Top Egyptian Cleric Justifies Suicide Terrorism

[krsna]

Top Egyptian Cleric Justifies Suicide Terrorism

 

By Kenneth R. Timmerman

 

 

The Grand Mufti calls Falwell a terrorist, but says suicide bombers simply are ´defending their land.´

 

 

Throughout the Arab world, Islam is not just the state religion. In some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, the Koran is by law the state constitution and the practice of other faiths is a serious crime. Egypt always has prided itself on greater tolerance than the Saudis, in part because Egypt also is home to a large Coptic Christian community, which accounts for 10 to 15 percent of the country's population. While the Copts periodically complain of government harassment, and in recent years many of their churches have been burned, they make a significant contribution to Egypt's economy.

 

Egypt matters to Americans for many reasons. For starters, it is the second-largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, after Israel. Every year since the Camp David accords in 1979, Egypt has received upward of $2 billion in U.S. taxpayer funding. Some of this money has gone to buy U.S. weapons for the Egyptian army and air force. Other funds have been used to build schools, help farmers, bring solutions to Cairo's horrendous traffic problems and rebuild its antiquated sewer system, which used to spring more than 500 leaks per day before the United States stepped in to help. (Some of those leaks were so huge that they would flood entire streets knee-deep with raw sewage.)

 

Earlier this year Egypt requested an emergency supplemental appropriation of $300 million to help it fight terrorism, to match a similar grant made by Congress to Israel. Congress refused the Egyptian request citing the country's human-rights violations, and singling out the prosecution of a U.S.-Egyptian dual national, professor Saad Eddine Ibrahim, who was jailed by the regime after he poked fun at President Hosni Mubarak in an article that appeared in an Arabic-language publication in London [see sidebar].

 

Egypt long has complained that it is one of the main victims of al-Qaeda-style terrorists, who assassinated President Anwar al-Sadat in 1981 and continued a vicious campaign against the secular regime up through the October 1997 massacre of foreign tourists in Luxor, which was carried out by "graduates" of Osama bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan. Even now, it complains that European countries such as Britain and Denmark have granted political asylum to terrorists wanted in Egypt.

 

In recent weeks, Mubarak has thanked the United States for its financial and political support by touring Arab nations and "warning" against helping the Iraqi people fight a war of liberation against Saddam Hussein. "You need to read his words carefully," a U.S. official in the region tells Insight. "He is advising us against war and is summoning Iraq to comply with U.N. weapons inspections. But he is not saying no."

 

Egyptian political scientists and opposition journalists interviewed in Cairo suggest that Mubarak shares the fear of many Arab leaders: that a wave of democracy, flowing outward from a liberated Iraq, could sweep across their countries, leaving most of their governments in the dustbin of history.

 

Religion is a powerful force in this part of the world, especially since Islam makes no distinction between religion and politics. "Islam is a total system. It is a way of life, not just a religion," clerics and Islamic scholars repeat like a mantra.

 

When Palestinians first began blowing themselves up to murder innocent Israeli civilians in April 1994, consternation gripped many official spokesmen of Islam. Moderate Islamic scholars emphasized that Islam long has considered suicide to be a sin. Several clerics in Saudi Arabia even joined the chorus, condemning the attacks. But then something happened. It became political, and Arab leaders realized they had a new way of controlling the masses and directing their anger away from their own leadership. The rest, as they say, is history — a history of innocent victims and state-sponsored murder — all in the name of political opposition to Israel.

 

As in most other Arab countries, it is the Egyptian state that appoints the Grand Mufti, the highest religious authority in the land and a man who has the power to issue fatwas and interpretations of shari'a law. Mubarak named Sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayyeb to the post earlier this year after his predecessor issued a ruling in favor of suicide bombings by Palestinians. Insight has learned that if Mubarak was embarrassed by the public embrace of murder by the previous state-appointed Mufti, he may have to reconsider his new choice.

