Islam and the Bomb - Belfer Center for Science and International ...
Islam and the Bomb - Belfer Center for Science and International ...
Islam and the Bomb - Belfer Center for Science and International ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong><br />
Religious Justification Justification For For<br />
<strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons<br />
Rolf Mowatt-Larssen<br />
January 2011
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong><br />
Religious Justification For<br />
<strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons<br />
Rolf Mowatt-Larssen<br />
January 2011
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs<br />
Harvard Kennedy School<br />
79 JFK Street<br />
Cambridge, MA 02138<br />
Fax: (617) 495-8963<br />
Email: belfer_center@harvard.edu<br />
Website: http://belfercenter.org<br />
Design <strong>and</strong> Layout Tim Duffy<br />
Copyright 2010 President <strong>and</strong> Fellows of Harvard College<br />
Printed in <strong>the</strong> United States of America
In Memoriam<br />
Kenneth A. Moskow<br />
Died on 19 September, 2008, on <strong>the</strong> summit of<br />
Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, Africa<br />
A colleague <strong>and</strong> friend, a<br />
husb<strong>and</strong>, fa<strong>the</strong>r, son, <strong>and</strong> bro<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
Ken was <strong>the</strong> CIA’s point man on nuclear terror-<br />
ism after 9/11. There is no one who understood<br />
<strong>the</strong> nuclear terrorism threat better than Ken.<br />
One of Harvard’s own, he inspired all who knew<br />
him with his great passion, deep commitment,<br />
boundless energy, <strong>and</strong> zest <strong>for</strong> life. Like so many<br />
quiet heroes of intelligence, Ken did more to<br />
protect his country than anyone will ever know.<br />
He is sorely missed.
AUTHOR’S NOTE<br />
Threats cannot be fully appreciated without an underst<strong>and</strong>ing of <strong>the</strong> circumstances that give<br />
rise to <strong>the</strong>m. Identifying <strong>and</strong> eliminating threats starts with an insider’s underst<strong>and</strong>ing of <strong>the</strong><br />
enemy’s plans <strong>and</strong> intentions. Chinese military philosopher Sun Tzu said it best: “Know your<br />
enemy, <strong>and</strong> know yourself, <strong>and</strong> you will fight a hundred battles without catastrophe.” 1<br />
When I began this project, my goal was to develop insight into <strong>the</strong> deeper thought process<br />
behind al-Qaeda’s nuclear intent. I expected to find evidence that <strong>the</strong>ir interest is strong,<br />
perhaps unshakable, but hinges on capability, i.e., <strong>the</strong>y will use weapons of mass destruction<br />
if <strong>the</strong>y are able to acquire <strong>the</strong>m. Specifically, I set out to examine <strong>the</strong> impact al-Qaeda’s ap-<br />
parent frustration in acquiring WMD has had on <strong>the</strong> group’s intent; perhaps <strong>the</strong>ir interest has<br />
waned in recent years, or has been overtaken by global events.<br />
I was surprised to discover that al-Qaeda’s WMD ambitions are stronger than ever. This in-<br />
tent no longer feels <strong>the</strong>oretical, but operational. I believe al-Qaeda is laying <strong>the</strong> groundwork<br />
<strong>for</strong> a large scale attack on <strong>the</strong> United States, possibly in <strong>the</strong> next year or two. The attack may<br />
or may not involve <strong>the</strong> use of WMD, but <strong>the</strong>re are signs that al-Qaeda is working on an event<br />
on a larger scale than <strong>the</strong> 9/11 attack.<br />
When al-Qaeda number two Ayman Zawahiri published his book “Exoneration” in 2008, I<br />
dismissed it as <strong>the</strong> ranting of a leadership that is increasingly detached from reality. Reading<br />
various book reviews confirmed my impressions; terrorism experts dismissed “Exoneration”<br />
as a ra<strong>the</strong>r desperate, defensive reaction to a harsh critique of al-Qaeda by an imprisoned<br />
<strong>for</strong>mer associate.
So, I didn’t bo<strong>the</strong>r to read <strong>the</strong> book. I only picked it up again this summer because I was<br />
searching <strong>for</strong> clues on <strong>the</strong> current status of <strong>the</strong> aborted WMD religious ruling (fatwa) that al-<br />
Qaeda issued in May 2003; I was in<strong>for</strong>med that <strong>the</strong> author of that fatwa, radical Saudi cleric<br />
Nasir al Fahd, was cited in “Exoneration.”<br />
As I read <strong>the</strong> text closely, in <strong>the</strong> broader context of al-Qaeda’s past, my concerns grew that<br />
Zawahiri has written this treatise to play a part in <strong>the</strong> ritualistic process of preparing <strong>for</strong> an<br />
impending attack. As Osama bin Laden’s fatwa in 1998 <strong>for</strong>eshadowed <strong>the</strong> 9/11 attack, Ayman<br />
Zawahiri’s fatwa in 2008 may have started <strong>the</strong> clock ticking <strong>for</strong> al-Qaeda’s next large scale<br />
strike on America. If <strong>the</strong> pattern of al-Qaeda’s modus oper<strong>and</strong>i holds true, we are in <strong>the</strong><br />
middle of an attack cycle.<br />
Even if this <strong>the</strong>ory proves to be wrong, it is better to overestimate <strong>the</strong> enemy than to under-<br />
estimate him. Conventional wisdom holds that al-Qaeda is spent—that <strong>the</strong>y are incapable<br />
of carrying out ano<strong>the</strong>r 9/11. Leaving aside whe<strong>the</strong>r this view is correct, <strong>for</strong> which I harbor<br />
grave doubts, we will surely miss <strong>the</strong> signs of <strong>the</strong> next attack if we continue to overestimate<br />
our own successes, <strong>and</strong> dismiss what terrorists remain capable of accomplishing when <strong>the</strong>y<br />
put <strong>the</strong>ir minds to it.<br />
Rolf Mowatt-Larssen<br />
January 12, 2011
CONTENTS<br />
Foreword 9<br />
Living in an Age of <strong>the</strong> Super-Enabled Individual 12<br />
The Allure of Nuclear Weapons 14<br />
Religion, Ideology <strong>and</strong> Secularity 14<br />
Apocalyptic Jihad 18<br />
The Court of Public Opinion 20<br />
The Quran <strong>and</strong> Weapons of Mass Destruction 22<br />
Noncombatant Immunity 23<br />
Proportionality 24<br />
Deterrence 25<br />
Religious Rulings (fatwa) 26<br />
Al-Qaeda’s Religious Justification of Nuclear Terrorism 28<br />
Osama bin Laden 1998 “fatwa” 29<br />
Zawahiri’s Project 30<br />
Ayman Zawahiri’s book “Exoneration” 34<br />
Zawahiri’s WMD fatwa 35<br />
Symmetry between 2003 WMD fatwa <strong>and</strong> 2008 “Exoneration” 36<br />
Zawahiri’s Three Operational Messages 38<br />
First Message: America is <strong>the</strong> Target 38<br />
Second message: The use of WMD is necessary 39<br />
Third Message: Al-Qaeda’s best is yet to come 41<br />
Radical Clerics in Support of al-Qaeda (Source: Exoneration) 43
Sunni Voices: Rejection of Terrorist Violence 44<br />
Chronology of Sunni Voices Against Al-Qaeda 46<br />
Reactions to <strong>the</strong> anti-WMD Fatwa 48<br />
Shia Voices: Iran <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong> 50<br />
Shia Clerics Against Nuclear Weapons 51<br />
Shia Clerics For Nuclear Weapons 53<br />
Unclear 54<br />
Chronology of Shia Voices on Nuclear Weapons 55<br />
Appendices 64<br />
Appendix A: Background on The Quran 64<br />
Appendix B: Al-Qaeda Nuclear Players 70<br />
Appendix C: Events from 2003–2010- Nuclear Timeline Update 72<br />
Appendix D: Excerpts of Gr<strong>and</strong> Mufti Gomaa’s anti-WMD fatwa 75<br />
Appendix E: Sunni Biographies 80<br />
Appendix F: Shia Biographies 83<br />
Appendix G: Same Author Correlation by Text <strong>and</strong> Page Number 87<br />
Endnotes 146<br />
Acknowledgements 154<br />
About <strong>the</strong> Author 155
8<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
FOREWORD<br />
It has been almost ten years since I was first charged with assessing <strong>the</strong><br />
threat posed by terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). I<br />
vividly recall <strong>the</strong> day, not long after 9/11, when <strong>the</strong> CIA received unequivo-<br />
cal intelligence that al-Qaeda was seeking <strong>the</strong> bomb. At <strong>the</strong> time, I took<br />
solace in <strong>the</strong> assumption that it was probably too difficult <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>m to get<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir h<strong>and</strong>s on a nuclear weapon. I was wrong. We can not exclude <strong>the</strong><br />
possibility of nuclear terrorism. It is not tomorrow’s threat; it is with us<br />
here today. The game changing impact of a single mushroom cloud could<br />
destabilize <strong>the</strong> world order <strong>and</strong> raise fundamental doubts about <strong>the</strong> ability<br />
of governments to continue to provide security <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir people.<br />
For years, I chased leads to al-Qaeda’s ef<strong>for</strong>ts to acquire weapons of mass<br />
destruction (WMD), without finding <strong>the</strong> answers to fundamental questions.<br />
Yes, it is clear that al-Qaeda is seeking high-end WMD, specifically nuclear<br />
<strong>and</strong> biological weapons capable of causing mass casualties. But why has<br />
al-Qaeda set <strong>the</strong>ir sights so high? Isn’t a “dirty bomb” or a chemical device a<br />
more probable threat, since such weapons are much easier to obtain? What is<br />
al-Qaeda’s justification <strong>for</strong> using WMD—how much of a factor is religion in<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir thinking? What can terrorists hope to achieve by indiscriminately kill-<br />
ing people on a mass scale?<br />
In <strong>the</strong> absence of hard data, <strong>the</strong>re are few facts <strong>and</strong> too many assumptions<br />
being made about terrorist WMD plans <strong>and</strong> intentions. As an intelligence<br />
officer at heart, I try to keep an open mind when analyzing a problem, but I<br />
must confess I find it hard to shake <strong>the</strong> intuitive logic of <strong>the</strong> troubling obser-<br />
vation of Harvard’s Graham Allison in <strong>the</strong> movie, Countdown to Zero: “You<br />
can’t kill four million Americans by flying airplanes into buildings.” 2<br />
Sub-state actors are <strong>the</strong> latest players on <strong>the</strong> nuclear scene, but <strong>the</strong> aspirations<br />
of states remain of high concern as well. Over many years of tracking Iran’s<br />
nuclear program, I remain uncertain about <strong>the</strong> Iranian leadership’s real inten-<br />
tions—is <strong>the</strong>ir quest <strong>for</strong> nuclear energy merely a cunning cover <strong>for</strong> develop-<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School<br />
9
10<br />
ing nuclear weapons? Has a decision already been made to build a bomb? If so, who has<br />
made this decision, <strong>and</strong> on what basis? How important is <strong>the</strong> religious case, <strong>for</strong> or against<br />
nuclear weapons, in an <strong>Islam</strong>ic <strong>the</strong>ocracy? Are conflicting statements concerning <strong>the</strong> status<br />
of nuclear weapons issued by clerics <strong>and</strong> scholars signs of dissension between religious <strong>and</strong><br />
secular authorities in Iran?<br />
Underst<strong>and</strong>ing Iran’s nuclear intentions assumes <strong>the</strong> added dimension of if <strong>and</strong> when Iran<br />
gets <strong>the</strong> bomb. A nuclear-armed Iran will pose new proliferation risks surrounding <strong>the</strong> pos-<br />
sible transfer of nuclear capability <strong>and</strong> know-how from state to sub-state actors, such as He-<br />
zbollah <strong>and</strong> Hamas. Scant attention has been paid to <strong>the</strong> nuclear intent of surrogate groups<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir collusion with Iranian insiders with access to nuclear facilities.<br />
Considering <strong>the</strong> daunting challenge of divining what lies in someone’s mind, my modest ob-<br />
jective is to present a framework <strong>for</strong> analyzing key factors that impact on <strong>the</strong> religious justifi-<br />
cation under <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>and</strong> against nuclear weapons. Al-Qaeda (Sunni extremism) <strong>and</strong> Iran<br />
(Shia <strong>the</strong>ocracy) are offered as two case studies in this regard, because <strong>the</strong>ir potential acquisi-<br />
tion of nuclear weapons is of greatest contemporary concern. Presenting <strong>the</strong>m side by side<br />
will invite a comparison of <strong>the</strong> respective arguments of a state <strong>and</strong> sub-state actor, in both<br />
houses of <strong>Islam</strong>. However, <strong>the</strong>ir inclusion toge<strong>the</strong>r in this project should not be construed as<br />
an ef<strong>for</strong>t to compare or equate al-Qaeda <strong>and</strong> Iran with one ano<strong>the</strong>r, ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>ir motivations,<br />
or in moral terms.<br />
The sections of this report represent a compilation of <strong>the</strong> various arguments that are being<br />
made in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic community today. I have endeavored to faithfully represent <strong>the</strong> views of<br />
key voices in <strong>the</strong> Muslim world, scholars, <strong>and</strong> extremists, whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>for</strong> or against nu-<br />
clear weapons—<strong>and</strong> to put <strong>the</strong>ir testimony on <strong>the</strong> record. For this reason, <strong>the</strong> paper contains<br />
a large number of quotes <strong>and</strong> excerpts of key lines of reasoning <strong>for</strong> <strong>and</strong> against <strong>the</strong> bomb.<br />
I was surprised to learn that <strong>the</strong>re is a lack of basic research on <strong>the</strong> issues that sit at <strong>the</strong> cross-<br />
roads of nuclear proliferation, terrorism <strong>and</strong> religion. Perhaps this is due to <strong>the</strong> fact <strong>the</strong>re are<br />
many experts in each of <strong>the</strong>se domains, but very few experts in all three. Moreover, a nuclear<br />
attack has not happened in over half a century, perhaps rein<strong>for</strong>cing an un<strong>for</strong>tunate misper-<br />
ception that <strong>the</strong> dangerous interplay between states <strong>and</strong> sub-state actors in <strong>the</strong> nuclear arena<br />
is still a <strong>the</strong>oretical problem.<br />
This report is written <strong>for</strong> expert <strong>and</strong> layperson alike. It is meant to stimulate thought, pro-<br />
voke questions, <strong>and</strong> most importantly, broaden public awareness concerning <strong>the</strong> threat posed<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
y nuclear weapons. After years of working on <strong>the</strong> problem, I have come to believe that<br />
eliminating <strong>the</strong> appeal of possessing nuclear weapons must come from people of all back-<br />
grounds <strong>and</strong> beliefs who are willing to speak out against <strong>the</strong> corrosive moral effects of <strong>the</strong>se<br />
weapons of mass destruction. There is a growing global consciousness that <strong>the</strong> use of nuclear<br />
weapons can never be justified <strong>for</strong> any reason. We must nurture this feeling; rogue states <strong>and</strong><br />
terrorists can ignore that reality, but <strong>the</strong>y are not going to change it.<br />
Despite <strong>the</strong> intrinsically depressing nature of nuclear catastrophe, I remain an inveterate<br />
optimist. We can prevent WMD terrorism <strong>and</strong> eliminate <strong>the</strong> threat. From this project, I<br />
have learned that in <strong>the</strong> Muslim world, <strong>the</strong> debate over nuclear weapons is being held in<br />
earnest, fed by a yearning <strong>for</strong> social justice <strong>and</strong> human rights, <strong>and</strong> based on sincere religious<br />
convictions. The West must fearlessly join <strong>the</strong> discourse by showcasing its values <strong>and</strong> beliefs,<br />
because we are all in this toge<strong>the</strong>r. Truth, itself, is at stake, <strong>and</strong> in <strong>the</strong> end, it will prevail.<br />
“There can be no peace among nations without peace among religions”<br />
Hans Kung 3<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 11
NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE 21 ST CENTURY<br />
LIVING IN AN AGE OF<br />
THE SUPER-ENABLED INDIVIDUAL<br />
“To me, it was a weapon of war, <strong>and</strong> artillery weapon. We faced half<br />
a million casualties trying to take Japan by l<strong>and</strong>. It was ei<strong>the</strong>r that<br />
or <strong>the</strong> atom bomb, I didn’t hesitate a minute, <strong>and</strong> I never lost any<br />
sleep over it since.” 4<br />
US President Harry S. Truman<br />
It was probably not his intention in making this remark, but President Tru-<br />
man offered a two part justification <strong>for</strong> using a nuclear weapon to destroy two<br />
Japanese cities. First, he judged that a nuclear weapon is no different than<br />
any o<strong>the</strong>r weapon of war—he characterized it as an “artillery weapon.” Sec-<br />
ond, he decided that its use was necessary to win a war that had cost millions<br />
of people <strong>the</strong>ir lives <strong>and</strong> had wreaked utter devastation upon <strong>the</strong> world.<br />
The consequences of unleashing <strong>the</strong> nuclear genie are still playing out. A<br />
costly <strong>and</strong> dangerous nuclear arms race that dominated events in <strong>the</strong> 20 th cen-<br />
tury ended in a stalemate of mutually assured destruction between states—so<br />
called “rational actors”—who had come to realize that <strong>the</strong>se weapons simply<br />
cannot be used. In <strong>the</strong> 21 st century, we no longer live in <strong>the</strong> twisted com<strong>for</strong>t<br />
of deterrence <strong>and</strong> mutually assured destruction. Today, terrorists are actively<br />
seeking to buy, steal or build a single bomb that could destroy any city—<strong>and</strong><br />
we must not exclude <strong>the</strong> possibility that one day, <strong>the</strong>y may succeed.<br />
“Just as we stood <strong>for</strong> freedom in <strong>the</strong> 20 th century, we must st<strong>and</strong><br />
toge<strong>the</strong>r <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> right of people everywhere to live free from fear<br />
in <strong>the</strong> 21 st century. And as nuclear power—as a nuclear power, as<br />
<strong>the</strong> only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, <strong>the</strong> United<br />
States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this<br />
endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.<br />
So today, I state clearly <strong>and</strong> with conviction America’s commitment<br />
to seek <strong>the</strong> peace <strong>and</strong> security of a world without nuclear weapons.
