Classical Islamic Paradigms of Deterrence and their Expression in ...

territory, and only the broad targeting of the civilian population among which the enemy advances,promises victory, then the rule of the inviolability of Muslim blood (hurmat dima' al-muslimin) may beconditionally overruled by the necessity to protect Dar al-Islam (The Abode of Islam). Another example ofan original case to justify the killing of Muslims with an analogy is that the enemy shields himself withMuslim civilians, or that bystanders belong to the enemy’s entourage (tatarrus). This reasoning was appliedby the Islamic Jihad Organization to justify the assassination of President Anwar al-Sadat in 1981. 102The classical legal interpretation goes back to the advances of Mongol invaders into the Abbassidecaliphate in the 13 th century AD and has been picked up by numerous contemporary jihadi ideologues tojustify terrorist attacks, in which the likelihood of civilian casualties is very high. Non-Muslim civilians maybe killed because they indirectly support the enemy with their work and are part of his war-machinery,which also goes back to classic salafi-jihadi interpretations of Islamic legal stipulations such as "The Rulingsof the Qur’an" by the medieval scholar Ibn al-'Arabi, who states "Do not kill women unless they fight,because the Prophet, peace be upon him, forbade their killing. And this is valid for as long as they do notfight, for if they fight, then they will be killed." 103Interpretations of two classical Muslim scholars 104 on the single attack during the siege of Constantinople in674 deserve special attention. The reasoning is chain-like, starts with a tradition (hadith), is continued byclassical scholars, and finally integrated into contemporary Islamic deterrence concepts based on terroristtactics. The above quoted hadith explains the event itself. It is the root source for the interpretations.Classical Muslim scholars interpret the event in a deterrence context. Furthermore, the classicalinterpretation of single attacks has become a cornerstone in the justification of contemporary suicideattacks. Suicide-attacks are analogized to single attacks such as the one at the siege of Constantinople in674. Furthermore, suicide-attacks are supposed to "frighten" the enemy, which also follows the medievalinterpretation of single attacks. The classical discussion of single attacks (inghimas; iqtiham) 105 in relation to"self-destruction" (tahluka; talaf al-nafs) sheds more light on this topic. Classical Islamic law states that selfsacrificeis legitimate if it serves the motivation of Muslims and deterrence of enemies: 106• Al-Shaybani said: If one man alone launched an attack against thousand men from the idolaters and hewas alone, there wouldn’t be a virtue in this, if he strives for save rescue, or the destruction (nikaya) of theenemy. Therefore, he has no option and he is reprehensible, if he turns himself to the destruction without abenefit (manfa'a) for the Muslims. If his intention is to encourage the Muslims to do it like him, thepermissibility will be likely, because it is a benefit for the Muslims from some points of view (fihinaf'an…'ala ba'ad al-wujuh). And if his intention is the frightening (irhab) of the enemy in order to teachhim about the firmness (salaba) of the Muslims in the religion, then the permissibility is likely.• If there is a benefit for the Muslims, the life is destroyed for the strengthening of the religion of Allah (fatulifatal-nafs li-i'zaz din Allah), and the discouragement of atheism (tawhin al-kufr). Allah praises that the102 Sadat was sitting among a large entourage, watching a military parade that celebrated the Egyptian "victory" against Israel in the 1973war, when the attack took place.103 Abu Mus'ab al-Suri, "Da'wat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya al-'Alamiyya" ("Global Islamic Resistance Call"), p. 1228.104 Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Shaybani (749/50 - 805) and Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abu Bakr al-Ansari al-Qurtubi (1214 -1274) were famous Sunni scholars. The former belongs to the Hanafi school and the latter to the Maliki school of Islamic jurisprudence.105 The penetration of the single man into the enemy is termed iqtiham. The term is an eighth form verbal noun derived from the root wordqaham and means intruding, but also defying a danger, or hardship. Another term is inghimas, a seventh form verbal noun of itscorresponding word root rhayn-mim-sin, which literally means to plunge into the enemy. Thus, the matter of dispute (ikhtilaf) amongMuslim jurisprudents is the permissiveness of the intrusion or plunging of the man into the enemy in the war, and his single attack againstmany of the enemy (jawaz iqtiham; inghimas al-rajul fi-l-harb, wa hamluhu 'ala- l-'adu –l- kathir wahdahu).106 Ibrahim al-'Ali, "Hawla "al-'amaliyat al-istishhadiyya," Filastin al-Muslima, part 1: October 1995, pp. 51-52; part 2: November 1995, pp.52-53; part 3: December 1995, pp. 51-52. See also: Philipp Holtmann, "Martyrdom, not Suicide: The Legality of Hamas’ Bombings in themid-1990s in Modern Islamic Jurisprudence", Munich, Grin, 2009.30