captives there lives were spared unlike with the crusaders for example who slaughtered thousands of Muslim prisoners or the Moguls who wiped out the entire populations of numerous Muslims cities.”
Then he contradicts himself again:
“However when men, women and children are mixed and integrated such as in a city or village there is no doubt that it is allowed to target them while carrying the intentions of not specifically targeting the women and children. Therefore, an attack on a population center such as a US, British, French or German city with a bomb or a firearm attack is definitely allowed.”
All cities have men, women and children mixed. So then he makes the very bizarre conclusion that even though it’s not permissible to target women and children - a bomb or gun attack on a population centre is permissible. At best here he is contradicting himself and worst he is scraping the barrel and trying to find loopholes to try to circumvent the Sharia of Allah (this is a sin btw).
If this is the best attempt by a famous so-called “scholar of jihad”, then clearly the Islamic basis for deliberate attacks against civilians is extremely weak. This does not prevent some who claim that because that an opinion exists – the course of action is therefore valid.
Comment