I’m not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly—perhaps not in my lifetime. It<br />
will take patience <strong>and</strong> persistence. But now we, too, must ignore <strong>the</strong> voices who tell<br />
us that <strong>the</strong> world cannot change. We have to insist, “Yes, we can.” 5<br />
President Barack Obama, Prague, April, 2009<br />
The world has turned full circle. Paradoxically, in this age of <strong>the</strong> super enabled individual,<br />
<strong>the</strong> world may confront a greater likelihood of nuclear catastrophe than during <strong>the</strong> Cold War.<br />
In addition to <strong>the</strong> destabilizing prospect of new states that are secretly developing nuclear<br />
weapons, a growing number of states are developing nuclear technologies <strong>and</strong> materials <strong>for</strong><br />
weapons or peaceful purposes. 6 This global expansion of nuclear-related activity is spawning<br />
new <strong>and</strong> unpredictable pathways to a bomb. Taking into account <strong>the</strong> increasing probability<br />
of dynamic, opportunistic interactions between states <strong>and</strong> sub-state actors, adequate <strong>for</strong>esight<br />
<strong>and</strong> early warning of nuclear threats can not be assured. Indeed, it may be inherently impos-<br />
sible to assess <strong>and</strong> mitigate <strong>the</strong> nuclear threats of <strong>the</strong> 21 st century with <strong>the</strong> same doctrine <strong>and</strong><br />
approaches that served <strong>the</strong> world so well in <strong>the</strong> latter half of <strong>the</strong> 20 th century.<br />
In this second nuclear age, nuclear actors straddle a single spectrum of risks, consisting of<br />
states possessing <strong>the</strong> most advanced nuclear arsenals on one end, to terrorist groups wielding<br />
a single crude improvised nuclear device on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r end. The complex transactions between<br />
states, states <strong>and</strong> groups, <strong>and</strong> groups with o<strong>the</strong>r groups must be identified <strong>and</strong> interpreted in<br />
order to identify any cl<strong>and</strong>estine nuclear weapons-related activity that is taking place.<br />
Nuclear threats will emanate from non obvious relationships <strong>and</strong> non-linear combinations<br />
of actors. For example, a prospective nuclear weapons-armed Iran—with <strong>the</strong> witting or<br />
unwitting involvement of <strong>the</strong> government—could become a source of proliferation to sur-<br />
rogate groups such as Hezbollah or Hamas. A future nuclear crisis between Iran <strong>and</strong> Israel<br />
could be precipitated by <strong>the</strong> deliberate transfer or accidental loss of control of a single<br />
Iranian bomb into <strong>the</strong> arms of a terrorist group.<br />
Future rogue nuclear supplier networks, similar to <strong>the</strong> global network run by <strong>the</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>r<br />
of <strong>the</strong> Pakistan nuclear weapons program, AQ Khan, might serve as a source of nuclear<br />
capabilities to a broader range of customers, including terrorist groups. In <strong>the</strong> aftermath<br />
of North Korea’s cl<strong>and</strong>estine ef<strong>for</strong>t to provide a bomb-producing nuclear facility to Syria,<br />
<strong>for</strong> example, <strong>the</strong> world should question whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>re are any limits in North Korean<br />
leader Kim Jong-Il’s willingness to provide nuclear weapons capabilities to o<strong>the</strong>r states,<br />
<strong>and</strong> even to terrorist groups.<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 13
14<br />
The Allure of Nuclear Weapons<br />
The stability of nuclear stalemate is predicated on an assumption that no rational actor will<br />
use nuclear weapons against an adversary who has <strong>the</strong> capacity to retaliate in kind. The<br />
resulting doctrine of “mutually assured destruction” might seem like madness, but it has<br />
lowered <strong>the</strong> risks of making serious miscalculations that could unleash a nuclear holocaust.<br />
States are not deterred from using nuclear weapons because of moral or ethical concerns;<br />
decision-makers make cold, hard calculations of self interest <strong>and</strong> have concluded that <strong>the</strong>y<br />
cannot achieve <strong>the</strong>ir goals by using nuclear arsenals.<br />
The nuclear play book needs to be re-written to take into account <strong>the</strong> emerging features of<br />
nuclear threats resulting from such broader trends as globalization, extremism, <strong>and</strong> energy<br />
dem<strong>and</strong>s. Calculations based on national interest will no longer constitute a sufficient basis<br />
<strong>for</strong> sustaining a viable nuclear order. Some measure of moral <strong>and</strong> ethical st<strong>and</strong>ards must<br />
enter into <strong>the</strong> equation, in order <strong>for</strong> a consensus to emerge among nations that must increas-<br />
ingly work toge<strong>the</strong>r to mitigate nuclear-related risks.<br />
In a world brimming with <strong>the</strong> stuff of a nuclear Armageddon, can we assign different moral<br />
st<strong>and</strong>ards in assessing <strong>the</strong> behavior of states <strong>and</strong> sub-state actors? What does nuclear ac-<br />
countability <strong>and</strong> responsibility mean in <strong>the</strong> event a state were to wittingly or unwittingly<br />
provide nuclear capabilities to terrorists? Does deterrence have any meaning in influencing<br />
<strong>the</strong> nuclear ambitions of a terrorist group?<br />
If, as President Truman suggested, <strong>the</strong> bomb is just ano<strong>the</strong>r weapon, <strong>and</strong> its use is deemed to<br />
be <strong>the</strong> best means of achieving victory, <strong>the</strong>n however unpalatable as it may sound, we must<br />
be prepared <strong>for</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs to use <strong>the</strong> same reasoning against us. Al-Qaeda has offered a detailed<br />
argument that <strong>the</strong> use of nuclear weapons is justifiable to win a war <strong>the</strong>y declared with <strong>the</strong><br />
“Pearl Harbor” attack on 9/11. 7 They have challenged <strong>the</strong> world to refute <strong>the</strong>m, on moral <strong>and</strong><br />
ethical terms. Based on <strong>the</strong>ir statements, <strong>the</strong> al-Qaeda core is hoping <strong>the</strong>y will not be joined<br />
on this field of battle, because <strong>the</strong>y are convinced <strong>the</strong>ir enemies are reluctant to defend <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
moral position.<br />
Religion, Ideology <strong>and</strong> Secularity<br />
“There has always been a sensitivity that we do no want to do or say anything that<br />
will allow our ef<strong>for</strong>ts to be mischaracterized credibly as a war against <strong>Islam</strong>….<br />
People in <strong>the</strong> administration should be making a clear distinction between <strong>Islam</strong>,<br />
which is a religion <strong>and</strong> which is not our enemy, <strong>and</strong> extremist <strong>Islam</strong>, which is<br />
a political ideology <strong>and</strong> our enemy…The fact is our enemies fly <strong>the</strong> banner of<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
Estimated Global Nuclear Weapons Inventory in 2009: ~23,360 8<br />
United States:<br />
9,400<br />
Britain: 180<br />
France: 300<br />
Israel: 80–100<br />
India:<br />
60–80<br />
Pakistan: 70–90<br />
Russia: 13,000<br />
North Korea: ?<br />
China: 240<br />
In mid-2009, <strong>the</strong> global stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU) was about 1,600,000 kg,<br />
enough <strong>for</strong> more than 60,000 nuclear weapons. 9<br />
HEU<br />
In 2009, <strong>the</strong> global stockpile of separated plutonium(Pu) was about 500,000 kg, Since <strong>the</strong> critical<br />
mass of plutonium is about one third that of HEU, however, <strong>the</strong> global stockpile of plutonium also<br />
is sufficient <strong>for</strong> more than 60,000 first-generation nuclear weapons. 10<br />
Pu<br />
Only 25 kg of HEU or 8 kg of Pu<br />
are required to create one crude<br />
nuclear bomb. 11<br />
= 500 Nuclear Weapons<br />
There are currently 1,131<br />
nuclear facilities worldwide<br />
under IAEA Safeguards. 12<br />
Worldwide <strong>the</strong>re are hundreds of locations holding nuclear weapons or weapons-usable<br />
material, 13 but due to <strong>the</strong> secret nature of <strong>the</strong>se facilities <strong>the</strong> exact number is unknown.<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 15
16<br />
<strong>Islam</strong>. They claim to represent <strong>the</strong> religion. There are o<strong>the</strong>r people who say <strong>the</strong>y<br />
don’t. What we need is to be clear about this; our enemy has an extremist political<br />
ideology. They describe <strong>the</strong> ideology as <strong>the</strong> true religion. And <strong>the</strong>re is no way<br />
we can deal with this phenomenon without confronting <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> enemy<br />
political ideology is rooted in religion.” 14<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons<br />
Douglas Feith<br />
Assumptions concerning <strong>the</strong> intent to use weapons of mass destruction are often based on<br />
superficial impressions of terrorists <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir cause. There is a popular notion that terrorists<br />
enjoy killing <strong>for</strong> killing’s sake, that <strong>the</strong>y are bloodthirsty <strong>and</strong> hateful. While at some level this<br />
may be true, making such assumptions tends to hype <strong>the</strong> threat <strong>and</strong> distort a more reliable,<br />
unemotional analysis of <strong>the</strong> problem. To be sure, nothing is scarier than <strong>the</strong> image of a mad<br />
terrorist wielding a nuke, ready to blow himself up in <strong>the</strong> name of God. Such an image,<br />
however, is a fictional embodiment of <strong>the</strong> threat. A dispassionate distinction must be drawn<br />
between <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ological, ideological <strong>and</strong> secular motivations of terrorists to use WMD, <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>ir relationship to mainstream religious views <strong>and</strong> expressions.<br />
At <strong>the</strong> outset of such an undertaking, <strong>the</strong> extreme interpretation of <strong>Islam</strong> must be recognized as<br />
being at sharp variance from broadly accepted tenets of <strong>the</strong> Muslim faith. As <strong>Islam</strong>ic religious<br />
scholar Yusuf Qaradawi noted, equating <strong>Islam</strong> with terrorism is analogous to describing <strong>the</strong><br />
Oklahoma City bombing as being <strong>the</strong> h<strong>and</strong>iwork of Christianity. <strong>Bomb</strong>er Timothy McVeigh’s<br />
motivation to kill hundreds of people in <strong>the</strong> name of God should not be identified with Christi-<br />
anity, as a religion, any more than al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attack should be attributed to <strong>Islam</strong>. 15<br />
Falling prey to stereotypes about religion also trivializes militant <strong>Islam</strong>’s frightening sense of<br />
purpose, which might represent <strong>the</strong> most profound danger it poses to <strong>the</strong> world. For militant<br />
<strong>Islam</strong>ists, <strong>the</strong> problem is defined by religion, <strong>the</strong> conflict flows from religion, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> solution<br />
is derived from religion. In <strong>the</strong>ir view, <strong>the</strong> root of <strong>the</strong> problem is essentially mankind’s<br />
alienation from God, <strong>the</strong> need to be reconciled with God, <strong>and</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>’s role in bringing<br />
mankind back to God’s good graces.<br />
According to this religious-based analysis of history, <strong>the</strong> pervasive influence of secularity—<br />
<strong>the</strong> separation of church <strong>and</strong> state—has shrouded <strong>the</strong> world in moral <strong>and</strong> ethical darkness.<br />
The “people of <strong>the</strong> book” (Jews <strong>and</strong> Christians) have replaced God with mammon. Christian-<br />
ity has committed <strong>the</strong> un<strong>for</strong>givable sin of poly<strong>the</strong>ism by elevating Jesus Christ to <strong>the</strong> status of<br />
God (through <strong>the</strong> doctrine of Trinity). <strong>Islam</strong> itself must be revitalized; so-called “apostate”<br />
(secular) Muslim states have failed to properly implement <strong>Islam</strong>ic law <strong>and</strong> tradition, depriv-<br />
ing people of <strong>the</strong> freedom to practice <strong>the</strong> faith as God would have <strong>the</strong>m practice it.
The resulting plan of action gives rise to a liberation ideology, of sorts. Individual Muslims<br />
must return to <strong>the</strong> original teachings of <strong>the</strong> Quran. Muslim l<strong>and</strong>s must be restored from <strong>for</strong>-<br />
eign domination. Apostate states must be replaced by implementing <strong>Islam</strong>ic law <strong>and</strong> tradi-<br />
tion. Finally, people must be liberated in all corners of <strong>the</strong> earth so <strong>the</strong>y are free to embrace<br />
<strong>Islam</strong>. A vanguard of true believers, instructed in a deeper underst<strong>and</strong>ing of <strong>the</strong> problem,<br />
its causes, <strong>and</strong> solution, must lead <strong>the</strong> call to action. Ironically, like <strong>the</strong>ir arch enemy, a<strong>the</strong>-<br />
ist communism, militant extremists recognize that many people may not perceive what is in<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir best interests until <strong>the</strong>y are suitably enlightened.<br />
The ideology of militant <strong>Islam</strong>ists is extreme, but it is not irrational; it is a well-reasoned,<br />
well-developed weltanschauung, or world view. Thus, <strong>the</strong> rational actor model can be applied<br />
to militant <strong>Islam</strong>ists, who possess an internally consistent belief system. The motivation to<br />
possess <strong>and</strong> use WMD flows logically from an extreme, but very rational set of concrete goals<br />
that are based on a certain interpretation of history <strong>and</strong> religion.<br />
The basic factors affecting a terrorist group’s risk-gain assessment <strong>for</strong> using a nuclear weapon<br />
can be arrayed in a chart consisting of five broad levels of interest, motivation <strong>and</strong> justifica-<br />
tion <strong>for</strong> WMD.<br />
Five Stages of Justification Risks, Benefits, <strong>and</strong> Constraints<br />
As military weapon—wield <strong>the</strong> effects<br />
of a super bomb<br />
Achieve state status in power <strong>and</strong> prestige-<br />
fulfill aspirations of a state or group<br />
To control events, rectify perceived<br />
grievances, <strong>and</strong> change <strong>the</strong> course<br />
of history<br />
Acquisition of nuclear weapons is a<br />
religious duty, to achieve specific ends<br />
Participate in religious prophecy by<br />
dispensing judgment; bring about “end<br />
of times”<br />
Is <strong>the</strong>re such a limit in <strong>the</strong> means of<br />
terrorist violence that <strong>the</strong>ir constituency<br />
will support?<br />
Does holding state-like powers create<br />
new responsibilities <strong>and</strong> constraints<br />
on behavior?<br />
Would a nuclear attack work weaken<br />
one’s enemies in <strong>the</strong> long run, or escalate<br />
<strong>the</strong> stakes <strong>and</strong> make <strong>the</strong>m stronger?<br />
Can nuclear weapons be justified in <strong>the</strong><br />
name of a religion – in <strong>the</strong> name of God?<br />
Is <strong>the</strong> argument accepted as legitimate?<br />
Once <strong>the</strong> nuclear P<strong>and</strong>ora’s box is opened,<br />
are subsequent developments predictably<br />
advantageous, or is “faith” in “God’s Will”<br />
so strong it does not matter?<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 17
18<br />
In applying this hierarchy of motivations to a group like al-Qaeda, it should be noted that ter-<br />
rorists have drawn a distinction between possession <strong>and</strong> use, at least <strong>the</strong>oretically. In 1998,<br />
<strong>for</strong> instance, Osama bin Laden said it was his <strong>Islam</strong>ic duty to possess WMD as a means of<br />
deterrence. It has been assumed that if he wants such weapons, it is to use <strong>the</strong>m; he has never<br />
explicitly stated that he will use <strong>the</strong>m; such is assumed. Groups with a global aperture have<br />
a pronounced tendency to undertake a deliberate decision-making process to set precedent-<br />
setting events in motion, <strong>and</strong> as a result, <strong>the</strong>y carefully study <strong>the</strong> consequences that <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
actions are likely to have on <strong>the</strong> world.<br />
Apocalyptic Jihad<br />
“It would be nice to think that, in <strong>the</strong> war against terror, our side, too, speaks of<br />
deep philosophical ideas—it would be nice to think that someone is arguing with<br />
<strong>the</strong> terrorists <strong>and</strong> with <strong>the</strong> readers of Sayyid Qutb. But here I have my worries.<br />
The followers of Qutb speak, in <strong>the</strong>ir wild fashion, of enormous human problems,<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>y urge one ano<strong>the</strong>r to death <strong>and</strong> to murder. But <strong>the</strong> enemies of <strong>the</strong>se<br />
people speak of what? The political leaders speak of United Nations resolutions,<br />
of unilateralism, of multilateralism, of weapons inspectors, of coercion <strong>and</strong><br />
non-coercion. This is no answer to <strong>the</strong> terrorists. The terrorists speak insanely<br />
of deep things. The antiterrorists had better speak sanely of equally deep things.<br />
Presidents will not do this. Presidents will dispatch armies, or decline to dispatch<br />
armies, <strong>for</strong> better <strong>and</strong> <strong>for</strong> worse.” 16<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons<br />
Paul Berman<br />
Sayyid Qutb, a devout Muslim who memorized <strong>the</strong> Quran by <strong>the</strong> time he was ten, was one of<br />
<strong>the</strong> deepest thinkers of all Sunni extremist philosophers. His ideas had a profound impact on<br />
Osama bin Laden <strong>and</strong> Ayman Zawahiri, <strong>and</strong> heavily influenced <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ological <strong>and</strong> ideologi-<br />
cal underpinnings of <strong>the</strong> al-Qaeda movement.<br />
Qutb’s provocative historical analysis, based entirely on his reading of <strong>the</strong> Quran, concluded<br />
that man can be liberated from oppression <strong>and</strong> social injustice only through <strong>Islam</strong>; <strong>and</strong> that<br />
man can achieve his full potential only through submission to God through <strong>Islam</strong>. Qutb<br />
exhorted Muslims to jihad, to serve God through action, to fix what is wrong with <strong>the</strong> world.<br />
The Egyptian radical defined <strong>the</strong> higher purpose of militant <strong>Islam</strong>: “This religion is not mere-<br />
ly a declaration of <strong>the</strong> freedom of Arabs, nor is its message confined to Arabs. It addresses<br />
itself to <strong>the</strong> whole of mankind, <strong>and</strong> its sphere of work is <strong>the</strong> whole world.” 17<br />
In an ef<strong>for</strong>t to determine <strong>the</strong> limits terrorists are willing to go, to achieve <strong>the</strong>ir aims, it is
worth pondering what Qutb, if he lived today, would make of al-Qaeda’s global jihad. In his<br />
prolific writings, Qutb described a utopian world that had resolved <strong>the</strong> contradictions of hu-<br />
man nature <strong>and</strong> modern life, had harmonized <strong>the</strong> secular with <strong>the</strong> sacred, <strong>and</strong> existed to exalt<br />
God. To fulfill his vision, he advocated terrorist violence to overthrow <strong>the</strong> morally bankrupt<br />
global status quo. Would <strong>the</strong> “martyred” activist approve of nuclear holocaust as an instru-<br />
ment of fulfilling his vision of man’s higher purpose?<br />
In <strong>the</strong> shadow of Qutb’s thoughts, <strong>the</strong> religious basis <strong>for</strong> using weapons of mass destruction<br />
resonates deeply with some rejectionist <strong>Islam</strong>ists, probably because <strong>the</strong>se weapons offer <strong>the</strong><br />
prospect of scaling o<strong>the</strong>rwise insurmountable summits. For apocalyptic thinkers such as<br />
Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri <strong>and</strong> Aum Shinryko cult leader Shogo Asahara, nuclear<br />
weapons represent <strong>the</strong> enabling element in waging a struggle in which ordinary rules of con-<br />
duct do not apply. In such terms <strong>the</strong> religious pre-justification of WMD is required as part of<br />
a ritualistic process <strong>for</strong> introducing new rules into <strong>the</strong> conflict. Apocalyptic jihadists hope a<br />
nuclear attack would be seen by <strong>the</strong>ir constituency as a clear sign that “God is on our side”—<br />
victory is at h<strong>and</strong>.<br />
When nuclear weapons are sought in <strong>the</strong> name of a higher purpose, it is no longer possible<br />
to mask <strong>the</strong> intention to obtain <strong>and</strong> use <strong>the</strong>m, even <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> sake of preserving secrecy <strong>and</strong> an<br />
element of surprise <strong>for</strong> an attack. Shogo Asahara announced his intentions in advance by<br />
prophesying that nuclear weapons would spark an Armageddon that would destroy a cor-<br />
rupt world order. He settled on using chemical weapons only after all ef<strong>for</strong>ts to buy or build<br />
a nuclear bomb had failed. 18 The Japanese cult leader explained why using nuclear weapons<br />
would be morally cleansing: “…if <strong>the</strong> persons killed are scoundrels, or enmeshed in social<br />
systems so evil that <strong>the</strong>ir fur<strong>the</strong>r existence in this life will result in even greater Karmic debt,<br />
<strong>the</strong>n those who kill are doing <strong>the</strong>ir victims a kind of favor by enabling <strong>the</strong>m to die early.<br />
Their early deaths would be a kind of mercy killing, allowing <strong>the</strong>ir souls to move to a higher<br />
level than <strong>the</strong>y o<strong>the</strong>rwise would have been allowed to achieve.” 19<br />
For Osama bin Laden, one bomb would represent a symbolic <strong>and</strong> credible fulfillment of his<br />
promise to destroy <strong>the</strong> US economy. To that end, <strong>the</strong> al-Qaeda leader considered it a moral<br />
duty to pre-justify a mass casualty attack that will kill men, women <strong>and</strong> children indiscrimi-<br />
nately. Al-Qaeda’s serial warnings of impending attacks arise from <strong>the</strong> group’s obligation<br />
to give ample opportunity <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> target audience to convert to <strong>Islam</strong>. The al-Qaeda leader<br />
makes this point clear in his ominous warning to all Americans in 2007. “I invite you to<br />
embrace <strong>Islam</strong>, <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> greatest mistake one can make in this world <strong>and</strong> one which is uncor-<br />
rectable is to die without surrendering to Allah.” 20<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 19
20<br />
The Court of Public Opinion<br />
“Conventional wisdom holds that organizations such as al-Qaeda can not be<br />
deterred because <strong>the</strong>y are not focused on self preservation, do not value human<br />
life as most state leadership do, do not have territory over whose sovereignty<br />
<strong>the</strong>y wish to preside, <strong>and</strong> live as parasites on relatively innocent bodies of host<br />
