Arab
News - April 2002
Posted 14 May 2002 on RELIGIOSCOPE
The
question is emerging as a topic in the so-called dialogue
of civilizations. As far as this writer can make out, three
answers are circulating in the Muslim world at present.
The
first could be described as “yes-yes”. It comes
from the groups that recruit and use would-be suicide-bombers.
Their argument is: because we regard Israel as evil, we not
only have a right but also a duty to fight it, if necessary,
in ways that are otherwise evil.
The
second answer came from the meeting of the foreign ministers
of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Malaysia,
this month. That answer could be described as “yes-but”.
The ministers had gathered to define terrorism. Confronted
with the issue of suicide bombers, their debate was put off
course. The ministers, in effect, approved suicide bombing
as a legitimate form of action provided it was not used against
their own governments. As for the definition of terrorism,
the purpose of the gathering, they said that was a job for
the United Nations. This was interesting because some participants
also claimed that the UN was a mere tool of the United States.
The
third answer could be described as “no-but” and
has come from Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Muhammad.
The argument is: since suicide is forbidden in Islam we cannot
sanction such acts. At the same time we cannot condemn people
who, driven to desperation, use such methods.
All
three answers are problematic. It is disingenuous to claim
that suicide bombers are ordinary youths who suddenly decide
to sacrifice their lives to kill some of the “enemy.”
Organizing and implementing a suicide attack is a complex
operation that requires recruitment, training, finance, logistics,
surveillance and postoperation publicity. (Often, there is
a video cameraman to film the would-be suicide bomber’s
carefully written testament.) An 18-year old girl may fancy
herself as a suicide bomber but, alone, would not be able
to organize an operation.
Suicide
bombing must, therefore, be regarded as a deliberate act,
decided, organized and promoted by politicians as part of
a strategy. This is clear from statements by Palestinian leaders
who say they had ordered a halt to such attacks to encourage
positive evolutions in Israeli behavior. When that did not
happen, suicide-bombings resumed.
To
promote suicide bombing as a sign of political valor or nationalist
fervor is one thing. To present it as a model of Islamic behavior
is something else.
Islam
forbids suicide without any “ifs” and “buts”.
Life belongs to He who grants it, not to mortal men who are
its trustee. To violate that rule amounts to a claim of divine
authority for mortal man. The issue becomes more complicated
when would-be suicide bombers are presented as “martyrs”.
In Islam, however, it is not up to mortal man to decide to
become a martyr. A martyr is either one who suffers at the
hands of the enemies of Islam, often to the point of death,
because of his or her faith, not politics, or someone who
falls in a battle against aggressors. The martyr does not
want to become one. He knows that the highest value is the
preservation of life; he is put to death not by his own hands
but by his oppressors.
In
a recent editorial, The Washington Post claimed that Islam
promoted a cult of death. What the Post ignores is the difference
between Islam as faith and Islam as existential reality. Islam,
as faith, celebrates life and promotes its enjoyment. There
is no cult of martyrs and saints in Islam. There are also
no hermits, nuns, celibates and no acquiring of merit through
self-torture. Islam teaches man how to live, not how to die.
Anyone
familiar with Islamic ethics and philosophy would know that
the rule of “the ends justify the means” has no
place in either. There are no circumstances under which suicide
could be sanctioned, let alone glorified, in the name of Islam.
This writer does not know of anything in the Qur’an,
or from any prominent Muslim theologian, dead or alive that
would qualify that position.
Islam,
as an existential reality, is something else. As noted, there
are politicians who glorify suicide bombing. But how representative
are they? We will never know until there is an atmosphere
in which opinions are aired without fear and, more importantly,
without taqiyyah (dissimulation). In the meantime to brand
a whole civilization as a “cult of death” is unfair,
to say the least.
Suicide
bombing also is problematic on ethical grounds. Can we condone
any suicide bombing, for example the Sept. 11 attacks in New
York and Washington? And what about suicide bombings conducted
by opposition groups in Iran and Iraq, among other Muslim
countries? If not, who decides which suicide bombing is good
and which bad? Can anyone decide to become a martyr by killing
himself and others? If not, who distributes martyrdom certificates?The
key question in any society is: who decides about life and
death? The most accepted answer is: the state on the basis
of the law. Even war has laws. This is why there can be no
revenge killing by individuals, no lynch mobs and no suicide
in the service of any cause.
In
the case of the Palestinians, the decision must come from
the Palestinian National Authority, their embryonic organ
of state. That authority, as far as this writer knows, has
never organized or condoned suicide bombings. Its head, Yasser
Arafat, has condemned such acts on several occasions, at least
when speaking in English. No state can order suicides because
that would amount to human sacrifice.
It
is easy to make heroic statements about Palestinians from
a distance, as long as only the Palestinians and the Israelis
pay with blood. The key question in ethics is this: Are you
prepared to practice what you preach? In this case: can you
become a suicide bomber? Are you prepared to urge your offspring
to become human bombs?
Ethics
can explain, even understand, evil; but can never justify
it, let alone confuse it with good.