 

Al-Tayyeb received Insight on Oct. 28 in his office near Al-Azhar University, the oldest institution of higher learning in the Arab world. Throughout the 90-minute interview, conducted mostly in Arabic through a government-provided translator, he repeated in excruciating detail his reasoning for encouraging Palestinians to murder innocent civilians through suicide attacks. He also displayed a remarkable flexibility when it came to defining terrorism.

 

To him, American Christian leader Jerry Falwell is a terrorist because his views about Islam have offended Muslims. Palestinians, on the other hand, are justified in massacring Israeli civilians in cold blood "because they are defending their land and have no other weapons at their disposal." The Grand Mufti pointedly condemned as a traitor any Palestinian who refuses to take such a step. "Why do the Americans always speak about Islamic terrorism? Why don't they speak about the extreme right-wing Christian terrorists?" he asked.

 

Insight: Give me an example. Who do you mean?

 

Grand Mufti Sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayyeb: I'm not talking about an example, but about an extreme that is directing Western policy.

 

Q: You said terrorism. Terrorism is murder. Who are you talking about?

 

A: You need to be open-minded. If you want an example of terrorism, I can give you Israel.

 

Q: You have spoken of an "extreme right-wing Christian group." Who do you mean?

 

A: This one, [the Rev. Jerry] Falwell. You don't consider him a right-wing extremist Christian?

 

Q: Is he a terrorist?

 

A: If he insults another religion [such as Islam] that is believed [to be the true faith] by 1 billion, 300 million persons, what can you call this? Yes, this is a terrorist.

 

Q: You call him a terrorist?

 

A: Yes.

 

Q: So he's murdered people?

 

A: Yes. … What do you mean by terrorist?

 

Q: Somebody who murders innocent civilians for political reasons. That is terrorism. Murder. Murder.

 

A: Then Israel is a terrorist country: Here is a country with sophisticated military gadgets fighting a normal people with stones and without any weapons. Is this justice? Why do Palestinians put on explosives or booby-trap themselves?

 

Q: That is a good question. Yes, why?

 

A: What pushes him to do this? Because he has no means to fight back any other way. Do you agree with me?

 

Q: So you're saying [Palestinian suicide bombers] put on explosives to fight back. Is that right?

 

A: Yes, to defend. Can you tell me it is forbidden to defend yourself against injustice? If Japan attacks America and does to America what the Jews have done to the Palestinians, and they don't have any other means except booby traps to defend themselves?

 

Q: So you're saying that this is a legitimate form of self-defense?

 

A: I am waiting for you to answer.

 

Q: So you're asking me, if my country is occupied by a foreign occupier, such as Japan …

 

A: [interrupting.] No other means.

 

Q: But you always have other means. We had a revolution in the United States, a war, in 1776. Britain was occupying the colonies. There were military forces there. We never — not once — attacked civilians.

 

A: [interrupting.] There were two forces. The American military, and the British military. My question is not like this. Imagine that America has no military forces — what do you do if America has no military forces?

 

Q: But Yasser Arafat has 50,000 armed troops. They are called the Palestinian police.

 

A: I'm not talking about Arafat now. I'm talking about America. A French journalist came here recently, and I asked him the same question. He replied that he would do it [attack civilians].

 

Q: I would not do that.

 

A: You would not do it?

 

Q: No, I would not do it. I would attack the military.

 

A: I cannot believe you. No one in the whole world would believe you — unless you have no loyalty to your country. …

 

I'd like to assure you that, if the Palestinians had military equipment like the Israelis have, they never would use the bombers. This is very, very expensive. If the Palestinian army were in a position to fight the Israeli army, then Islam would forbid [suicide bombing], because it's forbidden in Islam to kill women and children. Even it is forbidden to uproot plants.

 

We have our ethics for war, and we're proud of them. But the Palestinians have no army.

 

Q: So this [suicide bombing against civilians] is the only means of legitimate resistance, is that what you're saying?

 

A: Yes.