communities that cannot be justified to be targeted <strong>for</strong> massive reprisal. However,<br />
this assumption should be questioned logically <strong>and</strong> empirically….Terrorist<br />
organizations, including al-Qaeda <strong>and</strong> Hezbollah evince a strong commitment to<br />
justice as <strong>the</strong>y perceive it. Wanting o<strong>the</strong>rs to see <strong>the</strong> justice of <strong>the</strong>ir cause requires<br />
some constraint on behavior so as to win sympathy with <strong>the</strong>ir constituencies <strong>and</strong><br />
with those in <strong>the</strong> international community that <strong>the</strong>y are trying to influence.” 21<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons<br />
Andrea Phlebani<br />
Extreme religious views deeply influence nuclear intent, but terrorists also have pragmatic<br />
goals to consider. Like states, <strong>Islam</strong>ist extremists seek sovereignty, status, <strong>and</strong> prestige. They<br />
seek to deter <strong>the</strong>ir enemies from attacking <strong>the</strong>m. They aspire to hold territory, <strong>and</strong> to govern.<br />
Ayman Zawahiri has repeatedly stressed that in order <strong>for</strong> al-Qaeda to flourish, <strong>the</strong> movement<br />
must develop a vanguard of believers <strong>and</strong> build popular support <strong>for</strong> its ideology. 22 Presum-<br />
ably, such considerations also introduce constraints in employing weapons that may well<br />
change <strong>the</strong> game in ways that are inimical to <strong>the</strong>ir objectives.<br />
Yet, <strong>the</strong> leadership’s unwavering commitment to WMD suggests that <strong>the</strong>y have taken all <strong>the</strong>se<br />
considerations into account, <strong>and</strong> have determined that <strong>the</strong> benefits of WMD outweigh <strong>the</strong> risks.<br />
The evidence of al-Qaeda’s ef<strong>for</strong>ts to acquire WMD <strong>for</strong> over a decade overwhelmingly suggests<br />
that <strong>the</strong> senior leadership’s intent is focused on developing high end WMD, not chemical weap-<br />
ons or “dirty bombs” that lack <strong>the</strong> game changing qualities of nuclear or biological weapons. In<br />
this context, a possible explanation of Zawahiri’s puzzling cancellation of a small scale chemical<br />
attack on <strong>the</strong> New York City subway in 2003 is that it simply wasn’t worth doing. 23<br />
Or, perhaps Zawahiri recalled <strong>the</strong> impatience of Shogo Asahara, who failed to fulfill his<br />
prophecy to bring down <strong>the</strong> Japanese government by launching a hastily planned chemical<br />
attack on <strong>the</strong> Tokyo subway. 24 Al-Qaeda is not likely to make <strong>the</strong> same mistake. Pakistani<br />
journalist Hamid Mir hinted as much when he noted that whatever one thinks of al-Qaeda,<br />
“<strong>the</strong>y always do what <strong>the</strong>y say <strong>the</strong>y are going to do”. 25 Mir, who has interviewed Osama bin<br />
Laden <strong>and</strong> Zawahiri, added that <strong>the</strong> al-Qaeda leader’s favorite Quranic verse is: “I will be<br />
patient until patience is outworn by patience.” 26
Yet, it is quite conceivable that al-Qaeda is seriously underestimating <strong>the</strong> likelihood of nega-<br />
tive popular reaction to a WMD attack. The group’s leadership has made such mistakes in<br />
<strong>the</strong> past. For instance, al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, launched a cam-<br />
paign to incite civil war between Sunni <strong>and</strong> Shia in Iraq that was so excessively violent that it<br />
turned <strong>the</strong> Iraqi population against al-Qaeda. After Zarqawi was killed by US <strong>for</strong>ces in 2006,<br />
<strong>the</strong> senseless violence tapered off, but Al-Qaeda never recovered its <strong>for</strong>mer position. 27<br />
Ayman Zawahiri’s ef<strong>for</strong>ts to convince al-Zarqawi that violence had become counter-produc-<br />
tive might have been drawn from his own experiences in Egypt, where he suffered a similar<br />
dissociation from <strong>the</strong> people’s mood. As <strong>the</strong> author Lawrence Wright explained:<br />
The Luxor Massacre took place on 17 November 1997 in Luxor, Egypt. Ayman<br />
Zawahiri, Mustafa Hamza, <strong>the</strong> new emir of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic Group, <strong>and</strong> Rifai Ahmed<br />
Taha, <strong>the</strong> military leader of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic Group, all hoped a massive terror attack<br />
would devastate <strong>the</strong> Egyptian economy <strong>and</strong> provoke <strong>the</strong> government into repression<br />
that would kill <strong>the</strong> initiative <strong>and</strong> streng<strong>the</strong>n support <strong>for</strong> anti-government terrorism.<br />
The massacre, however, marked a decisive drop in <strong>Islam</strong>ic terrorists’ <strong>for</strong>tunes<br />
in Egypt by turning Egyptian public opinion overwhelmingly against <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
Organizers <strong>and</strong> supporters of <strong>the</strong> attack reacted with denial. The day after <strong>the</strong><br />
attack, Rifai Taha claimed <strong>the</strong> attackers intended only to take <strong>the</strong> tourists hostage,<br />
despite <strong>the</strong> evidence of <strong>the</strong> immediate <strong>and</strong> systematic nature of <strong>the</strong> slaughter.<br />
O<strong>the</strong>rs denied <strong>Islam</strong>ist involvement completely. Ayman Zawahiri maintained <strong>the</strong><br />
Egyptian police had done it. 28<br />
Zawahiri’s misreading of <strong>the</strong> public’s appetite <strong>for</strong> violence played a significant role in <strong>the</strong><br />
diminution of his group’s influence in Egypt. Today, <strong>the</strong> Egyptian Muslim Bro<strong>the</strong>rhood is<br />
vying <strong>for</strong> power through <strong>the</strong> electoral process. Not surprisingly, Zawahiri has denounced this<br />
decision in <strong>the</strong> course of an acrimonious series of public exchanges with his old colleagues. 29<br />
For <strong>the</strong> old Egyptian terrorist leader, <strong>the</strong> new position adopted by <strong>the</strong> Muslim Bro<strong>the</strong>rhood,<br />
explicit or implied, is tantamount to a rejection of al-Qaeda’s strategy <strong>and</strong> tactics; as such, it<br />
represents a potential <strong>for</strong>eshadowing of al-Qaeda’s waning influence globally.<br />
Such concerns about <strong>the</strong>ir future as a global movement may help explain why <strong>the</strong> al-Qaeda<br />
core leadership seems more determined than ever to ratchet up <strong>the</strong> level of violence as far<br />
as it will go. Al-Qaedda’s core statements <strong>and</strong> actions that endorse ever increasing levels of<br />
violence do not appear to be resonating with <strong>the</strong> Muslim street. Given such a state of mind,<br />
free of <strong>the</strong> distractions of running a large organization, what kind of decisions are two fading,<br />
self-radicalized, <strong>and</strong> isolated figures likely to make?<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 21
THE QURAN AND WEAPONS OF<br />
MASS DESTRUCTION<br />
Appendix A provides background in<strong>for</strong>mation on <strong>the</strong> Quran <strong>and</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic tradi-<br />
tion from <strong>the</strong> Ox<strong>for</strong>d Dictionary of <strong>Islam</strong>.<br />
Although <strong>the</strong>re were no nuclear weapons in <strong>the</strong> 7 th century, when <strong>the</strong> Prophet<br />
Muhammad received <strong>the</strong> Quran (“recitation”), it provided an absolute stan-<br />
dard <strong>for</strong> Muslims to judge <strong>the</strong> morality of <strong>the</strong>se modern weapons as a po-<br />
tential means of waging war, <strong>and</strong> by extension, <strong>the</strong>ir use as an instrument of<br />
terrorist violence.<br />
Proponents <strong>and</strong> opponents alike largely agree on <strong>the</strong> fundamental concepts<br />
<strong>and</strong> relevant legal precedents <strong>for</strong> weighing <strong>the</strong> permissibility of possessing<br />
<strong>and</strong> using WMD. Both sides tend to cite <strong>the</strong> same references in <strong>the</strong> Quran,<br />
<strong>and</strong> associated hadiths, often drawing opposite conclusions in <strong>the</strong>ir interpre-<br />
tation of <strong>the</strong>ir meaning. There can be no contradiction in God, so <strong>the</strong> prob-<br />
lem must lie in <strong>the</strong> selective use of verses to argue a case, specifically when<br />
<strong>the</strong> text is taken out of context <strong>and</strong> loses its true meaning.<br />
For example, in <strong>the</strong> second surah, or chapter, of <strong>the</strong> Quran, two verses appear<br />
to st<strong>and</strong> in marked contrast to one ano<strong>the</strong>r. In <strong>the</strong> first, God encourages <strong>the</strong><br />
Muslims to “fight <strong>the</strong>m until <strong>the</strong>re is no persecution <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> religion is Al-<br />
lah’s.” 30 In <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r, God tells <strong>the</strong> Prophet Muhammad not to impose <strong>Islam</strong><br />
by <strong>for</strong>ce, because “<strong>the</strong>re is no compulsion in religion.” Various hadiths <strong>and</strong><br />
legal rulings h<strong>and</strong>ed down over centuries have clarified <strong>the</strong> meaning of such<br />
verses in ways that reflect <strong>the</strong> internal consistency of <strong>the</strong> Quran.<br />
Like <strong>the</strong> Holy Bible, <strong>and</strong> Torah, <strong>the</strong> Quran must be read <strong>and</strong> interpreted ho-<br />
listically, <strong>for</strong> its Truth to be revealed.
Noncombatant Immunity<br />
In <strong>Islam</strong>ic law, <strong>the</strong> legitimacy of a target in war is typically determined by <strong>the</strong> capacity of<br />
<strong>the</strong> target country or individual to fight against Muslims. This includes enemy soldiers <strong>and</strong><br />
leaders, as well as advisers to <strong>the</strong> military <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> enemy leadership, even civilian advisers.<br />
The vast majority of civilians, however, are excluded from target lists because <strong>the</strong>y are not<br />
actively engaged in battle, especially women, children <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> elderly, whose capacity to<br />
fight is considered minimal in most cases. On <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong> Quran <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sunnah (Way<br />
of <strong>the</strong> Prophet), rules have been enunciated to <strong>for</strong>bid Muslims to kill noncombatants. 31<br />
For example, <strong>the</strong> Quran has, at minimum, acknowledged <strong>the</strong> notion of limits during <strong>the</strong><br />
conduct of conflict.<br />
“Fight in <strong>the</strong> cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; <strong>for</strong><br />
Allah loveth not transgressors.” (2:190)<br />
In addition, <strong>the</strong> Quran makes clear that believers are not ever to be purposefully killed.<br />
“If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide <strong>the</strong>rein (For<br />
ever): And <strong>the</strong> wrath <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> curse of Allah are upon him, <strong>and</strong> a dreadful penalty is<br />
prepared <strong>for</strong> him.” (4:93)<br />
Military engagements must distinguish between <strong>the</strong> innocent <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> guilty, while applying<br />
a minimum of <strong>for</strong>ce to achieve <strong>the</strong> objective. 32 Moreover, <strong>the</strong> hadiths note that <strong>the</strong> Prophet<br />
relayed specific instructions on sparing <strong>the</strong> lives of noncombatants.<br />
‘Do not kill a decrepit old man, or a young infant, or a woman …’ 33<br />
Eminent jurist Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani in his Kitab al-Siyar (book of conduct),<br />
drawing on a number of hadith, wrote that <strong>the</strong> Prophet <strong>for</strong>bade treachery, mutilation, <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> killing of women <strong>and</strong> children.<br />
‘He (of <strong>the</strong> enemy) who has reached puberty should be killed, but he who has<br />
not should be spared … You may kill <strong>the</strong> adults of <strong>the</strong> unbelievers, but spare <strong>the</strong><br />
minors—<strong>the</strong> youth … The Apostle of God prohibited <strong>the</strong> killing of women … nor<br />
should you mutilate or kill children, women, or old men.’ 34<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 23
24<br />
The first Caliph (successor to <strong>the</strong> Prophet Muhammad), Abu Bakr, referenced this principle<br />
in <strong>the</strong> delivery of a speech to <strong>the</strong> Muslim armies assembled <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> invasion of Syria in 632.<br />
“Do not commit treachery or deviate from <strong>the</strong> right path. You must not mutilate<br />
dead bodies. Nei<strong>the</strong>r kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm<br />
to <strong>the</strong> trees, nor burn <strong>the</strong>m with fire ... Slay not any of <strong>the</strong> enemy’s flock, save <strong>for</strong><br />
food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted <strong>the</strong>ir lives to monastic<br />
services, leave <strong>the</strong>m alone.” 35<br />
In <strong>the</strong> following centuries, some interpretations drew distinctions between <strong>the</strong> innocent<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> guilty through <strong>the</strong> lens of those who were poly<strong>the</strong>ists <strong>and</strong> those who were not,<br />
<strong>and</strong>, <strong>for</strong> example, interpreting <strong>the</strong> application of <strong>the</strong> Prophet’s prohibition on <strong>the</strong> killing of<br />
women <strong>and</strong> children as one only applying to Jews <strong>and</strong> Christians. 36 As <strong>the</strong> tradition devel-<br />
oped, Muslim scholars had occasion to confront a variety of questions raised by battlefield<br />
experience. They knew, <strong>for</strong> example, about “collateral damage,” about killings covered by<br />
<strong>the</strong> rule of double effect <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r categories familiar from <strong>the</strong> just war tradition. Their<br />
treatments of <strong>the</strong>se suggest that <strong>the</strong> best way to underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> prophetic sayings is as<br />
follows: No one fighting in an <strong>Islam</strong>ic cause should ever directly <strong>and</strong> intentionally target<br />
noncombatants. 37 The earlier reports of <strong>the</strong> Prophet <strong>and</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic traditions, however, <strong>for</strong>m<br />
<strong>the</strong> foundation <strong>for</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic reasoning about particular issues regarding appropriate conduct<br />
in times of conflict.<br />
Proportionality<br />
According to <strong>the</strong> Quran, <strong>the</strong> notion of proportionality is a recognized principle in <strong>Islam</strong>.<br />
A criminal is dealt a punishment equal to <strong>the</strong> crime committed. While equal retaliation is<br />
sanctioned, showing patience is considered <strong>the</strong> better course of action. Those who follow<br />
such restraints will be aided by Allah.<br />
O ye who believe! <strong>the</strong> law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: <strong>the</strong> free<br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> free, <strong>the</strong> slave <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> slave, <strong>the</strong> woman <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> woman. But if any remission<br />
is made by <strong>the</strong> bro<strong>the</strong>r of <strong>the</strong> slain, <strong>the</strong>n grant any reasonable dem<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong><br />
compensate him with h<strong>and</strong>some gratitude, this is a concession <strong>and</strong> a Mercy from<br />
your Lord. After this whoever exceeds <strong>the</strong> limits shall be in grave penalty. (2:178)<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
The recompense <strong>for</strong> an injury is an injury equal <strong>the</strong>reto (in degree): but if a person <strong>for</strong>gives<br />
<strong>and</strong> makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah.<br />
“<strong>for</strong> (Allah) loveth not those who do wrong.” (42:40)<br />
“And if ye do catch <strong>the</strong>m out, catch <strong>the</strong>m out no worse than <strong>the</strong>y catch you out:<br />
But if ye show patience, that is indeed <strong>the</strong> best (course) <strong>for</strong> those who are patient”.<br />
(16:126)<br />
For Allah is with those who restrain <strong>the</strong>mselves, <strong>and</strong> those who do good. (16:128)<br />
And if one has retaliated to no greater extent than <strong>the</strong> injury he received, <strong>and</strong> is<br />
again set upon inordinately, Allah will help him: <strong>for</strong> Allah is One that blots out<br />
(sins) <strong>and</strong> <strong>for</strong>gives (again <strong>and</strong> again). (22:60)<br />
Deterrence<br />
The Quran may also instruct Muslims to develop a deterrent to war, by amassing <strong>the</strong> strength<br />
in numbers <strong>and</strong>/or arms to have such an effect on <strong>the</strong>ir enemies:<br />
“Against <strong>the</strong>m make ready your strength to <strong>the</strong> utmost of your power, including<br />
steeds of war, to strike terror into (<strong>the</strong> hearts of) <strong>the</strong> enemies, of Allah <strong>and</strong> your<br />
enemies, <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know.<br />
Whatever ye shall spend in <strong>the</strong> cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, <strong>and</strong> ye shall<br />
not be treated unjustly.” (8:60)<br />
If one were to subscribe to <strong>the</strong> hadith mentioned above <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> words of Abu Bakr, one<br />
would find it hard to make a case to use a weapon of war that causes general destruction,<br />
whereby <strong>the</strong> killing of women, children, <strong>the</strong> elderly, even believers, would be inevitable. The<br />
sayings <strong>and</strong> deeds as transmitted through early reports have been reinterpreted over <strong>and</strong> over<br />
<strong>for</strong> centuries to <strong>the</strong> point where al-Qaeda is now claiming that religious considerations trump<br />
<strong>the</strong> idea of collateral damage; unintentional harm allows <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> killing of all those mentioned<br />
above; <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re is considerable leeway <strong>and</strong> discretion underpinning <strong>the</strong> idea of military<br />
necessity. In this context al-Qaeda interprets <strong>the</strong> story of <strong>the</strong> Prophet using a catapult against<br />
<strong>the</strong> village of Ta’if—which, by design, is incapable of distinguishing <strong>the</strong> guilty from <strong>the</strong> inno-<br />
cent. This story has been reiterated by scholar after scholar <strong>and</strong> in fatwa after fatwa, including<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 25
26<br />
both Saudi radical cleric Nasir al-Fahd <strong>and</strong> Ayman Zawahiri, <strong>and</strong> it seems to be one of <strong>the</strong><br />
only examples <strong>the</strong>y cite when justifying such general destruction.<br />
Thus, <strong>Islam</strong>ist militants consider retaliation, <strong>and</strong> like-<strong>for</strong>-like, as being both broadly accept-<br />
able <strong>and</strong> encouraged under <strong>the</strong> Quran, but only in a strictly “defensive manner.” The argu-<br />
ment boils down, <strong>the</strong>n, to a definition of what constitutes “defensive” action. The Quran has<br />
a clear injunction against taking offensive action; one can, <strong>and</strong> perhaps should, only punish<br />
<strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> way in which <strong>the</strong>y have punished you.<br />
This implies that WMD simply cannot be used as a first-strike engagement, but it can po-<br />
tentially be used in retaliation <strong>for</strong> use in kind. This seeming allowance <strong>for</strong> WMD, however,<br />
begins to blur in <strong>the</strong> light of <strong>the</strong> Quran’s clear injunctions against killing <strong>the</strong> aged, women<br />
<strong>and</strong> children; how can one retaliate with a weapon that will inevitably cause such damage?<br />
Questions over what sort of guidance trumps ano<strong>the</strong>r <strong>for</strong>m of guidance will inevitably spark<br />
discussion. You cannot be <strong>for</strong> both rules given <strong>the</strong>ir contradiction, especially in <strong>the</strong> context<br />
of WMD. It is clear where al-Qaeda st<strong>and</strong>s on <strong>the</strong> rule <strong>the</strong>y have chosen, but it’s hard to<br />
find a Quranic justification <strong>for</strong> using WMD as a first-strike weapon, even be<strong>for</strong>e one decides<br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r or not noncombatant immunity applies.<br />
There has also been some discussion on 8:60 <strong>and</strong> its interpretation as one that characterizes<br />
<strong>the</strong> notion of deterrence. If this is <strong>the</strong> case, possession of WMD does not equal use, though it<br />
may certainly be allowed to possess. That being said, even if one does possess such weapons,<br />
one can only seem to use <strong>the</strong>m in retaliation if <strong>the</strong>y were attached with <strong>the</strong> same weapon.<br />
This, however, is a fragment of a much larger discussion on which considerations trump<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rs in <strong>the</strong> context of war. Also, <strong>the</strong> statement by Abu Bakr to his Muslim armies be<strong>for</strong>e<br />
invading Syria, makes clear note that it is not permissible to burn trees, destroy agriculture,<br />
<strong>and</strong> in ano<strong>the</strong>r translation (perhaps a longer one) not even harm animals of any kind—this<br />
can certainly be applied to <strong>the</strong> WMD context, <strong>for</strong> such a weapon is bound to cause exactly<br />
this kind of damage, in addition to killing noncombatants.<br />
Religious Rulings (fatwa)<br />
An <strong>Islam</strong>ic legal ruling, or “fatwa,” has a special importance in <strong>the</strong> debate <strong>for</strong> <strong>and</strong> against<br />
WMD. It is accepted in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic community that only religious authorities can rule on<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
moral <strong>and</strong> ethical matters. This is salient in defining rules of war. Militant <strong>Islam</strong>ists feel<br />
a compunction to seek legal rulings (fatwa) to support <strong>the</strong>ir argument that that <strong>the</strong>y are<br />
engaged not in terrorism, but in war; that it is a just war because <strong>the</strong> enemy is <strong>the</strong> aggressor;<br />
<strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong>ir means of waging war are justified under <strong>Islam</strong>. Called “Usul al-fiqh” (Prin-<br />
ciples of Jurisprudence), a fatwa is binding when <strong>the</strong>se four conditions are satisfied:<br />
It is in line with relevant legal proofs, deduced from Quranic verses <strong>and</strong> Hadiths;<br />
It is issued by a person (or a board) having due knowledge <strong>and</strong> sincerity of heart;<br />
It is free from individual opportunism, <strong>and</strong> not depending on political servitude;<br />
It is adequate with <strong>the</strong> needs of <strong>the</strong> contemporary world. 38<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 27
