Dean's World

Z's dead, baby. But Osama bin Laden (OBL) remains alive.

Nowadays, we don't hear from OBL much - but evidence overwhelmingly suggests he is still alive. Alive, OBL still poses an immense threat to the security of the United States. The threat is not necessarily from another personally-orchestrated massive attack upon US soil, but rather the rallying effect that OBL has upon rank and file jihadis worldwide. It is unlikely in fact that OBL has any direct operational control over Al Qaeda - the latter organization now more of a "version 3.0" distributed entity rather than a coherent hierarchical chain of command.

OBL's primary influence comes from his fatwa (pronouncements). Traditionally, a fatwa has simply been a ruling on a religious matter - an interpretation of fiqh. A believer who has a question on religious interpretation or action would go to the ulema (learned scholars or local religious authorities) and present their case; the ulema would render an opinion after consultation with the Qur'an and those hadith which their School considered valid.

In the time of the Prophet SAW of course there were no schools of thought, only Islam - hence any pronouncement by the Prophet was a fatwa by definition. Likewise, the various Caliphs and Sultans and Mughals and whatnot also issued fatwa that applied to their subjects, because their authority was religious as well as political. In modern times, with the exception of Iran, no Islamic government claims religious authority and hence they do not issue fatwas (though certainly they compel their citizens through other means).

So how then can OBL claim such authority? Into the vacuum left by secular (tyrannical, to be sure) governments, stepped any charlatan with the desire to reshape Islam. Syed Qutb was that charlatan, and Bill Allison of now-defunct Ideofact blog did truly yeoman's work in deconstructing Qutb's writings. OBL simply took Qutb's ideas further, and has adopted a kind of "caliph in exile" mantle. Dan Darling has termed this dynamic "Magneto appeal".

The bottom line is that OBL has no authority to issue fatwa other than that granted to him by muslims themselves. To combat him, therefore, requires a systematic delegitimization of OBL as an authority. I undertook one such delegitimization a few years ago and am re-posting it here.

The primary text of OBL's fatwa in 2002 was as follows:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God." . . .

We — with God's help — call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.

The very first statement asserts that "killing Americans and their allies" is an "individual duty". The Qur'an does in fact support violence if in defense against attack, but here OBL explicitly describes the targets as "civilians and military." Note that if you make the argument that there is no such thing as a civilian, then that qualification is unnecessary. Presumably then OBL does make such a distinction, and thus he is knowingly calling for the murder of innocents.

What does the Qur'an have to say on the matter of killing innocents?

We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. Those who wage war against Allah and His prophet, kill the believers and plunder their property shall be disgraced in this world, and for them is a dreadful doom in the hereafter. (5:32-33)

The contrast is crystal clear. What OBL is calling for violates Qur'anic precepts. His assertion that this is the "duty" of all Muslims is thus ignorant and self-refuting. His gross ignorance of the Qur'an demonstrates that he is an impostor of religious authority.

(With irony, note that the very same ayats are interpreted by jihadis and Islamophobes alike to mean the opposite. Then again, translations of the Qur'an are inherently flawed...)

Also consider the following ayat, invoked by OBL, and a perennial favorite of Islam "debunkers" as well:

Surely the number of months with Allah is twelve months in Allah's ordinance since the day when He created the heavens and the earth, of these four being sacred; that is the right reckoning; therefore be not unjust to yourselves regarding them, and fight the polytheists all together as they fight you all together; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). (9:36)

This is directed at two targets. First, the polytheists (or more accurately, pagans or idolaters) here are specifically the tribes of Saudi Arabia before Islam, who used to observe a year of 13 months after two years to combine the solar and lunar years, due to which they had to transfer the observance of Muharram to the succeeding month, Safar. This verse condemns their interference with the lunar calendar. Note that wrongful interpretations of the ayat usually hinge on mis-translating "polytheists".

Second, taken in a broader context, it says to fight them together as they fight you all together. Since Islam is not under attack by America or her allies (in fact, Muslims reside there as well, and none of the established schools of jurisprudence consider American muslims to be inferior or non-muslim), this ayat simply does not apply. One might argue as OBL does that America has attacked Islam, via proxy targets in Iraq, etc. but the very presence of muslims in the West essentially renders it moot. I can't speak to whether those who denounce Islam as inherently violent consider America to be at war with Islam or not; however it's probably accurate to say that if they don't, it's for lack of sufficient effort.

Finally, we come to the following ayats:

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression. (2:190-193)

These ayats are often used by fanatics in a manner precisely opposite to their intent. The main points here are that fighting is only permitted in self-defense. If fighting starts, then kill them wherever they are found, unless they ask for mercy (an inherently Jacksonian model). Most importantly, show mercy when one has the upper hand.

Given that OBL calls for a campaign of violence against individual innocents, and relies on tortured readings (which could be lifted straight off JihadWatch) to buttress the claim, he is in fact calling not for jihad (which I have discussed in detail) but rather hirabah, or war of intimidation.

Hirabah is strongly condemned in the Qur'an, for example the explicit reference in 5:33 to those whose intent is "mischief through the land". AltMuslim.com wrote an excellent piece on hirabah earlier, which observed:

Because the word jihad roughly means "religious effort," the West can come off as attacking the daily life of ordinary Muslims, while terrorists get away with wrapping their crimes in religious phraseology. Muslim scholars are meeting in Washington with US officials to change this. "When people carelessly dump on jihad, it has an immediate polarizing effect," said Khaled Abou el Fadl, a professor of Islamic law at UCLA who will attend the meeting. "It may not change much, but it allows Muslims and non-Muslims to say something about terrorists without appearing to malign Islamic theology.

Khaled Abou el Fadl, referred to above, is an accomplished writer on Islamic law. His book, Speaking in God's Name, is a very thorough look at how religious terminology is abused by the extremists. It is vitally important that these differences in terminology are understood - more than merely semantics, it is the framework for understanding the problem of radical fascist Islam and the underlying problem of tribalism. I urge other bloggers to make a point of calling terrorism harabah and not jihad, and to avoid labeling every frothing opinion of extremists as a fatwa.

Islam is actually the solution to the problem. It is in our collective best interest to understand the classical interpretations of Islam, because that understanding can shape policy. Consider post-war Iraq. If we simply set up a barbie dolls and rock and roll culture, then there will be a fundamentalist backlash. And as we saw with Afghanistan, should the fanatics gain power, they become incubators for terror groups like Al-Qaeda.

This is the propaganda war we must fight against OBL. We can buy into his framing, and let him continue to hijack the faith (and even lend him aid and comfort as he does so by accepting his interpretations). Or, we can delegitimize his authority - and it starts by using a simple word in place of another.