 

The transcript of this Insight interview is very important. The Egyptian Grand Mufti, appointed by President Hosni Mubarak, an American partner for peace, believes and says openly that Palestinian suicide bombers who strap explosives around their waists and enter restaurants, pool halls, discotheques and shopping malls to murder innocent women and children, the young and the old, Israelis and foreign tourists and whoever else happens to be around, are doing God's work and should be treated as heroes of the resistance.

 

The Mufti is not alone. Insight also spoke with a group of Islamic scholars at Al-Azhar University and asked them the same question.

 

Mohammad Abu Laila is a professor of comparative religion and heads the English department at Al-Azhar. He earned his doctorate at Exeter University in Britain and did his thesis on Christianity. He chaired our discussion and spoke on behalf of a group of scholars who occasionally amplified what he said but never differed with it. "We don't hate Jews because they are Jews," Abu Laila says. "We hate what they do against Palestinians. If a Muslim did this, we would hate them, too."

 

This is just an opening salvo, to make sure that this reporter understands he is not anti-Semitic, but a reasonable and moderate man. He also condemns the Sept. 11 attacks, but says he thinks the United States has launched a "war on Islam" and that President George W. Bush has "never presented evidence" of bin Laden's involvement. This reporter asks what type of evidence he wants. "I need him [bin Laden] to appear in court and say, 'I did it.'" Perhaps the United States should have waited to declare war on Japan until it could compel Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto to put in an appearance in the 9th District Court.

 

Christian scholars often debate the requirements for a "just war." A similar concept exists in Islam, which I ask Abu Laila to describe. "If your country or property is under attack," he says, "then it is just to defend it through any means. This is not terrorism. Holy jihad is defensive. You misunderstand this in the West." Palestinian suicide bombers are "martyrs" in this just war, he says he believes. "The martyr is donating himself for his cause, to defend his family and his land," he says. "The Jews stole our land. What else do you want us to do, just go away?"

 

This reporter notes that he appears to be placing as much weight on material things — land, houses, property — as on human life. In my religion, the Insight reporter says, we believe life is sacred, a gift from God.

 

"Life is sacred in Islam," Abu Laila replies. "But we are facing the Israeli state, which is militarily based. Israeli citizens are like warriors. They have their weapons with them at all times. So who are civilians, Palestinians or Israelis?"

 

Americans and Westerners concerned by the violence in the Middle East need to understand that the two parties to this conflict do not use the same logic, nor do they believe in the same moral code. Those who have been brought up in the Judeo-Christian tradition have been taught that respect for life is one of God's most basic commandments. But according to these Islamic scholars — and they are not alone — "justice" is more important than life, and justice is a term that conveniently can be bent out of shape to fit the political agenda of the day.

 

A few days before arriving in Egypt, this reporter had dinner with an Israeli settler he has known for several years, who in turn has spent years getting to know his Arab neighbors and counts them among his closest friends. Dov Weinstock (known as "Dubak" to his friends) has a simple phrase to describe this difference in logic. "To understand the way the Arabs think, you've got to change the diskette," he says.

 

As Weinstock sees it, in obeying a different moral operating system, the Arab leaders who continue to promote and finance Palestinian suicide bombers will not stop until they have achieved total victory or experienced total defeat. Abu Laila put it well: "The conflict in this area will continue until the end of time. We all believe in Armageddon."

 

 

--

 

 

Professor Learns Not to Poke Fun at Pharaoh

 

American University of Cairo professor Saad Eddine Ibrahim has worked for many years with moderate Muslims in Egypt to promote a more tolerant, democratic society based on constitutional law. His think tank, the Ibn Khaldun Center, was known internationally for promoting interfaith dialogue. He was jailed in June 2000 and his center shut down after he wrote a satirical article that appeared in an Arabic-language weekly magazine in London.

 

The article poked fun at Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for having elevated his son, Gamal, from near-total obscurity to head of the National Democratic Party and Mubarak's heir apparent. Ibrahim said he didn't object to establishing a monarchy in Egypt, but asked that at least it should be a constitutional one.