AL-QAEDA’S RELIGIOUS JUSTIFICATION<br />
OF NUCLEAR TERRORISM<br />
“This vanguard constitutes <strong>the</strong> solid base [qaeda in Arabic] <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
hoped-<strong>for</strong> society … We shall continue <strong>the</strong> jihad no matter how<br />
long <strong>the</strong> way, until <strong>the</strong> last breath <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> last beat of <strong>the</strong> pulse—or<br />
until we see <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic state established.” 39<br />
Abdullah Azzam<br />
When legendary jihadist Abdullah Azzam was assassinated under mysterious<br />
circumstances in November 1989, suspects in his murder included Osama<br />
bin Laden <strong>and</strong> Egyptian <strong>Islam</strong>ic Jihad (EIJ) leader Ayman Zawahiri. After<br />
<strong>the</strong> Soviets were expelled from Afghanistan, Azzam sought to shift jihad to<br />
his homel<strong>and</strong>, Palestine. Zawahiri sought to focus <strong>the</strong> jihad on Egypt <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r secular Muslim states, in hopes of restoring <strong>the</strong> caliphate, <strong>the</strong> rule of<br />
<strong>Islam</strong>ic clerics, which had ended after <strong>the</strong> dissolution of <strong>the</strong> Ottoman Em-<br />
pire in 1924. After <strong>Islam</strong>ic rule had been re-established in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic world,<br />
Zawahiri wrote, “<strong>the</strong>n history would make a new turn, God willing, in <strong>the</strong><br />
opposite direction against <strong>the</strong> empire of <strong>the</strong> United States <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> world’s<br />
Jewish government.” 40<br />
It is not clear who killed Azzam, but his departure from <strong>the</strong> scene played<br />
into Osama bin Laden’s h<strong>and</strong>s, by shifting <strong>the</strong> target of <strong>the</strong> jihad not to<br />
Israel or to Egypt, but to <strong>the</strong> United States. When bin Laden <strong>for</strong>med al-<br />
Qaeda a year earlier, Zawahiri was convinced to throw in his lot with this<br />
“heaven-sent man,” 41 as Azzam had characterized bin Laden, principally<br />
because Zawahiri felt stymied in fulfilling his lifelong dream of overthrow-<br />
ing <strong>the</strong> Egyptian regime.<br />
Bin Laden would develop an idea that would brea<strong>the</strong> life back into Zawahiri’s<br />
dreams: <strong>the</strong> United States must become <strong>the</strong> target of <strong>the</strong> jihad. If <strong>the</strong> Americans<br />
could be provoked into war, <strong>the</strong>y could be defeated like <strong>the</strong> Soviets, <strong>and</strong> ex-<br />
pelled from Muslim l<strong>and</strong>s <strong>for</strong> good. The fall of <strong>the</strong> US superpower would lead<br />
to <strong>the</strong> overthrow of secular Arab states. This insight led to successive al-Qaeda
strikes against <strong>the</strong> US, including <strong>the</strong> unsuccessful bombing of <strong>the</strong> World Trade <strong>Center</strong> (1993),<br />
bombings of two US Embassies in East Africa (1998), <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> bombing of <strong>the</strong> USS Cole (2000).<br />
It was not evident at <strong>the</strong> time, but <strong>the</strong> road to 9/11 began on <strong>the</strong> day al-Qaeda was <strong>for</strong>med.<br />
It was with a grim mood of impending confrontation with <strong>the</strong> United States that <strong>the</strong> two<br />
al-Qaeda leaders shared an interest in acquiring weapons of mass destruction. By 1992, al-<br />
Qaeda was already dabbling in <strong>the</strong> nuclear black market. Undaunted by a series of scams by<br />
hustlers <strong>and</strong> con men, Bin Laden <strong>and</strong> Zawahiri remained alert to opportunities to buy, steal,<br />
or build a bomb. After al-Qaeda was expelled from Sudan in 1994, Ayman Zawahiri mysteri-<br />
ously dropped out of sight. For two years, <strong>the</strong> Egyptian doctor <strong>and</strong> two of his top lieutenants<br />
traveled extensively to Russia, Yemen, Malaysia, Singapore <strong>and</strong> China. The purpose of <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
travels has never been established, but Zawahiri’s associations during his travels, <strong>and</strong> own<br />
statements suggest that he <strong>and</strong> his cohorts may have been hunting <strong>for</strong> WMD. 42<br />
It is no coincidence that 1998 was <strong>the</strong> year that Osama bin Laden openly declared war on <strong>the</strong><br />
US, publicly stated that it was his <strong>Islam</strong>ic duty to acquire WMD, <strong>and</strong> secretly launched <strong>the</strong><br />
operational plan <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> 9/11 attack. Bin Laden privately expressed frustration that two brazen<br />
assaults against US government interests abroad had failed to provoke <strong>the</strong> US into invading<br />
Afghanistan. 43 He <strong>for</strong>malized an agreement within al-Qaeda to attack <strong>the</strong> “far enemy,” <strong>the</strong> US,<br />
be<strong>for</strong>e <strong>the</strong> “near enemy,” <strong>the</strong> Muslim states. The al-Qaeda high comm<strong>and</strong> secretly initiated <strong>the</strong><br />
operational planning that would culminate in <strong>the</strong> 9/11 attack. They began chemical, biological<br />
<strong>and</strong> nuclear programs under <strong>the</strong> direct supervision of Zawahiri <strong>and</strong> senior al-Qaeda members.<br />
At around this time, Zawahiri also began piecing toge<strong>the</strong>r two separate Pakistani <strong>and</strong> Malay-<br />
sian-based networks to develop an anthrax weapon <strong>for</strong> use in <strong>the</strong> United States. 44<br />
Osama bin Laden 1998 “fatwa”<br />
“All <strong>the</strong>se crimes <strong>and</strong> sins committed by <strong>the</strong> Americans are a clear declaration of<br />
war on God, his messenger, <strong>and</strong> Muslims. And ulema have throughout <strong>Islam</strong>ic<br />
history unanimously agreed that <strong>the</strong> jihad is an individual duty if <strong>the</strong> enemy<br />
destroys <strong>the</strong> Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in “Al-<br />
Mughni,” Imam al-Kisa’i in “Al-Bada’i,” al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
shaykh of al-<strong>Islam</strong> in his books, where he said: “As <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> fighting to repulse [an<br />
enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity <strong>and</strong> religion, <strong>and</strong> it is a duty as agreed [by<br />
<strong>the</strong> ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is<br />
attacking religion <strong>and</strong> life.”<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 29
30<br />
On that basis, <strong>and</strong> in compliance with God’s order, we issue <strong>the</strong> following fatwa<br />
to all Muslims: The ruling to kill <strong>the</strong> Americans <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir allies—civilians <strong>and</strong><br />
military—is an individual duty <strong>for</strong> every Muslim who can do it in any country<br />
in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate <strong>the</strong> al-Aqsa Mosque <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
holy mosque [Mecca] from <strong>the</strong>ir grip, <strong>and</strong> in order <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir armies to move out<br />
of all <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>s of <strong>Islam</strong>, defeated <strong>and</strong> unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in<br />
accordance with <strong>the</strong> words of Almighty God, “<strong>and</strong> fight <strong>the</strong> pagans all toge<strong>the</strong>r<br />
as <strong>the</strong>y fight you all toge<strong>the</strong>r,” <strong>and</strong> “fight <strong>the</strong>m until <strong>the</strong>re is no more tumult or<br />
oppression, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re prevail justice <strong>and</strong> faith in God.” 45<br />
Issuing this fatwa served several objectives. First, Osama bin Laden became <strong>the</strong> unquestioned<br />
leader of a global jihad, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> mastermind behind <strong>the</strong> movement’s decision to declare war<br />
on America. Although Osama bin Laden had no authority to issue a fatwa, he embraced<br />
an opportunity to seek “God’s approval” <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> decision to escalate <strong>the</strong> conflict to <strong>the</strong> next<br />
stage. By authoring <strong>the</strong> fatwa himself, bin Laden also assumed a role as chief cleric in charge<br />
of translating <strong>Islam</strong>ist extremist <strong>the</strong>ology <strong>and</strong> ideology into action. This positioned him to<br />
anticipate <strong>and</strong> preempt interference from Sunni clerics who were opposed to al-Qaeda.<br />
By declaring it to be his “<strong>Islam</strong>ic duty” to acquire WMD, <strong>the</strong> al-Qaeda leader envisioned <strong>the</strong><br />
introduction of WMD (by ei<strong>the</strong>r side) in <strong>the</strong> atmosphere of all out war that was sure to follow<br />
9/11; he pre-justified <strong>the</strong>ir use on religious grounds. Finally, bin Laden made it a religious<br />
duty <strong>for</strong> his followers to pursue WMD. Hence<strong>for</strong>th, Ayman Zawahiri made it his mission to<br />
develop <strong>the</strong> religious case <strong>for</strong> using WMD, in parallel with his ef<strong>for</strong>ts to acquire operational<br />
capability <strong>for</strong> future attacks against <strong>the</strong> US.<br />
Zawahiri’s Project<br />
Ayman Zawahiri on video tape, commenting on <strong>the</strong> 9/11 attack, in presence of Osama bin<br />
Laden <strong>and</strong> unidentified Saudi cleric.<br />
“This great victory was possible only by <strong>the</strong> grace of God,” he says with quiet pride.<br />
“This was not just a human achievement—it was a holy act. (emphasis added)<br />
These nineteen brave men who gave <strong>the</strong>ir lives <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> cause of God will be well<br />
taken care of. God granted <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong> strength to do what <strong>the</strong>y did. There’s no<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
comparison between <strong>the</strong> power of <strong>the</strong>se nineteen men <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> power of America,<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re’s no comparison between <strong>the</strong> destruction <strong>the</strong>se nineteen men caused <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> destruction America caused.” 46<br />
Not long after 9/11, <strong>the</strong> al-Qaeda core began taking steps to substantiate <strong>the</strong> use of WMD<br />
on religious grounds. In mid summer 2002, <strong>the</strong> group had begun making probes to quietly<br />
obtain a fatwa from clerics in Saudi Arabia to support what appeared to be a significant<br />
shift in tactics, based on intelligence that was available at <strong>the</strong> time. Al-Qaeda seniors in<br />
Saudi Arabia approached unnamed clerics who had endorsed <strong>the</strong> 9/11 attack, but were<br />
apparently rebuffed. At <strong>the</strong> time, <strong>the</strong>re was a question as to whe<strong>the</strong>r senior clerics in <strong>the</strong><br />
desert Kingdom were willing to accept <strong>the</strong> obvious implications of raising <strong>the</strong> stakes to<br />
such a scale. 47<br />
In late fall 2002, a terrorist cell associated with al-Qaeda completed planning <strong>for</strong> a chemical<br />
attack on <strong>the</strong> New York City subway, utilizing a cyanide gas dispersal device called <strong>the</strong> ‘mob-<br />
taker.’ Operatives sought permission from <strong>the</strong> al-Qaeda core to carry out <strong>the</strong> attack. Ayman<br />
Zawahiri, who was unaware of <strong>the</strong> plan in its earlier planning stages, called off <strong>the</strong> attack<br />
because he had “something better” in mind. 48<br />
Around <strong>the</strong> same time, Al-Qaeda’s chief in Saudi Arabia, Abu Bakr al-Azdi, was in com-<br />
munication with senior al-Qaeda in Iran regarding <strong>the</strong> potential purchase of “three Russian<br />
nuclear devices.” This small group, reportedly under house arrest in Iran at <strong>the</strong> time, in-<br />
cluded an assortment of key, WMD-associated seniors, including Sayf al Adl, Abd al Aziz al<br />
Masri, <strong>and</strong> Sulayman Abu Ghayth al Libi. Former Egyptian Army officer Sayf al Adl was in<br />
<strong>the</strong> very top tier of <strong>the</strong> al-Qaeda core leadership 49 ; Abd al Aziz al Masri, a dedicated nuclear<br />
operative, had conducted nuclear-related experiments in <strong>the</strong> Afghanistan desert in <strong>the</strong> late<br />
1990’s; <strong>and</strong> Abu Ghyath, al-Qaeda’s press spokesman, had publicly stated in June 2002 that it<br />
was justifiable to kill four million Americans. 50<br />
Based on a series of exchanges in a three way communication between Saudi operatives, al-<br />
Qaeda seniors in Iran, <strong>and</strong> Osama bin Laden <strong>and</strong> Ayman Zawahiri, Abu Bakr was directed<br />
by Sayf al Adl to purchase <strong>the</strong> three devices, provided that a Pakistan (nuclear) specialist was<br />
able to verify <strong>the</strong> goods. 51 Al-Qaeda was cautiously <strong>and</strong> deliberately proceeding with <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
plans to purchase <strong>the</strong> three alleged “nuclear devices.”<br />
At <strong>the</strong> same time, operational preparations were nearing completion <strong>for</strong> al-Qaeda bomb-<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 31
32<br />
ings of US <strong>and</strong> Saudi targets in <strong>the</strong> Kingdom. Intelligence reporting produced growing<br />
signs of terrorist plotting that indicated al-Qaeda had decided to raise <strong>the</strong> stakes by under-<br />
taking attacks against <strong>the</strong> Saudi Royal family. There were also signs <strong>the</strong>y were considering<br />
<strong>the</strong> use of some <strong>for</strong>m of WMD against US <strong>and</strong> possibly UK targets, ei<strong>the</strong>r inside or outside<br />
<strong>the</strong> Gulf region.<br />
In parallel to operational planning, Al-Qaeda continued to prepare to unveil a fatwa authoriz-<br />
ing <strong>the</strong> use of weapons of mass destruction. Radical Saudi clerics Nasir Sheik al-Fahd, Ali al-<br />
Khudayr <strong>and</strong> Ahmed al-Khaldi had drawn up <strong>and</strong> co-signed a religious ruling (fatwa) autho-<br />
rizing <strong>the</strong> use of WMD against <strong>the</strong> US <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK. Nasir al-Fahd, a senior Muslim cleric who<br />
is closely associated with al-Qaida, has written dozens of books <strong>and</strong> publications containing<br />
religious edicts against <strong>the</strong> US <strong>and</strong> anyone cooperating with it. Among his well-known pro-<br />
nouncements is that “anyone assisting <strong>the</strong> Americans is an infidel.” His treatises incite animos-<br />
ity towards <strong>the</strong> West, toward Christianity, <strong>and</strong> particularly towards Americans.<br />
Following <strong>the</strong> terrorist attacks in Riyadh on May 12, 2003, Saudi security <strong>for</strong>ces launched an<br />
extensive manhunt <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> three radical clerics. In a panic, Nasir al Fahd posted <strong>the</strong> fatwa on<br />
May 21, 2003, just be<strong>for</strong>e he was captured by Saudi security <strong>for</strong>ces in <strong>the</strong> city of Medina. 52<br />
Al Fahd offered three central arguments <strong>for</strong> using WMD in his fatwa: 53<br />
“One kills in a good manner only when one can. If those engaged in jihad cannot<br />
do so, <strong>for</strong> example when <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>for</strong>ced to bomb, destroy, burn or flood, it is<br />
permissible.”<br />
“One avoids killing women <strong>and</strong> children only when one can distinguish <strong>the</strong>m. If<br />
one cannot do so, as when infidels make a night attack or invade, <strong>the</strong>y may be<br />
killed as collateral to <strong>the</strong> fighters.”<br />
“Similarly, killing a Muslim is <strong>for</strong>bidden <strong>and</strong> not permitted; but if those engaged<br />
in jihad are <strong>for</strong>ced to kill him because <strong>the</strong>y cannot repel <strong>the</strong> infidels or fight <strong>the</strong>m<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rwise, it is permitted, as when <strong>the</strong> Muslim is being used as a living shield.”<br />
The arrest of <strong>the</strong> three clerics created a backlash <strong>and</strong> led to rumors that two of <strong>the</strong> cler-<br />
ics—Al-Khudayr <strong>and</strong> al-Khaldi—were killed during an arrest attempt. The rumors of <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
death aroused an outcry <strong>and</strong> calls <strong>for</strong> revenge surfaced on many web sites associated with<br />
al-Qaeda. 54 Figures close to bin Laden reported that news that <strong>the</strong> two clerics had been killed<br />
greatly affected bin Laden, who pledged to avenge <strong>the</strong>ir death by harming <strong>the</strong> al-Saud family<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
“in a way never be<strong>for</strong>e seen in <strong>the</strong> past.” 55 Saudi Interior Minister Prince Bin Nayyif con-<br />
firmed that <strong>the</strong> three clerics were in custody, but denied any of <strong>the</strong>m had died. 56<br />
Throughout <strong>the</strong> summer of 2003, Saudi security <strong>for</strong>ces conducted a series of raids that decimat-<br />
ed <strong>the</strong> al-Qaeda organization in Saudi Arabia. In June, senior al-Qaeda leader Yusef al-Ayeri<br />
was killed at a roadblock in a shootout with Saudi security <strong>for</strong>ces. 57 Saudi security officials re-<br />
sponded decisively to arrest <strong>and</strong> interrogate anyone having any connection to <strong>the</strong> WMD fatwa.<br />
While under detention, Nasir al-Fahd recanted several of his fatwas on Saudi television—he<br />
referred to his previous views as being a “grave mistake.” It is unclear whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> WMD<br />
fatwa was among <strong>the</strong>m. 58 In retrospect, <strong>the</strong> ambiguity of al Fahd’s recantation was purpose-<br />
ful. He subsequently wrote a letter from prison in which he asked his associates to spread <strong>the</strong><br />
word that his recantation was coerced by Saudi authorities.<br />
The text of Nasir al-Fahd’s letter from prison is as follows:<br />
‘Shawwāl, 1425 H<br />
In <strong>the</strong> name of Allah, <strong>the</strong> Beneficent, <strong>the</strong> Merciful<br />
“Praise be to Allāh, <strong>and</strong> may peace <strong>and</strong> blessings be upon <strong>the</strong> Messenger of Allāh,<br />
to proceed:<br />
Springing from Allāh’s saying:<br />
“But <strong>the</strong>y never lost heart <strong>for</strong> that which did befall <strong>the</strong>m in Allah’s Way, nor did<br />
<strong>the</strong>y weaken nor degrade <strong>the</strong>mselves. And Allah loves As-Sabirin.<br />
I write <strong>the</strong>se words, <strong>and</strong> I declare be<strong>for</strong>e that, that I have dug a grave in my cell, <strong>and</strong><br />
divorced this world thrice <strong>and</strong> have cut any link between it <strong>and</strong> me; <strong>and</strong> after this I<br />
say, <strong>and</strong> rely upon Allāh <strong>and</strong> seek His help...”<br />
“And may Allah reward all those who help spread, print <strong>and</strong> publish this on <strong>the</strong><br />
internet <strong>and</strong> media channels.” 59<br />
The al-Qaeda fatwa story drifted into obscurity after al Fahd’s letter from prison. Did <strong>the</strong><br />
fatwa continue to have <strong>the</strong> endorsement of <strong>the</strong> al-Qaeda leadership? Was Zawahiri’s involve-<br />
ment in commissioning a WMD fatwa related exclusively to <strong>the</strong> nuclear deal, or did it serve<br />
a broader purpose in al-Qaeda’s future plans? Would <strong>the</strong> fatwa be required to justify a future<br />
WMD attack? If so, it would be vital to clarify such questions to ensure <strong>the</strong>re is a widely ac-<br />
cepted underst<strong>and</strong>ing that <strong>the</strong> case has already been made to justify <strong>the</strong> use of WMD, explain<br />
that <strong>the</strong> fatwa remains valid.<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 33
34<br />
In November, 2007, Sayid Imam Abdel-Aziz Al Sharif, also known as Doctor Fadl, issued<br />
from his prison cell in Cairo, with <strong>the</strong> approval <strong>and</strong> encouragement of Egyptian authori-<br />
ties, a 111-page document entitled “Rationalizing Jihadist Action in Egypt <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> World.”<br />
This document rejected his influential jihadist manifestos from 1988. Al-Sharif showed <strong>the</strong><br />
document he wrote to <strong>the</strong> imprisoned leaders of al-Jihad <strong>for</strong> approval. The <strong>Islam</strong>ic Research<br />
Academy at al-Azhar approved it <strong>and</strong> recommended that it be published. According to al-<br />
Sharif, he wrote his searing condemnation of al-Qeada in an ef<strong>for</strong>t to put a stop to an ideol-<br />
ogy of violence <strong>and</strong> terrorism. From his perspective, he believed al-Qaeda had distorted <strong>the</strong><br />
true meaning of jihad. 60<br />
Ayman Zawahiri’s book “Exoneration”<br />
In March, 2008, Ayman Zawahiri responded directly to Dr Fadl with a book of his own that<br />
was posted on <strong>the</strong> internet, entitled “Exoneration.” Zawahiri goes to great lengths to refute,<br />
essentially thought by thought, Dr. Fadl’s text. And perhaps convincingly to any reader, he<br />
instills a canyon of doubt into <strong>the</strong> independence of <strong>the</strong> authorship, <strong>and</strong> whe<strong>the</strong>r or not it was<br />
written under duress. It looks as though he is genuinely dismayed by how critical <strong>the</strong> text<br />
was against him, al-Qaeda <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir tactics, but underst<strong>and</strong>s <strong>the</strong> prisoner’s dilemma, <strong>and</strong><br />
outlines a number of scenarios that may have occurred—leaning on one: <strong>the</strong> version of Dr.<br />
Fadl’s text is one which is both coerced <strong>and</strong> tailored to American <strong>and</strong> State Security interests<br />
as to clamp down on <strong>the</strong> “disturbing of public order.” 61<br />
Zawahiri devotes roughly <strong>the</strong> first half of <strong>the</strong> book to refute Dr. Fadl’s thoughts <strong>and</strong> asser-<br />
tions by targeting <strong>the</strong>m line by line <strong>and</strong> citing scholar by scholar <strong>and</strong> cleric by cleric. In <strong>the</strong><br />
middle, he apologizes <strong>for</strong> going off on a tangent, <strong>and</strong> plunges into an analysis of every one of<br />
al-Qaeda’s beliefs <strong>and</strong> tactics, celebrates his fallen <strong>and</strong> captured colleagues, <strong>and</strong> outlines why<br />
<strong>the</strong> ‘war’ has been fought a certain way <strong>and</strong> will continue to be fought a certain way, with<br />
America as <strong>the</strong> No. 1 enemy of <strong>Islam</strong>.<br />
Refuting Dr Fadl’s text <strong>and</strong> justifying WMD has <strong>the</strong> ability to serve two purposes: address al-<br />
Qaeda’s past actions, <strong>and</strong> vigorously defend <strong>the</strong>m, while at <strong>the</strong> same time, justify <strong>and</strong> explain<br />
<strong>the</strong> reasons <strong>and</strong> goals <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> group’s future attacks. It <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e has <strong>the</strong> potential to be both<br />
