http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005708


Exhibition Killing 
The Muslim "debate" on hostage-taking and beheading. 

BY AMIR TAHERI 
Sunday, October 3, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT 

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 atrocity at a school in Beslan, in southern Russia, last month, the 
debate has been further fueled 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 r�sistance." 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.

Mr. Belkeziz, the OIC secretary-general 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. 





_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/BRUplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

***************************************************************************
Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg Lebih 
Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. www.ppiindia.shyper.com
***************************************************************************
__________________________________________________________________________
Mohon Perhatian:

1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik)
2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari.
3. Lihat arsip sebelumnya, www.ppi-india.da.ru; 
4. Posting: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
5. Satu email perhari: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6. No-email/web only: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
7. kembali menerima email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Kirim email ke