The Denudation Of The Exoneration: Part 4

Posted: 23rd November 2008 by Will McCants in Uncategorized

Part 4 of the Denudation is a little more techy, but there is a nice rebuttal of al-Qaeda’s principle of reciprocity, which, as Sayyid Imam says, really does underpin a lot of its members’ moral reasoning about violence.  In this vein, Sayyid Imam slaps Nasir al-Fahd hard in the face for his famous WMD fatwa.

Paraphrastic translation follows:

Under the illegitimate principle of attacking the far enemy first, Al-Qaeda provoked the U.S. into attacking Afghanistan, which then made jihad an obligation for every individual, without conditions.  Yet Zawahiri and Bin Laden didn’t stay and fight; rather, they fled in women’s garments.  When this is pointed out to them, they say, “Our role is only to incite others to fight.”  But the Prophet both incited and fought and so should they.  Zawahiri is only good at fleeing, inciting, collecting donations, and talking to the media.

*  The heresy of excommunication and killing someone on account of their nationality

I said in the Document that nationality is just a characteristic.  But Zawahiri says in the Exoneration that carrying the nationality of the infidel nations is proof of allegiance and acquiescence to infidel laws.  A Muslim carrying such a nationality is not an infidel, Zawahiri argues, but very close to it.  He goes on to say that anyone who acquires the nationality of these countries is an apostate.  In making this ruling, Zawahiri incorrectly assumed that citizens in infidel nations must serve in their armies, which is often not the case.

If Zawahiri were correct, then hundreds of millions of Muslims would have to be excommunicated in countries like India, China, Russia, Ethiopia, Kenya, and so forth.  These infidel nations apply their laws to Muslims.  However, it is not possible to know for certain that all of the Muslims acquiescence to these laws, especially since it may not be possible to travel to the Abode of Islam in this age.  One can not infer someone’s status when there are several possibilities [ie the status is indeterminate].  Yet Zawahiri does just that, advocating excommunication by possibilities.  As I argued in the Document, you can’t excommunicate someone on the basis of possibilities; you must be certain of his status.

Even if we accept that all these people are infidels, there are still categories of people that cannot be killed in war, like women and children.

*  The heresy of permitting the killing of those who pay taxes to infidels because they are fighting with their money

In order to get around the above prohibition on killing noncombatants, Zawahiri argued on p. 152 of the Exoneration that Muslims who pay taxes to infidel nations are fighting against Muslims when their money is used to this end.  Thus, killing them is permissible.

This doctrine is obviously corrupt and extreme, for implementing it would mean killing millions of Muslims in India and Russia because their governments fight Muslims.  The Caliph `Umar did not allow the killing of farmers in Persia or Byzantium who did take up arms against the invading Muslims, even though they paid taxes.  This is proof enough of the invalidity of this doctrine.

* The issue of killing a Muslim human shield, using it as a justification for killing Muslims who mix with infidels anywhere

In order to remove the Sharia restraints on violence, al-Qaeda has sanctioned killing Muslim and infidel human shields.  I dealt with this issue in article 8 of the Document.

* The heresy of the unrestricted application of the principle of responding in kind

This is one of the pillars of al-Qaeda for killing, especially for killing Americans.  The others are:

  • Making the fight with America the most important matter for the Islamic umma because America is the cause of its suffering.
  • UBL obtained fatwas and letters from clerics in Pakistan and Afghanistan to that end.
  • They circumvented the conditions and barriers to jihad by saying this is a defensive war, even if it is across the ocean.
  • They circumvented the permission of their amir, Mullah Omar, by the heresy of “localization of leadership.”
  • They decided that the far enemy has priority, which is not sanctioned in Islamic scripture.
  • They decided to kill any American on the grounds that he acquiesced to the actions of his government (excommunication and killing someone for their nationality).
  • Even if they don’t permit killing someone for their nationality, they permit it for paying taxes, which is the same as fighting.
  • Even if all of the above doesn’t allow you to kill him, the principle of responding in kind does.
  • There are more principles and I will rebut them later.

To justify their principle of responding in kind, they rely on some verses of the Qur’an and a fatwa by Nasir al-Fahd.  He argued that because Americans have killed at least 10 million people, we can kill at least tell million of them.  No further proof is necessary.

These people misunderstand the principle of responding in kind.  The principle is, “Responding in kind with only what is permissible in the Sharia.”  That they don’t know this is evidence of their ignorance of the fundamentals of weighing different kinds of Sharia proof texts.  They base their rulings on general statements in the texts and ignore more limiting statements on the same subject.  So even though the Qur’an says you can transgress against you enemies as they transgress against you (2:194), it is limited by a specific statement of the Prophet that prohibits the killing of women and children and other categories of people.  As Ibn Taymiyya says, the specific statement has precedence over the general unless the date is known [in which case on of the statements would be abrogated].  Thus, the full verse of 2:194, which UBL and Z don’t cite in full, is, “He who transgresses against you, transgress against him in like manner.  Fear God and know that God is with those who are god-fearing.”  In this verse, retaliation is tempered by god-fearing. 

In this way do UBL, Zawahiri, and Nasir al-Fahd make the Sharia suit their fancy, not the other way around as it should be.  

From the above, know that the words of Nasir al-Fahd are false and must be repudiated.  It is not permitted for Muslims to say or act according to them in contradiction to Islamic scripture.  Moreover, Nasir al-Fahd and his ilk must be prevented from promulgating this fatwa [or fatwas in general?] on account of his ignorance of Islamic fundamentals.  He must also be held accountable for everything that is destroyed on account of his fatwa.

Document (Arabic): 11-22-08-al-masry-al-youm-denudation-part-4

  1. [...] The Denudation Of The Exoneration: Part 4 — jihadica – More Dr. Fadl. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]