 

The slight hit home. He was tried in a state-security court and given a seven-year sentence for "defaming Egypt and its image abroad," for "publishing false rumors and malicious lies" concerning the suffering of the Coptic minority and for illegally receiving funds for his think tank without authorization by the state. The funds in question consisted of a grant from the European Union to his Ibn Khaldun Center.

 

Egypt's Court of Cassation subsequently threw out the conviction and ordered a retrial. "Ten minutes after the defense rested its case," Ibrahim's daughter told Insight in Cairo, "the court reinstated the same seven-year sentence against my father."

 

Ibrahim now sits in a "VIP wing" of Cairo's Tora prison, better known as home to Egyptian members of al-Qaeda and to hard-core Islamic opponents of Mubarak.

 

Ibrahim's case has received attention from international human-rights groups as well as the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. U.S. Ambassador David Welch has visited Ibrahim in prison and has raised the case repeatedly with the Egyptian authorities. In addition to protesting the politically motivated charges against a U.S. citizen, Welch objected strongly to the fact that Ibrahim had been tried in a state-security court that was set up to handle terrorist cases. "We feel the use of this court for alleged crimes of political speech is an unwarranted expansion of these powers. We think he was unfairly accused and the process is flawed," Welch tells Insight in Cairo.

 

[krsna]

Controversial preacher with 'star status'

 

By Magdi Abdelhadi

BBC Arab Affairs Analyst

 

 

 

The sheikh has done TV phone-ins on religious programmes in the Arab world

 

The arrival in Britain of the Islamic preacher, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, to take part in a conference has sparked a row because of his controversial views on suicide bombings.

 

Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi achieved a star status with the emergence of the Qatari satellite channel, Al-Jazeera, several years ago.

 

Thanks to his weekly appearance on the religious phone-in programme Al-Shariaa wa Al-Haya (Islamic Law and Life) he has become a household name for many Arabic-speaking Muslim communities.

 

He is an articulate preacher and a good communicator.

 

The subtext of the programme, and indeed that of Sheikh Al-Qaradawi's responses to all the issues raised throughout the broadcast, is that Islam has an answer to all of life's problems.

 

That is essentially the ideology of Islamist movements across the region.

 

Through his (Allah) infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do

 

Sheikh Al-Qaradawi

 

According to an Arabic language website dedicated to Sheikh Al-Qaradawi he was born in a small village in the Nile Delta in 1926.

 

He studied Islamic theology at the Al-Azhar university in Cairo, from where he graduated in 1953.

 

Twenty years later he was awarded a PhD for his thesis on how Zakat (Islamic alms) can contribute to solving social problems.

 

Muslim Brotherhood

 

He has written extensively on Islam and is regarded as a respected scholar.

 

His website describes him as the most prominent voice of moderation in Islam (wasatiyya), building bridges between traditionalists and modernisers.

 

It is his involvement with the outlawed Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood that has landed him in trouble.

 

The group, founded in the 1920s, is one of the largest and most influential Islamist organisations in the region.

 

It has a history of violence, but now says it is committed to peaceful means to create an Islamic state.

 

Sheikh Al-Qaradawi has been jailed several times in Egypt.

 

But he has lived and worked in the Gulf State Qatar since 1963 where he now heads an Islamic research centre.

 

Suicide bombings

 

It is particularly his views on suicide bombings that has courted controversy, but mainly in the West.

 

He has distanced himself from suicide attacks in the West but he has consistently defended Palestinian suicide attacks against Israelis.

 

Recently he told Al-Jazeera that he was not alone in believing that suicide bombings in Palestinian territories were a legitimate form of self defence for people who have no aircraft or tanks.

 

He said hundreds of other Islamic scholars are of the same opinion. In this respect, he is very much in tune with what the vast majority of people in the Arab world believe.

 

Defending suicide bombings that target Israeli civilians Sheikh A-Qaradawi told the BBC programme Newsnight that "an Israeli woman is not like women in our societies, because she is a soldier.

 

"I consider this type of martyrdom operation as an evidence of God's justice.