looking backward <strong>and</strong> looking <strong>for</strong>ward.<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
Zawahiri’s WMD fatwa<br />
“Shaykh Nasir Bin-Hamad al-Fahd….According to reports he is still in jail clinging<br />
firmly to righteousness. We know <strong>for</strong> certain that he has recanted what he said<br />
on a television show during which he was questioned by A’id al-Qarni. Regarding<br />
that show, <strong>the</strong> shaykh <strong>and</strong> his colleagues said that <strong>the</strong>y were coerced <strong>and</strong> found<br />
interpretations of Shari’ah that <strong>the</strong>y could say what <strong>the</strong> government wanted <strong>the</strong>m<br />
to say because it promised to release <strong>the</strong>m afterward. It did not release <strong>the</strong>m. He<br />
said: If I had known what was going to happen, I would not have surrendered to <strong>the</strong><br />
police detectives but would have fought until I was killed. He sent several messages<br />
out of his jail that show he is still firm on <strong>the</strong> path of righteousness. We pray to God<br />
to give him <strong>and</strong> all Muslims firmness in righteousness <strong>and</strong> a good end.” 62<br />
With <strong>the</strong>se words, Ayman Zawahiri resurrects Nasir al Fahd from <strong>the</strong> obscurity of prison,<br />
answers <strong>the</strong> questions surrounding al Fahd’s recantation, brea<strong>the</strong>s life back into <strong>the</strong> dormant<br />
fatwa, <strong>and</strong> gives it a contemporary purpose. In so doing, Zawahiri makes <strong>the</strong> fatwa his <strong>and</strong><br />
al-Qaeda’s own.<br />
Nasir al-Fahd’s 2003 fatwa is built in its entirety into Exoneration: <strong>the</strong> same ideas, thoughts,<br />
examples <strong>and</strong> scholars to justify equal retaliation—“repaying like <strong>for</strong> like”. The similarities<br />
between <strong>the</strong> two texts are nothing short of striking. Virtually every single cleric, scholar, <strong>and</strong><br />
example used by al-Fahd to justify <strong>the</strong> use of WMD has been resurrected in near-symmetry<br />
throughout “Exoneration”. While a h<strong>and</strong>ful of <strong>the</strong> same individuals were cited by both al-<br />
Fahd <strong>and</strong> Zawahiri to justify different issues, nearly 30 authors were identically sourced with<br />
correlating content. Indeed, Zawahiri tended to exp<strong>and</strong> on <strong>the</strong> thoughts <strong>and</strong> ideas of al-Fahd<br />
by diving into a more comprehensive justification with even fur<strong>the</strong>r citations.<br />
Zawahiri raises key Quranic <strong>the</strong>mes to justify <strong>the</strong> use of WMD to include: <strong>the</strong> legality of<br />
killing women, children, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> elderly, <strong>the</strong> use of Muslim shields, <strong>the</strong> inevitability of<br />
environmental destruction, notions of retaliatory use <strong>and</strong> deterrence, attacking in <strong>the</strong> night<br />
<strong>and</strong> unintentionally harming noncombatants, among o<strong>the</strong>r such issues. Indeed, not only are<br />
<strong>the</strong> same scholars, clerics <strong>and</strong> quotations recounted in “Exoneration”, but many of <strong>the</strong> same<br />
examples are used nearly verbatim, including <strong>the</strong> Prophet’s reported sayings in <strong>the</strong> context of<br />
night raids <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> harming of noncombatants, as well as <strong>the</strong> Prophet’s attack on <strong>the</strong> village<br />
of al-Ta’if using a catapult—<strong>the</strong>reby permitting <strong>the</strong> use of weapons of “general destruction”<br />
incapable of distinguishing between innocent civilians <strong>and</strong> combatants. 63<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 35
36<br />
He offers a meticulously researched case to support <strong>the</strong> argument that using weapons of<br />
mass destruction should be judged on intent ra<strong>the</strong>r than on results. The same reasoning is<br />
applied in a detailed expository on such matters as loyalty to <strong>the</strong> State, contracts, obligations<br />
<strong>and</strong> treaties, <strong>the</strong> permissibility of espionage, <strong>and</strong> deception <strong>and</strong> trickery. For example, on <strong>the</strong><br />
topic of Muslims killed in combat unintentionally, in <strong>the</strong> fight against infidels: “When Mus-<br />
lims fight non-believers, any Muslim who is killed is a martyr.” 64<br />
Symmetry between 2003 WMD fatwa <strong>and</strong> 2008 “Exoneration”<br />
There is no compelling need <strong>for</strong> Zawahiri to duplicate <strong>and</strong> exp<strong>and</strong> on, albeit under <strong>the</strong> cloak<br />
of ano<strong>the</strong>r purpose, <strong>the</strong> very same ideas of al-Fahd in vivid detail <strong>and</strong> similarity, often ex-<br />
p<strong>and</strong>ing on <strong>the</strong> issues to provide fur<strong>the</strong>r legitimacy. While it appears <strong>the</strong>se issues can be<br />
bifurcated throughout his text into different <strong>the</strong>mes without any reference to <strong>the</strong> 2003 WMD<br />
fatwa, a large portion of <strong>the</strong> text is indeed not only similar in many respects, but provides<br />
more ‘proof ’ of its validity. Only four months had elapsed from Dr Fadl’s book to completing<br />
“Exoneration,” raising <strong>the</strong> distinct possibility Zawahiri was focused on <strong>the</strong> subject of WMD<br />
<strong>for</strong> reasons unrelated to <strong>the</strong> publication of Dr Fadl’s critique.<br />
Nasir Al-Fahd (2003) Ayman Zawahiri (2008)<br />
Justifying <strong>the</strong> Unintentional Killing of Noncombatants during Night Raids <strong>and</strong> General<br />
Destruction—including Women, Children <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Elderly<br />
Al-Sa’b ibn Jaththamah<br />
Ibn Qudamah<br />
Ahmad ibn Hanbal<br />
Al-Tahawi<br />
Salamah ibn al-Akwa<br />
Al-Rahibani<br />
Al-Tabari<br />
Al-Bayhaqi<br />
Abu Dawud<br />
Al-Sa’b Bin-Jaththamah<br />
Ibn Qudamah<br />
Ahmad ibn Hanbal<br />
Al-Tahawi<br />
Salamah ibn al-Akwa<br />
Al-Nawawi<br />
Al-Bukhari<br />
Imam al-Shirazi<br />
Malik<br />
Al-Shafi’I<br />
Abu Hanifa<br />
Ibn Abd al-Birr<br />
Abu Bakr al-Jassas<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
Justifying Environmental Destruction, Burning, Flooding, <strong>and</strong> Agricultural Harm<br />
Ahmad ibn Hanbal<br />
Abu Dawud<br />
Usamah ibn Zayd<br />
Malik<br />
Ibn al-Qasim<br />
Al-Sahfi’I<br />
Ishaq<br />
Al-Thawri<br />
Al-Tirmidhi<br />
Al-San’ani<br />
Al-Mawwaq<br />
Ashhab<br />
Ibn Majah<br />
Al-Bukhari<br />
Al-‘Ayni<br />
Ibn ‘Umar<br />
Ahmad ibn Hanbal<br />
Abu Dawud<br />
Usama Ibn Zayd<br />
Malik<br />
Ibn al-Qasim<br />
Al-Shafi’i<br />
Ishaq<br />
Al-Thawri<br />
Nafi’<br />
Abu Hanifa<br />
Ibn Taymiyyah<br />
Al-Zuhari<br />
Yahya Ibn Yahya<br />
Muhammad Ibn Rumh<br />
Al-Layth<br />
Qutaybah Ibn Sa’id<br />
Imam al-Kasani<br />
Justifying <strong>the</strong> Unintentional Killing of Muslims used as Human Shields—under <strong>the</strong> Prin-<br />
ciple of Necessity—to Defeat an Enemy<br />
Ibn Taymiyah<br />
Al-Shafi’I<br />
Al-Sarakhsi<br />
Abu Bakr al-Jassas<br />
Al-Mawwaq<br />
Ashhab<br />
Al-Shaybani<br />
Ibn-Taymiyyah<br />
Al-Shafi’I<br />
Al-Sarakhsi<br />
Ibn Qudamah<br />
Al-Awza’I<br />
Abu Hanifah<br />
Al-Thawri<br />
Ibn-Qasim<br />
Abu al-Layth<br />
Al-San’ani<br />
Imam al-Kasani<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 37
38<br />
Zawahiri’s Three Operational Messages<br />
For al-Qaeda, procuring a fatwa is part of a ritual process <strong>for</strong> an impending attack. The 1998<br />
fatwa was issued in support of 9/11. The 2003 fatwa was published to accompany concrete<br />
operational planning that was underway at that time. In 2008, Zawahiri’s purpose is to issue<br />
a warning of an impending attack.<br />
In “Exoneration,” Zawahiri’s words soar beyond <strong>the</strong> scale of Dr Fadl’s critique of al-Qaeda. The<br />
al-Qaeda leader is not simply addressing alleged past mistakes in course of rebutting an argu-<br />
ment made by an imprisoned <strong>for</strong>mer associate: he is pre-justifying a future, unprecedented<br />
attack capable of producing mass casualties. He takes pains to ensure he cannot be seen to be<br />
approaching this task lightly. His tone is somber <strong>and</strong> weighty; he acknowledges that causing<br />
mass casualties requires special justification—to his evident satisfaction, he provides it.<br />
Zawahiri’s ef<strong>for</strong>t to streng<strong>the</strong>n al Fahd’s WMD fatwa is much more concrete than <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>o-<br />
logical orientation with which <strong>the</strong> 2003 fatwa was written. As a cleric, al Fahd likely did not<br />
know <strong>the</strong> operational intent that rested behind his legal argument. However, like bin Laden’s<br />
1998 fatwa, Zawahiri serves as both cleric <strong>and</strong> operational planner—he knows <strong>the</strong> specific<br />
purpose <strong>for</strong> which <strong>the</strong> fatwa is being issued. Zawahiri is making his case on both religious<br />
<strong>and</strong> operational levels.<br />
First Message: America is <strong>the</strong> Target<br />
In making a meticulous religious justification <strong>for</strong> using WMD, Zawahiri explicitly names <strong>the</strong><br />
US as <strong>the</strong> intended target of a mass casualty attack. He quotes al-Fahd with respect to <strong>the</strong><br />
legitimacy of waging jihad outside of Iraq: “There is no doubt that <strong>the</strong> greatest enemy of <strong>Islam</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> Muslims at this time is <strong>the</strong> Americans.” 65<br />
Zawahiri goes on to explain why he considers <strong>the</strong> United States to be a “single juridical entity”<br />
under <strong>Islam</strong>. 66 The implications are chilling: it means all Americans are valid targets, whe<strong>the</strong>r<br />
<strong>the</strong>y are men, women, or children. His careful word choice reflects a seriousness of purpose;<br />
he takes <strong>the</strong> responsibility <strong>for</strong> justifying mass casualties very seriously. In quoting <strong>the</strong> Quran<br />
<strong>and</strong> Hadiths on this matter, he cites various view points, some of which support his judg-<br />
ments, some of which do not. At times, he dramatically prefaces his conclusion with “I say...”<br />
to signify his judgments that digress from <strong>the</strong> views held by some <strong>Islam</strong>ic scholars. 67 His use<br />
of <strong>the</strong> first person also signifies <strong>the</strong> authority he seeks <strong>for</strong> himself as an arbiter on <strong>Islam</strong>ic law.<br />
First quoting that “artillery bombardment is permissible when <strong>the</strong> jihad needs or requires it,” 68<br />
Zawahiri quotes Nasir al Fahd’s fatwa:<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
“If a bomb were dropped on <strong>the</strong>m, destroying 10 million of <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> burning as<br />
much of <strong>the</strong>ir l<strong>and</strong> as <strong>the</strong>y have burned of Muslim l<strong>and</strong> that would be permissible<br />
without any need to mention any o<strong>the</strong>r proof. We might need o<strong>the</strong>r proofs if we<br />
wanted to destroy more than this number of <strong>the</strong>m!” 69<br />
Hearkening to <strong>the</strong> use of <strong>the</strong> term “artillery” from Truman to justify <strong>the</strong> bombing of Hiro-<br />
shima, it certainly is an interesting coincidence that Zawahiri’s text uses <strong>the</strong> phrase “artillery<br />
bombardments” in <strong>the</strong> context of general destruction. It very well could be, <strong>for</strong> him, just an-<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r weapon that cannot distinguish, such as <strong>the</strong> often-mentioned catapult, <strong>and</strong> thus justi-<br />
fies <strong>the</strong> use of such a weapon identically in <strong>the</strong> modern era.<br />
That said, Zawahiri’s argument leads to his view that that <strong>the</strong> introduction of <strong>the</strong> means of<br />
mass destruction has become a necessary means of confronting a stubborn superpower.<br />
Second message: The use of WMD is necessary<br />
Zawahiri’s complex reasons <strong>for</strong> redefining <strong>the</strong> rules of waging war as <strong>the</strong> West underst<strong>and</strong>s<br />
<strong>the</strong>m include a strong ideological component, perhaps best expressed by his mentor, Sayyid<br />
Qutb, in his book “Milestones.”<br />
“The <strong>Islam</strong>ic Jihad has no relationship to modern warfare, ei<strong>the</strong>r in its causes or in<br />
<strong>the</strong> way it is conducted.”<br />
“(<strong>Islam</strong>) is a practical movement which progresses stage by stage, <strong>and</strong> at every stage<br />
it provides resources according to <strong>the</strong> practical needs of <strong>the</strong> situation <strong>and</strong> prepares<br />
<strong>the</strong> ground <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> next one. It does not face practical problems with abstract<br />
<strong>the</strong>ories, nor does it confront various stages with unchangeable means. Those who<br />
talk about Jihad in <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> quote Quranic verses do not take into account this<br />
aspect, nor do <strong>the</strong>y underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong> various stages through which this<br />
movement develops, or <strong>the</strong> relationship of <strong>the</strong> verses revealed at various occasions<br />
with each stage. Thus, when <strong>the</strong>y speak about Jihad, <strong>the</strong>y speak clumsily <strong>and</strong> mix<br />
up <strong>the</strong> various stages distorting <strong>the</strong> whole concept of Jihad <strong>and</strong> deriving from <strong>the</strong><br />
Quranic verses final principles <strong>and</strong> generalities <strong>for</strong> which <strong>the</strong>re is no justification.<br />
This is because <strong>the</strong>y regard every verse in <strong>the</strong> Quran as it were a final principle in<br />
this religion.”<br />
“This group of thinkers, who are a product of <strong>the</strong> present Muslim generation,<br />
have nothing but <strong>the</strong> label of <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> have laid down <strong>the</strong>ir spiritual <strong>and</strong> rational<br />
arms in defeat. They say, “<strong>Islam</strong> has prescribed a defensive war!” And think that<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 39
40<br />
<strong>the</strong>y have done good <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir religion by depriving it of <strong>the</strong>ir method, which is to<br />
abolish all injustice from <strong>the</strong> earth, to bring people to <strong>the</strong> worship of God alone,<br />
<strong>and</strong> to bring <strong>the</strong>m out of servitude to o<strong>the</strong>rs to into <strong>the</strong> servants of <strong>the</strong> Lord. <strong>Islam</strong><br />
does not <strong>for</strong>ce people to accept its belief, but it wants to provide a free environment<br />
in which <strong>the</strong>y will have choice of beliefs. What it wants is to abolish those<br />
oppressive political systems under which people are prevented from expressing<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir freedom to choose whatever beliefs <strong>the</strong>y want, <strong>and</strong> after that it gives <strong>the</strong>m<br />
complete freedom to decide whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y will accept <strong>Islam</strong> or not.” 70<br />
In <strong>the</strong> terms of examining al-Qaeda’s many declarations over <strong>the</strong> years, each stage of <strong>the</strong> “global<br />
jihad” serves to take <strong>the</strong> movement one step fur<strong>the</strong>r on <strong>the</strong> path to its ultimate objective—to<br />
challenge world order <strong>and</strong> create conditions more conducive to <strong>the</strong> spread of <strong>the</strong> ideology of<br />
<strong>Islam</strong>ist extremism. The 9/11 attack against <strong>the</strong> US heralded a new stage in <strong>the</strong> struggle.<br />
Zawahiri explains why <strong>the</strong> next stage in this conflict is at h<strong>and</strong>, historically, ideologically, <strong>and</strong><br />
practically speaking; this next stage may require al-Qaeda to kill not merely thous<strong>and</strong>s of<br />
people, but millions of people.<br />
But <strong>the</strong> Egyptian Doctor extends his argument—al-Qaeda must choose a means of attack<br />
commensurate with <strong>the</strong>ir goals. His argument flows between making <strong>the</strong> case <strong>for</strong> causing<br />
general destruction, on <strong>the</strong> one h<strong>and</strong>, to reaffirming <strong>the</strong> continuing importance of <strong>the</strong> US as<br />
<strong>the</strong> central target of jihad, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r h<strong>and</strong>.<br />
To drive home <strong>the</strong> connection between using WMD <strong>and</strong> al-Qaeda’s concrete objectives <strong>and</strong><br />
current plans, Zawahiri once again quotes Nasir al Fahd to unambiguously associate al-Qae-<br />
da’s “success” in <strong>the</strong> past with its prospects <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> future.<br />
“Someone might say: Where is <strong>the</strong> victory that this attack (9/11) brought?<br />
The answer is: If <strong>the</strong> attack only turned upside down <strong>the</strong>ir history, power<br />
balances, strategic <strong>and</strong> military doctrines, <strong>and</strong> global order, that is enough of a<br />
victory. The raid was a momentous historical junction that caused many ideas<br />
<strong>and</strong> studies to be reconsidered.”<br />
“The event’s greatness is evident in five aspects.”<br />
“One: It restored <strong>Islam</strong> to <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>efront in <strong>the</strong> wars against <strong>the</strong> infidels whereas<br />
<strong>for</strong>merly nationalist <strong>and</strong> ethnic factors <strong>and</strong> interests were <strong>the</strong> primary factors in<br />
provoking wars <strong>and</strong> conflicts. It thus brought out <strong>the</strong> crusader hostile spirit from<br />
its concealment <strong>and</strong> <strong>for</strong>ced it into action.”<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
“Two: It gave prominence to <strong>the</strong> great role of jihad in overturning global balances.”<br />
“Third: It ended <strong>the</strong> idea that “national states” control “politics” <strong>and</strong> declare “peace”<br />
or “war.” The management of <strong>the</strong> conflict is not in <strong>the</strong> h<strong>and</strong>s of persons of a particular<br />
national affiliation but is in <strong>the</strong> h<strong>and</strong>s of people spread—as <strong>the</strong> Americans say—over<br />
more than 60 countries who are joined by nothing else except salafi jihadist <strong>Islam</strong> or<br />
what <strong>the</strong>y call “Wahabi” <strong>Islam</strong>. Indeed <strong>the</strong> four brigades that struck America were<br />
comm<strong>and</strong>ed by four men of four different nationalities. One was from Egypt, <strong>the</strong><br />
second from <strong>the</strong> Gulf, <strong>the</strong> third from Syria, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> fourth from Al-Hijaz.”<br />
“Four: It irreversibly ended <strong>the</strong> era when <strong>the</strong> United States could attack <strong>the</strong><br />
Muslims with impunity, God Willing.”<br />
“Five: It was <strong>the</strong> beginning of <strong>the</strong> collapse of <strong>the</strong> “New World Order,” which <strong>the</strong><br />
Americans enjoyed <strong>for</strong> a few years only <strong>and</strong> it marked <strong>the</strong> beginning of America’s<br />
total collapse, God willing.”<br />
“The cycle of terror continues. We believe that this is in fulfillment of <strong>the</strong> oath<br />
made by Abu-Abdallah [bin Laden], may God give him victory, that <strong>the</strong> Americans<br />
would never know security.” 71<br />
Third Message: Al-Qaeda’s best is yet to come<br />
“…one hour in <strong>the</strong> path of jihad is worth more than 70 years of praying at home” 72<br />
Abdullah Azzam<br />
Zawahiri is a man of action, not of contemplation. His tone leaves little question that he<br />
believes <strong>the</strong> notion of exoneration is premature. He is confident that <strong>the</strong> final chapter has not<br />
been written in terms of judging al-Qaeda’s actions, <strong>and</strong> in assessing <strong>the</strong>ir impact on history.<br />
This feeling of incompleteness is palpable; he reflects his own doubts, acknowledges mistakes,<br />
<strong>and</strong> reminisces about <strong>the</strong> past. He exudes a reflective, expectant mood as he pays tribute to<br />
al-Qaeda’s past successes <strong>and</strong> conducts a nostalgic roll call of prominent jihadists <strong>and</strong> cler-<br />
ics—at times, it reads like his personal martyr document.<br />
Moreover, Zawahiri appears to have used his book as a means of engaging in a bit of decep-<br />
tion <strong>and</strong> misdirection; he has not repeated Nasir al Fahd’s mistake in openly declaring his<br />
2003 WMD fatwa as such, lest it betray al-Qaeda’s attack planning that may be underway.<br />
Instead, Zawahiri has hidden his fatwa <strong>and</strong> operational messages in plain sight of writing a<br />
rebuttal to Dr Fadl.<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 41
42<br />
Because <strong>the</strong> document was written to respond to Dr. Fadl personally, one might imagine<br />
Zawahiri’s apology to Dr Fadl along <strong>the</strong> lines of this imaginary tribute—“this is <strong>the</strong> hardest<br />
thing I’ve ever had to write, using you Dr. Fadl, as a ploy, <strong>and</strong> degrading your thoughts <strong>and</strong><br />
ideas despite <strong>the</strong>ir release under clear duress, but I am doing so to cloak an even larger strike,<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>for</strong> that you must <strong>for</strong>give me, <strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong> my true intentions. In <strong>the</strong> same spirit,<br />
we, al-Qaeda have cut jihadists loose to plan attacks like <strong>the</strong> Christmas day flight <strong>and</strong> Times<br />
Square bombing—in <strong>the</strong> hope <strong>the</strong>y will distract <strong>the</strong> infidels from a main event that is some-<br />
thing altoge<strong>the</strong>r different.”<br />
The aging jihadist provides a hint of what he has in mind, when he refers to <strong>the</strong> need to cor-<br />
rect <strong>the</strong> “people’s mood.”<br />
“Chiefly, that <strong>the</strong>y spoiled <strong>the</strong> Muslim people’s mood because <strong>the</strong>y were so great<br />
<strong>and</strong> powerful causing people to stop showing interest in lesser jihadist actions.<br />
For example if what happened in Indonesia had happened be<strong>for</strong>e <strong>the</strong> jihadist<br />
acts in America, <strong>the</strong>y would have had a greater effect on <strong>the</strong> people, who would<br />
have rejoiced more. The people showed less attention to <strong>the</strong>m because <strong>the</strong> image<br />
of <strong>the</strong> collapse of <strong>the</strong> two New York towers was something like a dream causing<br />
many o<strong>the</strong>r actions to appear smaller <strong>for</strong> a long time. This is <strong>the</strong> bad aspect, that it<br />
spoiled our mood <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> people’s mood. Our mood will not be corrected until <strong>the</strong><br />
United States vanishes <strong>and</strong> is followed by <strong>the</strong> Jewish state.” 73<br />
Near <strong>the</strong> end of “Exoneration,” Zawahiri outlines a prediction:<br />
“Read <strong>the</strong> history books well <strong>and</strong> use <strong>the</strong>m to <strong>for</strong>ecast <strong>the</strong> future. America has<br />
