5

In a widely-publicized letter, a University of North Carolina graduate with degrees in philosophy and psychology, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar explained:

...

Due to the killing of believing men and women under the direction of the United States government, I have decided to take advantage of my presence on United States soil on Friday, March 3, 2006 to take the lives of as many Americans and American sympathizers as I can in order to punish the United States for their immoral actions around the world.

In the Qur'an, Allah states that the believing men and women have permission to murder anyone responsible for the killing of other believing men and women.
...

After extensive contemplation and reflection, I have made the decision to exercise the right of violent retaliation that Allah has given me to the fullest extent to which I am capable at present.

I have chosen the particular location on the University campus as my target since I know there is a high likelihood that I will kill several people before being killed myself or jailed and sent to prison if Allah wills. Allah's commandments are never to be questioned and all of Allah's commandments must be obeyed. Those who violate Allah's commandments and purposefully follow human fabrication and falsehood as their religion will burn in fire for eternity in accordance with Allah's will.

Is it true that the Quran sets forth a "permission to murder" and "right of violent retaliation" in the circumstances Mr. Taheri-Azar describes, particularly "to take the lives of as many Americans and American sympathizers as I can in order to punish the United States for their immoral actions around the world"?

DavePhD
  • 161
  • 5
  • Your question is probably not answerable because it is unclear what you would accept as an "official" permission. From whom exactly? In which interpretation? As to whether Quran literally permits and actually encourages violence against simply non (muslim) believers, there's plenty of examples, see for instance http://freethoughtnation.com/what-does-the-koran-say-about-nonbelievers/ –  Nov 04 '16 at 14:43
  • @Scrontch I would accept verses from the Quran. Basically he is making an unreferenced claim about the book. So relevant passages from the Koran about circumstances (if any) where killing is ok, or relevant prohibitions on killing (if any) would be my first choice as primary evidence. Secondary references about interpretations are less preferable, but would be evidence to a lesser extent. –  Nov 04 '16 at 14:50
  • So if we agree that Americans are seen as infidels in the sense of Quran then any violence against infidels does fit the bill, right? Here is more, with analysis of context: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx –  Nov 04 '16 at 14:57
  • Even if we accept his claims, and follow the words he's using to justify his action, there's a complete non-sequitur. How are the other students at his university responsible for any killings done in the name of the USA? –  Nov 04 '16 at 15:27
  • @BorderlineBaguette perhaps because the students are at least indirectly supporting the country that committed immoral actions around the world. That's part of my question, does the Quran say anything about such a situation? Is it permissible to generally kill citizens of a country that committed immoral actions? –  Nov 04 '16 at 15:37
  • @DavePhD this also begs the question of whether the Quran advocates the killing of Americans who are believers because they are Americans (or more broadly, the killing of believers because they are members of a group which consists of a majority of non-believers, when a minority of that group has attempted to kill believers), since the retaliatory methodology described doesn't have any way of distinguishing American believers from American non-believers. – BobRodes Nov 06 '16 at 05:40
  • @BobRodes since this was on his own university campus (having graduated in the middle of the same school year) and he frequently prayed in the campus prayer room, he may have been able to avoid harming believers to some degree. But any form of warfare seems to risk killing believers, either through friendly fire or a (misguided or coerced or captured) enemy or enemy captive being a believer. – DavePhD Nov 06 '16 at 13:26
  • This sounds like a very special interpretation of the Quran -which may go ahead with the teachings of ISIS, al-Qaida and so on- maybe my answer here would be helpful (I invited you to read the English links, especially the first Quran quote which seems to be the source of this) http://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/28682/how-do-non-violent-muslims-explain-the-violent-verses-of-the-koran – Medi1Saif Nov 07 '16 at 11:10
  • @Medi1Saif Do you mean Quran 22:39 is the source of what he is saying? – DavePhD Nov 07 '16 at 16:42
  • I mean both verses and IMO it's a misinterpretation. – Medi1Saif Nov 07 '16 at 17:49
  • @Medi1Saif What about verse 45 "How many towns have We destroyed because their people were steeped in iniquity..."? Who is "We" in this verse? – DavePhD Nov 07 '16 at 18:37
  • @DavePhD Thus again, slightly rephrased: does the Quran advocate the killing of believers, when they are members of a group with whom believers are at war, and when those believers to be killed do not consider themselves to be at war? For example, there are plenty of Americans who believe in one God, and do their best to do good works in the world; does that not make them Muslim in the Quranic (as opposed to the traditional) sense? Furthermore, these Americans have no quarrel with Muslims in general, and many only buy into the "war on terror" because they feel themselves ... – BobRodes Nov 07 '16 at 20:49
  • ... persecuted by "Islamic extremists", such as those who killed many Americans fitting the Quranic description of Muslim on 9/11. Why, then, is it not the Quranic prerogative of Americans who, believing in the One God, and doing their best to do good works in the world, to make war upon those who invoked Allah's name to slay their fellow Americans who believed as they do? – BobRodes Nov 07 '16 at 20:53
  • @DavePhD If I may also make this clear: it is my personal belief that God doesn't need executioners. Let each reach out to each in love, and in so doing each will find God. – BobRodes Nov 07 '16 at 20:58
  • Verse 22:45 is neither an order nor an invitation it just states something about the power of God or Allah, so it is not addressing any Muslim to do the same, but shows him what Allah would or could do if they act similar to the people of Lut etc. (whom were quoted before)! – Medi1Saif Nov 08 '16 at 09:23
  • @DavePhD I am getting the impression that this question was specifically directed towards me. Am I correct? – Sakib Arifin Dec 08 '16 at 19:58
  • @MohammadSakibArifin no, I think Sklivvz very indirectly inspired it. Definitely not you. But somebody did copy this crime recently, unfortunately. – DavePhD Dec 08 '16 at 20:03
  • @DavePhD The question was asked after I became a regular member of skeptics.SE. So, I thought you wanted me to answer it (since I am a senior member of Islam.SE). – Sakib Arifin Dec 08 '16 at 20:11
  • 1
    @MohammadSakibArifin I didn't have any particular person in mind to answer. If you answer, that would be great. Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar published his answer as "G. Instructions and guidelines for fighting and killing in the cause of Allah" http://72.9.148.189/library/Mohammed_Reza_Taheri-azar , so I suppose it comes down to how you interpret the verses he lists. – DavePhD Dec 08 '16 at 20:19
  • @MohammadSakibArifin This is the attack about a week ago that copied the OP attack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Ohio_State_University_attack So it would be helpful if someone could answer if this is halal or haram. – DavePhD Dec 08 '16 at 21:25