 

"Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do".

 

Despite his popularity, Sheikh Al-Qaradawi is not without his critics in the Arab world.

 

Some see his regular preaching on Al-Jazeera as an uncritical regurgitation of Islamic dogma out of touch with the modern world.

 

 

[krsna]

Analysis: Interpreting Islam

 

 

Rules or guidelines?

The arrival in Britain of the Islamic preacher, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, has sparked controversy because of his views on suicide bombings. BBC Arab Affairs analyst Magdi Abdelhadi considers what wider Islamic teaching has to say on the subject:

 

The vast majority of Muslims feel that there is a huge gap between how they perceive themselves and their faith and how the rest of the world views them.

 

Many blame the discrepancy on the Western media. They accuse it of distorting what is essentially a peace-loving and tolerant faith.

 

The gap in perceptions has increased dramatically since 9/11.

 

Palestinian suicide bombings and recent beheadings of foreign hostages in Iraq in the name of Islam have only reinforced the association between Islam and violence in Western perceptions.

 

Consider for example this query posted on a popular Islamic website:

 

"Too often, the media in the West presents the image of Muslims as violent, but I know this is not correct. I am a Muslim, but... I will never kill anyone. When I watch the genocide in Chechnya or Bosnia, or the tragedy which unfolds in Palestine, it makes me very angry and very sad.

 

Jihad is often translated as "holy war". But Muslim scholars describe it not so much as war, but as the right to self-defence.

 

 

"I pray that Allah will allow peace to prevail among humanity, between Muslims and non-Muslims alike. I like to think that I and other Muslims can be a force for peace rather than for violence. Am I wrong?... This is really troubling me, and any advice you can provide would be much appreciated. "

 

The writer is clearly troubled by the difference between his or her personal experience of Islam and Western representations of Muslims. But more crucially, they seem to be seeking reassurance: is it right, in the face of apparent injustices to Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya, that they should "never kill anyone"?

 

'Holy war'

 

The writer of the query must be aware of Muslim volunteers who have gone off to Chechnya to defend fellow Muslims against the "Russian oppressors". Is it then legitimate to kill in the name of Islam?

 

This is where the Islamic concept of Jihad comes into play.

 

Jihad is often translated as "holy war". But Muslim scholars describe it not so much as war, but as the right to self-defence. Under this interpretation, Muslims are enjoined to take up arms against their oppressors, be they local despots or foreign occupiers. Jihad is one of the fundamental duties of a Muslim.

 

 

Sheikh Al-Qaradawi's views on suicide attacks have sparked anger

But does this mean that Muslims who believe that they are engaged in legitimate self-defence or a war of liberation - like the Chechens or the Palestinians - are free to pursue their goals by any means available?

 

Is the killing of the civilian population of the enemies, for example, permissible?

 

Most Muslim scholars believe that the killing of civilians is forbidden.

 

In their support, they cite well-known sayings of Prophet Mohammad that forbid killing the enemy's women and children or burning down their vegetation - what are today known as scorched earth tactics.

 

But militants like Osama Bin Laden or radical clerics like Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi have a different take on this issue.

 

Radical interpretations

 

Under the assumption that the US is the enemy of Muslims, Bin Laden defended the 9/11 attacks on the grounds that the civilians who were killed contributed to the American war machine by paying taxes.

 

Although Sheikh Al-Qaradawi denounced the 9-11 attacks, his controversial justification for suicide attacks on Israeli civilians is strikingly similar.

 

Sheikh Al-Qaradawi believes, for example, that it is right to target Israeli women, because they are army reservists who can be summoned to active duty at any time - an argument that is also used by Palestinian militant groups such as Hamas to justify suicide attacks.

 

 

Many see the Middle East conflict as a holy war

This is a controversial interpretation of Islamic principles and appears to be dictated by political convenience rather than rigorous adherence to the literal meaning of the Koran.

 

Strictly speaking, Islam bans suicide. But scholars like Sheikh Al-Qaradawi redefine suicide bombing in terms of a sacrificial act for a greater good, i.e. defeating the enemy.