been broken in Iraq <strong>and</strong> Afghanistan <strong>and</strong> it is now ga<strong>the</strong>ring her belongings <strong>and</strong><br />
picking up <strong>the</strong> pieces of what is left to her be<strong>for</strong>e departing. The Muslim nation<br />
<strong>and</strong> her jihadist pathfinders, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r h<strong>and</strong>, are increasing in capabilities<br />
<strong>and</strong> power as time passes. This is <strong>the</strong> historical timeline which is clear to any<br />
comprehending mind.” 74<br />
Making good on this wistful vision of <strong>the</strong> future is <strong>the</strong> exoneration that Zawahiri seeks. By<br />
noting that jihadist capabilities <strong>and</strong> power are increasing, he hints at <strong>the</strong> notion of future<br />
strikes. Just as Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa to declare war on <strong>the</strong> United States in 1998,<br />
Ayman Zawahiri issued a fatwa a decade later to announce <strong>the</strong> impending transition to <strong>the</strong><br />
next stage of conflict. The 9/11 attack trans<strong>for</strong>med Osama bin Laden into a figure of mythi-<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
cal proportions. After lifelong humiliation, disappointment, <strong>and</strong> questions concerning his<br />
effectiveness as a leader <strong>and</strong> operational planner, Zawahiri is desperately seeking an opportu-<br />
nity to become <strong>the</strong> architect of his movement’s future, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> master of his own destiny.<br />
Radical Clerics in Support of al-Qaeda (Source: Exoneration)<br />
Atiyatallah Mujahid Scholar<br />
Nasir Bin-Hamad al-Fahd Saudi Cleric *<br />
Abu-al-Walid al-Filastini Mujahid, battlefront fighter, mufti <strong>and</strong><br />
Abd-al-Hakim Hassan<br />
judge of mujahidin<br />
Abu-Yahya al-Libi Libyan Teacher **<br />
Husayn Umar Bin-Mahfuz Yemeni scholar<br />
Abu-al-Hasan al Masri<br />
Abu-Abdallah al-Muhajir Teacher<br />
Abu-Hafs al-Muritani<br />
(a.k.a. Dr. Mahfouz Oueld<br />
Scholar, poet, mujahid, author <strong>and</strong> educator<br />
el Oueld)<br />
Abu-al-Hasan al-Qari Mujahidin’s Quranic reciter <strong>and</strong> imam<br />
Abu-al-Mundhir al-Sa’idi Notable of <strong>the</strong> Libyan Fighting Group<br />
Abu Musab al-Suri Syrian Mujahid Preacher<br />
Abdullah Zakiri No official position<br />
*Last report, in Saudi custody<br />
** Currently in US custody<br />
Note: Only two passing references are made to Osama bin Laden in “Exoneration.” Zawahiri<br />
invokes Nasir al Fahd repeatedly. In <strong>the</strong> book, Zawahiri also names 14 clerics who reputedly<br />
support al-Qaeda, offering a brief description of each one. In <strong>the</strong> event questions arise in <strong>the</strong><br />
future concerning Zawhiri’s authority to issue a fatwa, this list of clerics is likely intended to<br />
demonstrate al-Qaeda’s support from <strong>Islam</strong>ic clerics <strong>and</strong> scholars. As always, Zawahiri has<br />
thought through his case to <strong>the</strong> last detail.<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 43
SUNNI VOICES<br />
REJECTION OF TERRORIST VIOLENCE<br />
It is widely recognized in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic community that nuclear weapons are<br />
not just super-bombs used by armies as a weapon of war, but that <strong>the</strong>y pose<br />
unique <strong>and</strong> fundamental religious <strong>and</strong> moral issues that must be resolved by<br />
religious authorities. Fortunately, this consciousness introduces an additional<br />
level of scrutiny over <strong>the</strong> wisdom of <strong>the</strong> use of WMD in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic world<br />
that does not exist in secular states that are under no obligation to seek any<br />
<strong>for</strong>m of religious or moral authorization <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir use.<br />
Thous<strong>and</strong>s of <strong>Islam</strong>ic clerics <strong>and</strong> scholars have repudiated al-Qaeda’s<br />
justification of terrorism, in some cases explicitly extending <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
prohibitions on resorting to violence to <strong>the</strong> use of weapons of mass<br />
destruction. Their voices are growing louder over time. Most notably,<br />
Pakistani Shaykh Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri recently issued a fatwa<br />
that arguably represents <strong>the</strong> most comprehensive <strong>Islam</strong>ic ruling against<br />
terrorism, in all its <strong>for</strong>ms, in <strong>the</strong> Sunni world.<br />
A number of prominent clerics <strong>and</strong> scholars have renounced <strong>the</strong> use of nucle-<br />
ar weapons as being un-<strong>Islam</strong>ic. Gr<strong>and</strong> Mufti of Egypt Ali Gomaa has writ-<br />
ten a comprehensive anti-WMD fatwa that dismantles, point by point, <strong>the</strong><br />
arguments made by al-Qaeda in its WMD fatwa. Sunni authorities such as<br />
<strong>the</strong> Gr<strong>and</strong> Mufti vastly exceed, in <strong>the</strong> weight of <strong>the</strong>ir authority <strong>and</strong> reach, <strong>the</strong><br />
radical clerics who support al-Qaeda today. Indeed <strong>the</strong> number of al-Qaeda<br />
associated clerics appears to have dwindled since 9/11.<br />
While <strong>the</strong>y strongly support prohibitions of terrorism under <strong>Islam</strong>, many<br />
clerics <strong>and</strong> scholars continue to harshly criticize US presence in Muslim l<strong>and</strong>s.<br />
Many support, or are ambivalent, on attacks against US <strong>for</strong>ces in Iraq. Many<br />
condone terrorist violence in Israel, including attacks that may kill innocent<br />
women <strong>and</strong> children.
Controversial Egyptian scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi has explicitly stated on numerous occa-<br />
sions that all Israeli civilians are legitimate targets <strong>for</strong> suicide attacks. At <strong>the</strong> same time, he<br />
has criticized al-Qaeda’s 9/11 attack <strong>and</strong> sharply rejected <strong>the</strong> group’s definition of jihad. 75<br />
Al-Qaradawi has specifically warned about <strong>the</strong> perils of <strong>the</strong> extreme adaptation of ideas. He<br />
describes four symptoms in this regard: bigotry & intolerance, leading to lack of concern <strong>for</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>rs; a pattern of stubborn <strong>and</strong> coercive behavior; religious excessiveness <strong>and</strong> overburden-<br />
ing of o<strong>the</strong>rs, i.e. when applying <strong>Islam</strong>ic principles to people in non-Muslim countries or to<br />
people who have only recently converted to <strong>Islam</strong>, as well as to newly committed Muslims;<br />
<strong>and</strong> treating people harshly, roughness in <strong>the</strong> manner of approach, <strong>and</strong> crudeness in calling<br />
people to <strong>Islam</strong>, all which are contrary to <strong>the</strong> teachings of <strong>the</strong> Quran. 76<br />
The counter weight to ever-escalating levels of terrorist violence also comes from <strong>the</strong> ranks of<br />
disillusioned radicals. Prominent Saudi militant Salman Al-Odeh <strong>and</strong> imprisoned Egyptian<br />
extremist Sayid Imam Abdel-Aziz Al Sharif have recently condemned al-Qaeda <strong>for</strong> having<br />
corrupted <strong>the</strong> concept of jihad <strong>and</strong> sown great destruction on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic community. 77<br />
On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r end of <strong>the</strong> spectrum, liberal scholars offer a broader perspective with which to<br />
address WMD than <strong>the</strong> narrow prism of war, jihad <strong>and</strong> killing. Gamal al-Banna <strong>and</strong> Tariq<br />
Ramadan emphasize <strong>Islam</strong>ic teaching on tolerance <strong>and</strong> freedom of religion. Gamal al-Ban-<br />
na, <strong>the</strong> anti-authoritarian bro<strong>the</strong>r of Muslim Bro<strong>the</strong>rhood founder Hassan al-Banna, believes<br />
that every Muslim has to think <strong>for</strong> herself/himself, <strong>and</strong> that critical ideas about <strong>Islam</strong> should<br />
be fought “by words <strong>and</strong> not by confrontation, terrorism or takfir - passing ana<strong>the</strong>ma on some-<br />
one by pronouncing <strong>the</strong>m an infidel.” 78<br />
Gamal al-Banna is a fervent proponent of freedom of religion, often citing <strong>the</strong> Quranic verse:<br />
“There is no compulsion in religion” (al-Baqara, The Cow, II, 256). 79<br />
An <strong>Islam</strong>ic scholar who wrote his master’s <strong>the</strong>sis on <strong>the</strong> German philosopher Friedrich<br />
Nietzsche during his studies in Switzerl<strong>and</strong>, Tariq Ramadan speaks to “<strong>the</strong> responsibilities of<br />
Muslims in <strong>the</strong> West to think beyond <strong>the</strong>ir own grievances.” 80 He is an advocate <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> co-<br />
existence of <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> secular democracy. He notes that <strong>the</strong> Quran’s meaning is contextual<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e it must be interpreted as <strong>the</strong> world evolves over time. Ramadan has aroused<br />
controversy <strong>for</strong> his alleged ties to terrorists, which he vehemently denied in an open letter to<br />
President Bush. 81<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 45
Chronology of Sunni Voices Against Al-Qaeda<br />
See Appendix E <strong>for</strong> short biographies on this sampling of Sunni clerics.<br />
The objective of this section is to show a timeline of broad, representative statements against<br />
al-Qaeda’s desire to resort to violence on <strong>the</strong> scale of WMD.<br />
June 2003<br />
Yusuf al-Qaradawi rejected al-Qaeda’s killing of innocents.<br />
“<strong>Islam</strong>, <strong>the</strong> religion of tolerance, holds <strong>the</strong> human soul in high esteem, <strong>and</strong><br />
considers <strong>the</strong> attack against innocent human beings a grave sin, this is backed by<br />
<strong>the</strong> Qur’anic verse which reads: Who so ever kills a human being <strong>for</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r than<br />
manslaughter or corruption in <strong>the</strong> earth, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind,<br />
<strong>and</strong> who so ever saves <strong>the</strong> life of one, it shall be as if he had saved <strong>the</strong> life of all<br />
mankind,” (Al-Ma’dah:32).<br />
“The Prophet, peace <strong>and</strong> blessings be upon him, is reported to have said, ‘A believer<br />
remains within <strong>the</strong> scope of his religion as long as he doesn’t kill ano<strong>the</strong>r person<br />
illegally…even in times of war, Muslims are not allowed to kill anybody save <strong>the</strong><br />
one who is indulged in face-to-face confrontation with <strong>the</strong>m. They are not allowed<br />
to kill women, old persons, children, or even a monk in his religious seclusion.” 82<br />
Qaradawi also rejected all terrorist attacks outside of Israel.<br />
2005<br />
“I have been asked several questions on TV programs <strong>and</strong> on public lectures about<br />
<strong>the</strong> martyr operations outside <strong>the</strong> Palestinian territories, <strong>and</strong> I always answer that<br />
I do agree with those who do not allow such martyr operations to be carried out<br />
outside <strong>the</strong> Palestinian territories.” Instead we should concentrate on facing <strong>the</strong><br />
occupying enemy directly. It is not permissible, as far as <strong>Islam</strong> is concerned, to shift<br />
confrontation outside <strong>the</strong> Palestinian territories. This is backed by <strong>the</strong> Qur’anic<br />
verse that reads: “Fight in <strong>the</strong> way of Allah against those who fight against you, but<br />
begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loves not, aggressors”. 83<br />
Shaykh Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri was among <strong>the</strong> 170 <strong>Islam</strong>ic scholars from various sects<br />
who signed an antiterrorist fatwa in Amman in 2005. 84<br />
46 <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
2007<br />
Former militant cleric Salman Al-Odeh warned Osama bin Laden that if he did not relin-<br />
quish <strong>the</strong> path of terror he would find himself responsible <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> deaths of millions, <strong>for</strong><br />
which he would ultimately have to answer to Allah. 85<br />
2008<br />
6,000 Indian Muslim clerics endorsed an anti-terror fatwa. 86<br />
2009<br />
Saudi newspaper quoted prominent Saudi cleric al-Obeikan’s condemnation of al-Qaeda.<br />
“Affiliation with <strong>the</strong> so-called al-Qaeda group is haram” (banned), adding “It is strictly prohib-<br />
ited to legitimize <strong>the</strong> shedding of blood of o<strong>the</strong>r Muslims without having <strong>the</strong> right to do so.” 87<br />
2009<br />
Egyptian Gr<strong>and</strong> Mufti Gomaa outlined a ten point, detailed legal ruling (fatwa) that using<br />
WMD is banned (impermissible) under <strong>Islam</strong>:<br />
• An individual or group cannot declare war<br />
• The use of WMD is a breach of international agreements <strong>and</strong> treaties<br />
• Using WMDs involves killing people <strong>and</strong> taking <strong>the</strong>m by surprise<br />
• Killing <strong>and</strong> harming women <strong>and</strong> children is <strong>for</strong>bidden<br />
• Killing <strong>and</strong> harming Muslim residents of <strong>the</strong> target countries is <strong>for</strong>bidden<br />
• Ramifications of using WMDs will bring about catastrophe <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> entire world<br />
• Consequences of using WMD will damage individual <strong>and</strong> public properties<br />
• Permission to enter a country is considered a non-verbal security agreement not to<br />
cause corruption in <strong>the</strong> host country.<br />
• It is invalid to base <strong>the</strong> permissibility of using WMDs on analogy [Ar.qiyās] to tabyīt,<br />
using <strong>the</strong> catapult, or tahrīq<br />
• It is not permissible to use human shields<br />
Note: See Appendix D <strong>for</strong> relevant sections of <strong>the</strong> fatwa<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 47
Reactions to <strong>the</strong> anti-WMD Fatwa<br />
Dr Ibrahim Negm highlighted <strong>the</strong> importance of issuing a counter-WMD ruling: “This fatwa<br />
is <strong>the</strong> first one we issued on this topic <strong>and</strong> comes in response to <strong>the</strong> wave of unin<strong>for</strong>med<br />
opinions from various groups.” 88<br />
Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani, president of <strong>the</strong> Graduate School of <strong>Islam</strong>ic <strong>and</strong> Social <strong>Science</strong>s <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Fiqh Council, supported <strong>the</strong> anti-WMD fatwa because mass destruction does not distin-<br />
guish <strong>the</strong> innocent from <strong>the</strong> criminal <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e is prohibited under <strong>Islam</strong>. 89<br />
Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi, deputy chairman of <strong>the</strong> European Council <strong>for</strong> Fatwa <strong>and</strong> Research,<br />
noted a self-defense exception: “[I]n case <strong>the</strong>se nuclear weapons are used against Muslims, it<br />
becomes permissible <strong>for</strong> Muslims to defend <strong>the</strong>mselves using <strong>the</strong> same weapon.” 90<br />
September 2009<br />
Former militant cleric Salman Al-Odeh urged Al-Qaeda deputy leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri<br />
to stop killing Muslims, noting that Al-Qaeda had killed more Muslims than non-Muslims,<br />
<strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> Muslim world was “being roasted on <strong>the</strong> flames of Al-Qaeda” <strong>and</strong> exposed to<br />
violent events <strong>and</strong> bombings.<br />
“Muslims are <strong>the</strong> only nation whose sons kill each o<strong>the</strong>r; <strong>the</strong>re is no o<strong>the</strong>r nation<br />
in <strong>the</strong> world—not <strong>the</strong> Jews, not <strong>the</strong> Christians, not <strong>the</strong> Buddhists, not <strong>the</strong> pagans—<br />
whose sons do this... “How long will people cling to weapons as if <strong>the</strong>y were <strong>the</strong><br />
only means of achieving <strong>the</strong>ir goals?” 91<br />
Al-Odeh added that people who had accepted Al-Qaeda’s ideology of takfir <strong>and</strong> bombings<br />
were motivated not by religious or rational conviction, but by emotional distress, frustration,<br />
<strong>and</strong> an inner sense of discrimination.<br />
“I have called on, <strong>and</strong> will continue to call on our loyal clerics <strong>and</strong> preachers to call<br />
things by <strong>the</strong>ir true name, <strong>and</strong> to remove <strong>the</strong> divine <strong>and</strong> holy epi<strong>the</strong>t ‘jihad’ from<br />
<strong>the</strong> operations carried out by murderous organizations that kill innocent people<br />
<strong>and</strong> undermine security in <strong>Islam</strong>ic countries, or o<strong>the</strong>r countries with which we<br />
have agreements... It is important to explicitly condemn <strong>the</strong> evil crimes perpetrated<br />
worldwide in <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Islam</strong> or of jihad, <strong>and</strong> to remove <strong>the</strong> disguise that <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
names provide <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>m—whe<strong>the</strong>r that name is ‘Al-Qaeda,’ or ‘jihad organizations,’<br />
or ‘military or combat organizations,’ or ‘<strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic state.<br />
48 <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
“I comm<strong>and</strong> myself, <strong>and</strong> my fellow preachers, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> speakers <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> writers, to<br />
condemn in <strong>the</strong> clearest possible terms this perversion, which includes bloodshed,<br />
destruction of society, corruption of <strong>the</strong> image of <strong>Islam</strong>, hindrance of growth,<br />
[dissemination] of <strong>and</strong> contempt <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> essential foundations of <strong>Islam</strong>ic law <strong>and</strong> of<br />
humanism, wickedness worldwide, <strong>and</strong> aggression against human life…”<br />
“I [re]iterate sincerely <strong>and</strong> loudly: Allah will not lend success to <strong>the</strong> deeds of <strong>the</strong><br />
corrupt <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> traitors... nor to those who kill Muslims in <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>Islam</strong> or in<br />
<strong>the</strong> name of implementing shari’a. They will never succeed; Allah’s punishment will<br />
overtake <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>y will become an object of mockery <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir fellows unless<br />
<strong>the</strong>y repent.” 92<br />
December 2009<br />
Shaykh Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri issued <strong>the</strong> most detailed antiterrorist fatwa ever writ-<br />
ten, an exhaustive, 600 page <strong>the</strong>ological <strong>and</strong> legal studies of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic teachings on <strong>the</strong> use<br />
of <strong>for</strong>ce <strong>and</strong> armed resistance. His fatwa: terrorism is at all times, in all conditions, against<br />
<strong>Islam</strong>. The murders terrorists commit will send <strong>the</strong>m, not to paradise in <strong>the</strong> company of<br />
virgins, as often claimed, but to hell. 93 “[Terrorists] are <strong>the</strong> heroes of hellfire.” 94<br />
Drawing extensively on <strong>Islam</strong>ic texts Qadri declared: “<strong>Islam</strong> does not permit, under any cir-<br />
cumstances, <strong>the</strong> massacre of innocent citizens, terrorist explosions <strong>and</strong> suicide bombings” which<br />
according to <strong>Islam</strong>ic law are unacceptable violations of human rights <strong>and</strong> constitute kufr,<br />
(unbelief). 95<br />
“This is an absolute, unconditional, unqualified condemnation of terrorism,<br />
without any kind of exception or excuse…No context; no discussion of <strong>for</strong>eign<br />
policy of a certain country, no occupation ... can create a pretext <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> people to<br />
take up arms.” 96<br />
The solution, said Qadri, is not violence, but democratic dissent, achieved through political<br />
channels, petitions, lawful activism <strong>and</strong> peaceful protest. 97<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 49
SHIA VOICES<br />
IRAN AND THE BOMB<br />
Following <strong>the</strong> Iranian revolution of 1979, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Kho-<br />
meini is said to have issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons—some now<br />
claim he never uttered such words, while o<strong>the</strong>rs claim his statement mys-<br />
teriously disappeared. Iran’s current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khameini,<br />
issued an anti-nuclear fatwa in September 2004. 98 While sourced by a vari-<br />
ety of Iranian authorities, <strong>the</strong> fatwa itself has yet to be officially released or<br />
found. But in light of <strong>the</strong> many references, it would seem that Khameini’s<br />
fatwa is legitimate <strong>and</strong> absolute. Is <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>the</strong>n not clear, from a religious<br />
point of view? It is not so simple, as <strong>the</strong> testimony of <strong>the</strong> following voices<br />
from within Iran will attest.<br />
The range of opinion on this matter is far-reaching, with <strong>the</strong> overwhelming<br />
majority of religious voices taking a st<strong>and</strong> against nuclear weapons. Indi-<br />
viduals in opposition include current <strong>and</strong> <strong>for</strong>mer Supreme Leaders of Iran,<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>mer Deputy Supreme Leader, <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>mer Secretary of <strong>the</strong> Supreme<br />
National Security Council, <strong>the</strong> Chairman of Parliament of Iran, Iran’s Ambas-<br />
sador to Pakistan, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Gr<strong>and</strong> Marja of Shia <strong>Islam</strong>, among o<strong>the</strong>rs. Those<br />
in favor of possession, including on a conditional basis as a deterrent <strong>and</strong><br />
in <strong>the</strong> context of equal retaliation, include a member of <strong>the</strong> Iranian Parlia-<br />
ments’ Judicial Commission, a member of Iran’s Assembly of Experts, <strong>and</strong><br />
two middle-ranking clerics. It is also important to note that Hezbollah’s<br />
Secretary-General, Sayyed Nasrallah, recently announced <strong>the</strong> right to possess<br />
any weapon, <strong>and</strong> as such, <strong>the</strong> Iran-Hezbollah nexus cannot be ignored if in<br />
fact Iran were to realize nuclear weapons capabilities. 99<br />
As one will recognize from <strong>the</strong> analysis below, <strong>the</strong>re is a serious internal de-<br />
bate on this issue within <strong>the</strong> religious community regarding: acquiring such<br />
a weapon that cannot distinguish between combatants <strong>and</strong> non-combatants;<br />
<strong>the</strong> use of WMD as a retaliatory measure if attacked by <strong>the</strong> same weapon;<br />
possessing such a weapon as a deterrent measure; among o<strong>the</strong>r issues. Sur-<br />
prisingly, justifying <strong>the</strong> acquisition of WMD ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>for</strong> equalizing or defen-<br />
sive purposes has rarely if ever been mentioned in <strong>the</strong> context of any regional<br />
threat, including that of Israel.