1 Answers1

1

Azar according to your source said:

After extensive contemplation and reflection, I have made the decision to exercise the right of violent retaliation that Allah has given me to the fullest extent to which I am capable at present.

I assume he is referring to the concept of Qisas in Islam. This concept is also cited by Daesh "terrorist" group as justification for retaliatory attacks against western nations.

According to Islamic jurisprudence it is prohibited to kill any women, children or elderly during battle. Islamic code of warfare according to the first Caliph, Abu Bakr RA (573 CE – 22 August 634 CE):

O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well! Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_military_jurisprudence#Prisoners_of_War

But Muslims are permitted to violate these rules if the enemy violates them. This permission is given in the following verse:

Yusuf Ali: The prohibited month for the prohibited month,- and so for all things prohibited,- there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves.

Sahih International: [Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=2&verse=194

There is no definitive interpretation of this verse. Scholars of different times have interpreted it differently. It is upto those who are in authority to decide what constitutes a proportional response to enemies violation of ethics.

The retaliatory action is to be carried out by those who are in the authority not individuals. The use of extra judicial force is prohibited.

Azar as far as I know was a citizen of the USA which means that he has agreed to obey the laws of that specific nation. The prophet (saw) said regarding this:

“It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler, as long as one is not ordered to carry out a sin. If he is commanded to commit a sin, then there is no adherence and obedience.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 2796 & Sunan Tirmidhi) http://www.daruliftaa.com/node/5852

It means that Muslims are to follow the rules of the land they live in if they are allowed to practice their religion properly. If they are forced to commit sins, then he/she shouldn't obey.

America sure has a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment which is reflected by the recent US elections but they don't (as far as I know) have any laws prohibiting the freedom to practice Islam. So, he does not have the right to practice violent retaliation since he is bound to follow the laws of the USA and since it's extra-judicial killing.

Community
  • 1
Sakib Arifin
  • 4,087
  • 5
  • 20
  • 54