 

This license to re-interpret the Koran and Islamic tradition is known in Islam as 'ijtihad'. Roughly defined, ijtihad is the right of Muslim scholars to develop original interpretations of the Koran with the aim of formulating religious edicts on matters that were unknown in the time of the prophet more than 1,400 years ago, such as cloning or organ transplant.

 

In this sense, they can wield enormous power on matters of life and death.

 

 

Rules or guidelines?

 

But in areas such as politics and social conflict, the boundaries between what is acceptable or not from an Islamic point of view can vary a great deal.

 

Take, for example, the controversial issue of whether Muslim women should wear the veil. The passage cited in support of an injunction to wear the veil is couched in language that is open to varying interpretations:

 

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and protect their private parts and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent and to draw their veils all over their Juyubihinna".

 

At the heart of the disagreement between the two groups is the question of whether the Koran lays down specific rules, or general guidelines.

 

The edition I am using refrains from translating the word "Juyubihinna", because it is ambiguous. Should the veil cover the entire body, or just the head and the hair? Other editions translate it as "bosom".

 

Some liberal scholars and Muslim feminists have also argued that the injunction applies only to women at the time of the prophet.

 

Such a reading questions the orthodox view that rules of behaviour laid down by the Koran are applicable anywhere and at any time. This is the view held by most Islamist movements who want to create an Islamic state ruled by Sharia (Islamic law).

 

Freedom of choice

 

At the heart of the disagreement between the two groups is the question of whether the Koran lays down specific and binding rules, or general guidelines. For the literalists, it lays down concrete rules.

 

The liberals believe that it only contains general principles, and that it is up to Muslims to interpret them in accordance with the needs of the society and the times they live in.

 

This exegetical dispute is not dissimilar to the one surrounding the ordination of gay priests in Britain. If the message of Christianity is interpreted as one of love and inclusiveness, then a person's sexual orientation should not really matter.

 

Similarly, if Islam - as most Muslims believe - is about tolerance, peace and freedom from oppression, then it is up to individual Muslims to make choices that do not infringe on the rights of others.

 

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

Quote:

 

suicide bombers simply are ´defending their land.´

 

Reply:

 

They are not fighters - they are homocide bombers as in - murderers.

 

There are NO excuses for their style of 'war'!

 

God tells us - in all sciptures - that such 'irregular fighting' leads to hell - so what is that 'grand mufti' really doing - by telling these lies to his followers.

 

How many murders were committed by people who accepted these lies?

 

Also - this whole earth is God's property and only a loser shall claim it as his own - that means that all the nationalistic barking - is really just that - barking.

 

One day all these civilian killers are going to see an Ugly Face of God - yes - at last - they are going to see that He has His own prison house too...

 

All through this conflicted middle-east there are justifications of heinous actions – heinous actions are used to justify heinous actions – where can there be peace and success for any of the parties within this scenario?

 

The conflicted parties must all see their own heinous actions as reprehensible – not matter any 'natural' pressure to do otherwise – in so dong they are going to see that they are both suffering with extra karmic issues - quite needlessly - within this point-counter point conflict.

 

Some people like to think that employing violences for making changes - are natural consequences of political life but – the fact is - it is really a sad consequence of itself – violence only begets violence.

 

Why is it that the terror goes on but there are no actual changes for the good? Who cannot see how stupid that question is!

 

That is the point – in this area of conflict - the parties are more and more fighting for the wrong purposes – they’re fighting for revenge - not reform and – they’re fighting without rules or regulations.

 

Who cannot see that it seems that they must exponentially out-do each others atrocities – indeed it’s becoming the sickest one-upmanship process one could imagine.

 

These parties wrongly identify with their own justifications of their violent reactions - as opposed to rejecting such justifications - irrespective of the circumstances.

 

The comments [false justifications] made by the 'Grand Mufti' do not help the Arab's nor the Palestinians in particular - this connection.

 

BDM