In producing this survey of Shi’a voices in Iran, no assumptions have been made as to wheth-<br />
er or not Iran is indeed pursuing nuclear weapons. By compiling numerous comments made<br />
by a range of religious clerics, scholars <strong>and</strong> authorities over <strong>the</strong> last several years, <strong>the</strong> goal is<br />
to assess <strong>the</strong> substance <strong>and</strong> significance of <strong>the</strong> religious discourse concerning Shi’a <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> permissibility or impermissibility of WMD acquisition, possession <strong>and</strong> use.<br />
Shia Clerics Against Nuclear Weapons<br />
“The <strong>Islam</strong>ic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental religious <strong>and</strong> legal beliefs,<br />
would never resort to <strong>the</strong> use of weapons of mass destruction… In contrast to <strong>the</strong><br />
propag<strong>and</strong>a of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons<br />
of mass destruction in any <strong>for</strong>m.”<br />
Ayatollah Khameini<br />
Supreme Leader of Iran<br />
“There is complete consensus on this issue. It is self-evident in <strong>Islam</strong> that it is<br />
prohibited to have nuclear bombs. It is eternal law, because <strong>the</strong> basic function of<br />
<strong>the</strong>se weapons is to kill innocent people. This cannot be reversed.”<br />
Gr<strong>and</strong> Ayatollah Yusef Saanei<br />
Gr<strong>and</strong> Marja of Shia <strong>Islam</strong>, Iranian Scholar<br />
“Those in Iran who cl<strong>and</strong>estinely believed <strong>the</strong>y could develop nuclear weapons have<br />
now been <strong>for</strong>ced to admit that is <strong>for</strong>bidden under <strong>Islam</strong>.”<br />
Hussein Shariamadari<br />
Managing Editor of Kayhan, an Iranian newspaper<br />
“In light of <strong>the</strong> scope of death <strong>and</strong> destruction <strong>the</strong>y bring, <strong>and</strong> in light of <strong>the</strong> fact that<br />
such weapons cannot be used solely against an army of aggression but will invariably<br />
sacrifice <strong>the</strong> lives of innocent people, even if <strong>the</strong>se innocent lives are those of future<br />
generations nuclear weapons are not permitted according to reason or Sharia.”<br />
Gr<strong>and</strong> Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri (Died 12 December, 2009)<br />
Former Deputy Supreme Leader of Iran, Iranian Scholar<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 51
52<br />
“The decree by Khamenei “prohibit[s] <strong>the</strong> development <strong>and</strong> use of nuclear weapons”<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons<br />
Mohammad Javad Zarif<br />
Former Ambassador of Iran to <strong>the</strong> United Nations<br />
“When <strong>the</strong> Iranian leader issues such a fatwa, <strong>the</strong>n we have given a political, religious<br />
<strong>and</strong> ideological guarantee that we are not pursuing <strong>the</strong> production of nuclear weapons.”<br />
Hassan Rowhani<br />
Former Secretary of Supreme National Security Council<br />
A Turkish diplomat, describing a visit in May by Al Larijani, said that Larijani made<br />
<strong>the</strong> religious roots of <strong>the</strong> proscription clear. “I was in <strong>the</strong> meeting,” said <strong>the</strong> diplomat,<br />
who spoke on condition of anonymity. “He said <strong>the</strong>re is even a fatwa, a religious<br />
ruling, since <strong>the</strong> time of Khomeini, that Iran will not produce any nuclear weapons.”<br />
Ali Larijani<br />
Chairman of Parliament of Iran<br />
Nuclear weapons as well as <strong>the</strong> atom bomb are haram (prohibited) according to <strong>the</strong> laws<br />
of <strong>Islam</strong>, a private television channel quoted Iran’s Ambassador to Pakistan as saying.<br />
Khazali Mashallah Shakiri<br />
Iran’s Ambassador to Pakistan<br />
While evidence suggests Khomeini indeed barred Iranian <strong>for</strong>ces from unconventional<br />
weapons during <strong>the</strong> 1980-88 war with Iraq, <strong>the</strong> religious underpinning <strong>for</strong> such a<br />
ban is regarded as less than absolute.<br />
Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini (Died 3 June, 1989)<br />
Former Supreme Leader of Iran<br />
“According to <strong>Islam</strong>ic teachings, <strong>the</strong>re’s <strong>the</strong> principle that <strong>the</strong> goals never justify <strong>the</strong><br />
means… It has not been supported in <strong>Islam</strong> that you can do whatever you want to
defend yourself. You are not allowed to ga<strong>the</strong>r weapons that are not allowed by <strong>Islam</strong>,<br />
even against your enemies.”<br />
Kazem Mosavi Bojnoordi<br />
Chief editor of Iran’s <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Islam</strong>ic Encyclopedia<br />
Announced that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, in a message to <strong>the</strong><br />
Tehran conference on April 17, declared “Iran regards utilizing nuclear weapons as<br />
haram (<strong>for</strong>bidden in <strong>Islam</strong>) <strong>and</strong> it is incumbent on everyone to safeguard humanity<br />
from such weapons.”<br />
Shia Clerics For Nuclear Weapons<br />
Mohammad Khazaee<br />
Current Permanent Representative of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic<br />
Republic of Iran to <strong>the</strong> United Nations<br />
“There are no Shari’a [religious law] or legal restrictions on having such weapons<br />
as a deterrent.”<br />
Hojatoleslam Mohammad Taghi Rahbar<br />
Iranian Legislator, Member of Parliament’s Judicial Commission<br />
“We have to produce <strong>the</strong> most advanced weapon inside <strong>the</strong> country, even if our enemies<br />
don’t like it. There is no reason that <strong>the</strong>y have <strong>the</strong> right to produce a certain special type<br />
of weapon, but that o<strong>the</strong>r countries not have that right.”<br />
Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi<br />
Iranian Cleric, Member of Iran’s Assembly of Experts<br />
It is “only natural” to have nuclear bombs as a “countermeasure” against o<strong>the</strong>r nuclear<br />
powers. “When <strong>the</strong> entire world is armed with nuclear weapons, it is permissible to use<br />
<strong>the</strong>se weapons as a counter-measure. According to Sharia too, only <strong>the</strong> goal is important.”<br />
Mohsen Gharavian (Conditional)<br />
Iranian Cleric, Disciple of Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 53
54<br />
“From all I can see, it’s not <strong>for</strong>bidden, but it’s hard to say it’s allowed. In jurisprudence<br />
<strong>the</strong>se terms are different. If your enemies have <strong>the</strong>se bombs, it’s not <strong>for</strong>bidden to have<br />
<strong>the</strong>m. Don’t <strong>for</strong>get that Israel has <strong>the</strong>se bombs. It’s outside <strong>the</strong> Non-Proliferation Treaty.”<br />
Unclear<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons<br />
Mohsen Kadivar (Conditional),<br />
Iranian Cleric, Faculty Member of <strong>the</strong> Department of<br />
<strong>Islam</strong>ic Philosophy at <strong>the</strong> Iranian Institute of Philosophy<br />
“They have supplied vast quantities of weapons of mass destruction <strong>and</strong><br />
unconventional weapons to Israel. They have permitted it to have <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>y<br />
have shut <strong>the</strong>ir eyes to what is going on. They have nuclear, chemical <strong>and</strong> biological<br />
weapons <strong>and</strong> long-range missiles <strong>and</strong> suchlike. 100 Of course, that is very important.<br />
If one day, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel<br />
possesses now, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> imperialists’ strategy will reach a st<strong>and</strong>still because <strong>the</strong> use<br />
of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will<br />
only harm <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.<br />
Of course, you can see that <strong>the</strong> Americans have kept <strong>the</strong>ir eyes peeled <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>y are<br />
carefully looking <strong>for</strong> even <strong>the</strong> slightest hint that technological advances are being<br />
made by an independent <strong>Islam</strong>ic country. If an independent <strong>Islam</strong>ic country is<br />
thinking about acquiring o<strong>the</strong>r kinds of weaponry, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>y will do <strong>the</strong>ir utmost to<br />
prevent it from acquiring <strong>the</strong>m. Well, that is something that almost <strong>the</strong> entire world<br />
is discussing right now.” 101<br />
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, (March 1997)<br />
Chairman of <strong>the</strong> Assembly of Experts, Former President of Iran<br />
“No, we’re not willing to suspend. But we’re ready to provide greater assurances to <strong>the</strong><br />
world that we won’t move from peaceful nuclear technology to military technology.”<br />
Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, (June 2005)<br />
Chairman of <strong>the</strong> Assembly of Experts, Former President of Iran<br />
Asked whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> ayatollahs could simply rip up <strong>the</strong>ir fatwa one day <strong>and</strong> issue a new rul-<br />
ing blessing <strong>the</strong> development of nuclear weapons, Fazal Miboudi, a mullah who is professor
of political science at Mofid University in Qom, said any reversal of such a high-profile issue<br />
would require years of awkward <strong>the</strong>ological maneuvering.<br />
“There is room <strong>for</strong> maneuver in <strong>Islam</strong>. Things can be haram (<strong>for</strong>bidden) one day<br />
<strong>and</strong> halal (acceptable) later on. But this takes time…,”<br />
Fazal Miboudi,<br />
Professor of Political <strong>Science</strong> at Mofid University in Qom<br />
Iran’s <strong>for</strong>mer president, Mohammed Khatami, has dismissed as a “satanic conspiracy” claims<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic republic was secretly developing nuclear weapons during a wide-ranging address<br />
in Australia. 102<br />
Mohammad Khatami<br />
Former President of Iran<br />
“This question is ambiguous…taking weapons of mass destruction as a whole, I’m<br />
against it…” But in <strong>the</strong> context of deterrence <strong>and</strong> self-defense, “It’s not clear.”<br />
Jalal al Din Taheri<br />
Former Member of <strong>the</strong> Assembly of Experts in Iran, Iranian Scholar<br />
Chronology of Shia Voices on Nuclear Weapons<br />
See Appendix F <strong>for</strong> short biographies on Shia clerics <strong>and</strong> scholars cited in this chronology.<br />
October 2003<br />
Led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, <strong>the</strong> nation’s supreme leader, Iranian clerics repeatedly<br />
declared that <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>for</strong>bids <strong>the</strong> development <strong>and</strong> use of all weapons of mass destruction.<br />
“The <strong>Islam</strong>ic Republic of Iran, based on its religious beliefs, would never resort to <strong>the</strong> use of<br />
weapons of mass destruction,” Khamenei said recently. “In contrast to <strong>the</strong> propag<strong>and</strong>a of our<br />
enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any<br />
<strong>for</strong>m.” 103<br />
“Those in Iran who cl<strong>and</strong>estinely believed <strong>the</strong>y could develop nuclear weapons have now<br />
been <strong>for</strong>ced to admit that is <strong>for</strong>bidden under <strong>Islam</strong>,” 104 said Hussein Shariatmadari, who is<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 55
president of <strong>the</strong> Kayhan chain of newspapers, controlled by Khamenei, <strong>and</strong> an unofficial<br />
spokesman <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> supreme leader.<br />
Gr<strong>and</strong> Ayatollah Yusef Saanei, one of <strong>the</strong> highest-ranking clerics in Iran, said in an interview:<br />
“There is complete consensus on this issue. It is self-evident in <strong>Islam</strong> that it is prohibited to<br />
have nuclear bombs. It is eternal law, because <strong>the</strong> basic function of <strong>the</strong>se weapons is to kill<br />
innocent people. This cannot be reversed.” 105<br />
Saanei said clerical authorities had expressed opposition to <strong>the</strong> development of weapons of<br />
mass destruction <strong>for</strong> many years, <strong>and</strong> he described it as <strong>the</strong> reason that Iran never retaliated<br />
with chemical weapons when Saddam Hussein used <strong>the</strong>m to kill Iranian troops <strong>and</strong> Iran-<br />
backed Kurds during <strong>the</strong> 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. “You cannot deliberately kill innocent<br />
people,” he said. 106<br />
Asked whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> ayatollahs could issue a new ruling blessing <strong>the</strong> development of nuclear<br />
weapons, Fazal Miboudi, a mullah who is professor of political science at Mofid University in<br />
Qom, said any reversal of such a high-profile issue would require years of awkward <strong>the</strong>ologi-<br />
cal maneuvering. “There is room <strong>for</strong> maneuver in <strong>Islam</strong>. “Things can be haram (<strong>for</strong>bidden)<br />
one day <strong>and</strong> halal (acceptable) later on. But this takes time,” he said. 107<br />
September 2004<br />
The country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa in 2004 describing <strong>the</strong><br />
use of nuclear weapons as immoral. In a subsequent sermon, he declared that “developing,<br />
producing or stockpiling nuclear weapons is <strong>for</strong>bidden under <strong>Islam</strong>.” 108<br />
November 2004<br />
According to Javad Zarif, <strong>the</strong> Iranian ambassador to <strong>the</strong> UN, <strong>the</strong> decree by Khamenei<br />
“prohibit[s] <strong>the</strong> development <strong>and</strong> use of nuclear weapons” 109<br />
Iranian legislator Hojatoleslam Mohammad Taqi Rahbar said on November 9, 2004, that, “There<br />
are no Shari’a [religious law] or legal restrictions on having such weapons as a deterrent.” 110<br />
February 2005<br />
Hasan Rowhani, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council stated: “When <strong>the</strong><br />
Iranian leader issues such a fatwa, <strong>the</strong>n we have given a political, religious <strong>and</strong> ideological<br />
guarantee that we are not pursuing <strong>the</strong> production of nuclear weapons.” 111<br />
56 <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
June 2005<br />
Rafsanjani said, “No, we’re not willing to suspend. But we’re ready to provide greater assurances<br />
to <strong>the</strong> world that we won’t move from peaceful nuclear technology to military technology.” 112<br />
June 2005<br />
Be<strong>for</strong>e <strong>the</strong> presidential elections, Mesbah Yazdi published a book called The <strong>Islam</strong>ic Revolu-<br />
tion—Surges in Political Changes in History.<br />
Some of <strong>the</strong> sections of <strong>the</strong> book deal with seeking to acquire technology, because, according<br />
to Mesbah Yazdi, Iran must acquire “a certain kind of special weapon.” 113<br />
“We cannot know with certainty when <strong>the</strong> wolf-like elements in many countries<br />
which hold power will disappear <strong>and</strong> be wiped off <strong>the</strong> face of <strong>the</strong> earth, or when<br />
<strong>the</strong>y will change <strong>the</strong>ir murderous ways. There<strong>for</strong>e, we should not be indifferent to<br />
defensive policy <strong>and</strong> must streng<strong>the</strong>n our internal <strong>for</strong>ces … Experience shows that<br />
such an [indifferent] attitude is incorrect <strong>and</strong> we must always strive to streng<strong>the</strong>n<br />
<strong>the</strong> country’s military <strong>and</strong> defense systems.” 114<br />
“We have to produce <strong>the</strong> most advanced weapon inside <strong>the</strong> country, even if our<br />
enemies don’t like it. There is no reason that <strong>the</strong>y have <strong>the</strong> right to produce a<br />
certain special type of weapon, but that o<strong>the</strong>r countries not have that right.” 115<br />
August 2005<br />
According to <strong>the</strong> official Iranian statement to <strong>the</strong> <strong>International</strong> Atomic Energy Agency<br />
(IAEA) on August 9, 2005: “The Leader of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali<br />
Khamenei, has issued <strong>the</strong> fatwa that <strong>the</strong> production, stockpiling, <strong>and</strong> use of nuclear weap-<br />
ons are <strong>for</strong>bidden under <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic Republic of Iran shall never acquire<br />
<strong>the</strong>se weapons,” 116<br />
Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa in 2005 <strong>for</strong>bidding <strong>the</strong> production of WMDs as<br />
“un-<strong>Islam</strong>ic” <strong>and</strong> said that “developing, producing or stockpiling nuclear weapons is <strong>for</strong>bid-<br />
den under <strong>Islam</strong>.” 117<br />
February 2006<br />
Iran’s hardline spiritual leaders have issued a new fatwa, sanctioning <strong>the</strong> use of atomic<br />
weapons against its enemies. Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of <strong>the</strong> ultra-conservative<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 57
Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, who is widely regarded as <strong>the</strong> cleric closest<br />
to Iran’s new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stated that it is “only natural” to have<br />
nuclear bombs as a “countermeasure” against o<strong>the</strong>r nuclear powers, thought to be a refer-<br />
ence to America <strong>and</strong> Israel. 118<br />
According to internal Iranian reporting, he added: “When <strong>the</strong> entire world is armed with<br />
nuclear weapons, it is permissible to use <strong>the</strong>se weapons as a counter-measure. According to<br />
Sharia too, only <strong>the</strong> goal is important.” 119<br />
Comment: This first public statement by <strong>the</strong> Yazdi clerical cabal on <strong>the</strong> nuclear issue ap-<br />
pears to be part of an ef<strong>for</strong>t by <strong>the</strong> country’s religious hardliners to begin preparing a <strong>the</strong>o-<br />
logical justification <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> ownership—<strong>and</strong> possible use—of atomic bombs. Gharavian did<br />
not specify what kinds of “goals” would justify a nuclear strike, but it is likely that military<br />
intervention by <strong>the</strong> United States would be considered sufficient grounds. Ayatollah Yazdi<br />
has previously justified use of suicide bombers against “enemies of <strong>Islam</strong>” <strong>and</strong> believes that<br />
America is bent on destroying <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic republic <strong>and</strong> its values. 120<br />
June 2006<br />
A Turkish diplomat, describing a visit in May 2006 by <strong>the</strong> chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali<br />
Larijani, said. “I was in <strong>the</strong> meeting,” said <strong>the</strong> diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonym-<br />
ity. “He said <strong>the</strong>re is even a fatwa, a religious ruling, since <strong>the</strong> time of Khomeini, that Iran<br />
will not produce any nuclear weapons.” 121<br />
That said, interviews with a range of clerics <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r students of <strong>Islam</strong>ic teachings inidate<br />
that although Gr<strong>and</strong> Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini barred Iranian <strong>for</strong>ces from unconven-<br />
tional weapons during <strong>the</strong> 1980-88 war with Iraq does not necessarily preclude a future<br />
religious basis <strong>for</strong> possessing WMD might be found.<br />
“This question is ambiguous,” said Gr<strong>and</strong> Ayatollah Jalalodine Taheri, who was a leading fig-<br />
ure in <strong>the</strong> Iranian government be<strong>for</strong>e becoming a critic. Taheri, 80, said during an interview<br />
at his bedside in <strong>the</strong> central Iranian city of Isfahan that “taking weapons of mass destruction<br />
as a whole, I’m against it.” But he added that religious texts might offer avenues that would<br />
allow stockpiling such weapons in <strong>the</strong> name of deterrence or self-defense. “It’s not clear… ” 122<br />
Mohsen Gharavian asserted: “Producing <strong>and</strong> using WMD is <strong>for</strong>bidden, just as producing<br />
deadly poison or harmful drugs, ... I think <strong>the</strong>re is no ambiguity here .... I have not seen any<br />
58 <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
o<strong>the</strong>r type of interpretation among religious scholars. But I have got to add something to<br />
this: If any o<strong>the</strong>r nation has produced this WMD <strong>and</strong> has used it against a second nation, <strong>the</strong><br />
second nation in <strong>the</strong> name of defending itself has <strong>the</strong> right to have it <strong>and</strong> to use WMD.” 123<br />
“I believe this is <strong>the</strong> logic of <strong>Islam</strong>ic morals,” Gharavian said, professing himself “100<br />
percent sure” that Khomeini <strong>and</strong> Iran’s current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,<br />
“based on <strong>Islam</strong>ic principles, have <strong>the</strong> same logic: <strong>Islam</strong> does not allow anyone to initiate<br />
harming a human being.”<br />
The same caveat about self-defense was offered by an influential cleric aligned with Iran’s re<strong>for</strong>m-<br />
ers, members of <strong>the</strong> relatively liberal movement recently sidelined by hard-line conservatives.<br />
“In <strong>the</strong> time of <strong>the</strong> prophet, we didn’t have nuclear bombs, so <strong>the</strong>re’s not a verse about it in <strong>the</strong><br />
Quran,” said Mohsen Kadivar, who like Gharavian is a middle-ranking cleric. “But we have<br />
some verses which say we can’t kill anyone who hasn’t committed a crime. It’s very, very clear.”<br />
The faith does accept <strong>the</strong> concept of retaliation, however, so long as it stops short of injur-<br />
ing innocents. Kadivar said that proviso appears to proscribe actual use of weapons of mass<br />
destruction, as would scriptures warning against damaging <strong>the</strong> environment.<br />
“From all I can see, it’s not <strong>for</strong>bidden, but it’s hard to say it’s allowed. In<br />
jurisprudence <strong>the</strong>se terms are different. If your enemies have <strong>the</strong>se bombs, it’s not<br />
<strong>for</strong>bidden to have <strong>the</strong>m. Don’t <strong>for</strong>get that Israel has <strong>the</strong>se bombs. It’s outside <strong>the</strong><br />
Non-Proliferation Treaty.”<br />
“In <strong>the</strong> eight-year war with Iraq, this was a very hot debate among all <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic teach-<br />
ers, because Iranian cities were being bombarded,” said Kazem Mosavi Bojnoordi, who<br />
sat on <strong>the</strong> defense committee of Iran’s parliament during part of <strong>the</strong> war. “The conclusion<br />
was that it’s not allowed. Never during those eight years do we have one example of Iran<br />
bombarding cities.”<br />
Bojnoordi recalled that after <strong>the</strong> first salvos from Iraq, a senior Iranian comm<strong>and</strong>er declared,<br />
“Now we will flatten Baghdad.” The comment brought an immediate rebuke from Khomeini,<br />
whose fatwa closed <strong>the</strong> matter <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> balance of <strong>the</strong> war.<br />
“According to <strong>Islam</strong>ic teachings, <strong>the</strong>re’s <strong>the</strong> principle that <strong>the</strong> goals never justify <strong>the</strong> means,”<br />
said Bojnoordi, whose fa<strong>the</strong>r was a gr<strong>and</strong> ayatollah. “It has not been supported in <strong>Islam</strong> that<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 59
you can do whatever you want to defend yourself. You are not allowed to ga<strong>the</strong>r weapons<br />
that are not allowed by <strong>Islam</strong>, even against your enemies.’’<br />
Note: If Iran is indeed working to produce nuclear weapons, experts say <strong>the</strong> program would<br />
surely be entrusted to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Formed in 1979 by clerics<br />
who did not trust Iran’s existing army, <strong>the</strong> Revolutionary Guards have grown into a major<br />
<strong>for</strong>ce in Iran’s economy <strong>and</strong> political offices. Their insignia, one analyst noted, includes a pas-<br />
sage from <strong>the</strong> Quran that reads, “Prepare any strength you can muster against <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>and</strong> any<br />
cavalry with which you can overawe God’s enemy <strong>and</strong> your own enemy as well, plus o<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
besides <strong>the</strong>m whom you do not know.” 124<br />
March 2007<br />
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: “The Iranian nation needs nuclear energy <strong>for</strong> life, not weapons.”—Insist-<br />
ing that Iran’s commitment to uranium enrichment was born out of a desire to harness nuclear<br />
technology <strong>for</strong> peaceful purposes; <strong>the</strong> use of nuclear weapons would violate <strong>Islam</strong>ic law. 125<br />
June 2008<br />
Iran’s supreme leader said that “no wise nation” would pursue nuclear weapons but his<br />
country will continue to develop its nuclear program <strong>for</strong> peaceful purposes. Ayatollah Ali<br />
Khamenei appeared to be reacting to suggestions by <strong>the</strong> <strong>International</strong> Atomic Energy Agency<br />
that Tehran may be withholding in<strong>for</strong>mation on secret attempts to make nuclear weapons.<br />
“Iran is after <strong>the</strong> peaceful use of nuclear energy <strong>and</strong> we will strongly pursue <strong>and</strong> reach it<br />
despite <strong>the</strong> envy of our enemies,” Khamenei said at a ceremony honoring <strong>the</strong> founder of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Islam</strong>ic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.<br />
He also warned against nuclear terrorism, saying that one day “world terrorists could attain<br />
nuclear weapons <strong>and</strong> take peace away from all <strong>the</strong> people in <strong>the</strong> world.” 126<br />
March 2009<br />
Iran’s <strong>for</strong>mer president, Mohammed Khatami, dismissed as a “satanic conspiracy” claims<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic republic was secretly developing nuclear weapons during a wide-ranging ad-<br />
dress in Australia. 127<br />
September 2009<br />
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini stated that <strong>the</strong> US <strong>and</strong> its allies: “…falsely<br />
60 <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
accuse <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic republic of producing nuclear weapons. We fundamentally reject nuclear<br />
weapons <strong>and</strong> prohibit <strong>the</strong> production <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> use of nuclear weapons… They know <strong>the</strong>m-<br />
selves that it’s not true... but it is part of Iran-phobia policy that controls <strong>the</strong> behavior of <strong>the</strong>se<br />
arrogant governments today.” 128<br />
October 2009<br />
Gr<strong>and</strong> Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri offered <strong>the</strong> following fatwa: “In light of <strong>the</strong><br />
scope of death <strong>and</strong> destruction <strong>the</strong>y bring, <strong>and</strong> in light of <strong>the</strong> fact that such weapons<br />
cannot be used solely against an army of aggression but will invariably sacrifice <strong>the</strong> lives<br />
of innocent people, even if <strong>the</strong>se innocent lives are those of future generations nuclear<br />
weapons are not permitted according to reason or Sharia. Anyway, humanity, particu-<br />
larly Muslims who follow <strong>the</strong> Sharia of <strong>the</strong> Seal of Prophets, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Prophet, Praise be<br />
Upon Him, must take <strong>the</strong> lead in banning legally <strong>and</strong> practically all such weapons <strong>for</strong> all<br />
countries <strong>and</strong> in soliciting <strong>the</strong> help of respectable <strong>and</strong> dependable international organi-<br />
zations in guaranteeing such ban.” 129<br />
February 2010<br />
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei asserted claim that <strong>Islam</strong> is “opposed to nuclear weapons,” insisting that<br />
Tehran is not trying to build <strong>the</strong>m. Iran’s ambassador to <strong>the</strong> <strong>International</strong> Atomic Energy Agency<br />
is also calling a leaked report that Tehran is working to build a nuclear warhead baseless.<br />
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued <strong>the</strong> fatwa against nuclear weapons while addressing a crowd<br />
of military comm<strong>and</strong>ers after a ship-inaugurating ceremony.<br />
“<strong>Islam</strong> is opposed to nuclear weapons <strong>and</strong> that Tehran is not working to build<br />
<strong>the</strong>m…We have said time <strong>and</strong> again that our religious beliefs <strong>and</strong> fundamentals<br />
consider nuclear weapons as a symbol of annihilation of generations, thus our<br />
religion <strong>for</strong>bids <strong>the</strong>m. Accordingly we do not believe in acquiring nuclear arms.” 130<br />
The threadbare <strong>and</strong> vain claims that nuclear arms are being made in Iran<br />
indicate that enemies of <strong>the</strong> nation have resorted to repetition even in <strong>the</strong> field of<br />
propag<strong>and</strong>a out of extreme helplessness. 131<br />
“In response to such vain claims, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic Republic of Iran will not fall into<br />
emotions because we have repeatedly said that our religious ideas <strong>and</strong> beliefs<br />
consider such weapons, which are <strong>the</strong> symbols of mankind degeneration, <strong>for</strong>bidden<br />
<strong>and</strong> “Haram” (religiously prohibited).” 132<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 61
Comment: For additional in<strong>for</strong>mation, see “Supreme Leader: Iran has no belief in atom<br />
bombs” 133 <strong>and</strong> “Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei Says <strong>Islam</strong> Opposes Nuclear Weapons” 134<br />
April 2010<br />
Iran’s permanent envoy to <strong>the</strong> UN, Mohammad Khazaee, announced that Supreme Leader<br />
Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, in a message to <strong>the</strong> Tehran conference on April 17, declared:<br />
“Iran regards utilizing nuclear weapons as haram (<strong>for</strong>bidden is <strong>Islam</strong>) <strong>and</strong> it is incumbent on<br />
everyone to safeguard humanity from such weapons.” 135<br />
Hezbollah leader Sayyed Nasrallah stressed that <strong>the</strong> resistance party, “has <strong>the</strong> right to possess<br />
any weapon, but its policy implies that it abstains from denying or confirming any in<strong>for</strong>ma-<br />
tion about <strong>the</strong> type of weapons it has; <strong>and</strong> if someone announced that Hezbollah has nuclear<br />
weapons, Hezbollah would not deny that.” 136<br />
June 2010<br />
Nuclear weapons are haram (prohibited) according to <strong>the</strong> laws of <strong>Islam</strong>, a private television<br />
channel quoted Iran’s Ambassador to Pakistan Mashallah Shakiri. 137<br />
July 2010<br />
Ali Larijani, in Switzerl<strong>and</strong> to attend <strong>the</strong> 3rd World Conference of <strong>the</strong> Speakers of Parliament,<br />
stated: “Producing nuclear weapons has no place in Iran’s defense doctrine <strong>and</strong> like all NPT<br />
(Non-Proliferation Treaty) members Iran has a right to use <strong>the</strong> peaceful nuclear energy.” 138<br />
62 <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 63
APPENDICES<br />
Appendix A – Background on The Quran<br />
The book of <strong>Islam</strong>ic revelation; scripture. The term means “recitation.” The<br />
Quran is believed to be <strong>the</strong> word of God transmitted through <strong>the</strong> Prophet<br />
Muhammad. The Quran proclaims God’s existence <strong>and</strong> will <strong>and</strong> is <strong>the</strong> ulti-<br />
mate source of religious knowledge <strong>for</strong> Muslims. The Quran serves as both<br />
record <strong>and</strong> guide <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslim community, transcending time <strong>and</strong> space.<br />
Muslims have dedicated <strong>the</strong>ir best minds <strong>and</strong> talents to <strong>the</strong> exegesis <strong>and</strong> reci-<br />
tation of <strong>the</strong> Quran. Because <strong>the</strong> Quran is <strong>the</strong> criterion by which everything<br />
else is to be judged, all movements, whe<strong>the</strong>r of radical re<strong>for</strong>m or of moderate<br />
change, whe<strong>the</strong>r originating at <strong>the</strong> center or at <strong>the</strong> periphery of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic<br />
world, have grounded <strong>the</strong>ir programs in <strong>the</strong> Quran <strong>and</strong> used it as a support.<br />
Revelation of <strong>the</strong> Quran to Muhammad began in 610 with <strong>the</strong> first five verses<br />
of surah 96. No fur<strong>the</strong>r revelations followed <strong>for</strong> a period of up to two years,<br />
at which point Muhammad received reassurance that <strong>the</strong> revelation was from<br />
God, not <strong>the</strong> devil. Thereafter, revelation continued without interruption<br />
until his death in 632 , at which time <strong>the</strong> Quran was considered complete.<br />
Partial collections of <strong>the</strong> Quran were made during Muhammad’s lifetime<br />
by his wives, companions, <strong>and</strong> scribes. The final, authoritative version was<br />
completed <strong>and</strong> fixed under <strong>the</strong> direction of <strong>the</strong> third caliph, Uthman, within<br />
twenty years after Muhammad’s death. The Quran consists of 114 surahs<br />
(chapters), varying in length from 3 to 286 ayat (verses). Surahs are arranged<br />
by length, with <strong>the</strong> latest <strong>and</strong> longest surahs at <strong>the</strong> beginning <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> earli-<br />
est <strong>and</strong> shortest surahs at <strong>the</strong> end. Very early commentators classified <strong>the</strong>se<br />
chapters into Meccan surahs (received while Muhammad lived in Mecca) <strong>and</strong><br />
Medinan surahs (received after <strong>the</strong> hijrah, when Muhammad <strong>and</strong> his follow-<br />
ers moved to Medina).<br />
The fundamental message of <strong>the</strong> Quran may be summarized in <strong>the</strong> term taw-<br />
hid, <strong>the</strong> oneness of God. Both men <strong>and</strong> women are held to be rational <strong>and</strong><br />
ethically responsible creatures whose duty is to submit to <strong>the</strong> divine truth ex-<br />
pressed in revelation. This act separates <strong>Islam</strong>, surrender <strong>and</strong> submission to<br />
<strong>the</strong> one God, from kufr, disbelief. Men <strong>and</strong> women who trust in God <strong>and</strong> live<br />
moral lives in thought, word, <strong>and</strong> deed become God’s stewards, responsible
<strong>for</strong> caring <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> rest of God’s creatures on earth. The society composed of such witnesses to<br />
<strong>the</strong> truth appears in history as <strong>the</strong> community created by Muhammad <strong>and</strong> his Companions<br />
in Medina in 622 –32. 139<br />
Hadith<br />
Report of <strong>the</strong> words <strong>and</strong> deeds of Muhammad <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r early Muslims; considered an<br />
authoritative source of revelation, second only to <strong>the</strong> Quran (sometimes referred to as say-<br />
ings of <strong>the</strong> Prophet). Hadith (pl. ahadith; hadith is used as a singular or a collective term in<br />
English) were collected, transmitted, <strong>and</strong> taught orally <strong>for</strong> two centuries after Muhammad’s<br />
death <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>n began to be collected in written <strong>for</strong>m <strong>and</strong> codified. They serve as a source of<br />
biographical material <strong>for</strong> Muhammad, contextualization of Quranic revelations, <strong>and</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic<br />
law. A list of authoritative transmitters is usually included in collections. Compilers were<br />
careful to record hadith exactly as received from recognized transmission specialists. The six<br />
most authoritative collections are those of al-Bukhari, Muslim, al-Tirmidhi, Abu Daud al-<br />
Sijistani, al-Nasai, <strong>and</strong> al-Qazwini. The collections of Malik ibn Anas <strong>and</strong> Ahmad ibn Hanbal<br />
are also important. Shiis also use <strong>the</strong>se collections but recognize only some Companions as<br />
valid authorities; <strong>the</strong>y consider hadith reports from descendants of Muhammad through Ali<br />
<strong>and</strong> Fatimah as fully authoritative. O<strong>the</strong>r important Shii collections are those of al-Kulayni,<br />
al-Qummi, <strong>and</strong> al-Tusi. The science of hadith criticism was developed to determine au<strong>the</strong>n-<br />
ticity <strong>and</strong> preserve <strong>the</strong> corpus from alteration or fabrication. Chains of authority <strong>and</strong> trans-<br />
mission were verified as far back as possible, often to Muhammad himself. Chains of trans-<br />
mission were assessed by <strong>the</strong> number <strong>and</strong> credibility of <strong>the</strong> transmitters <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> continuity<br />
of <strong>the</strong> chains (isnad). The nature of <strong>the</strong> text was also examined. Reports that were illogical,<br />
exaggerated, fantastic, or repulsive or that contradicted <strong>the</strong> Quran were considered suspect.<br />
Awareness of fabrication <strong>and</strong> false teaching has long existed but became a major issue in<br />
academic circles in <strong>the</strong> twentieth century due to early reliance on oral, ra<strong>the</strong>r than written,<br />
transmission. Traditionally, <strong>the</strong> body of au<strong>the</strong>ntic hadith reports is considered to embody<br />
<strong>the</strong> Sunnah of <strong>the</strong> Prophet Muhammad. Muslim re<strong>for</strong>mers encourage Muslims to be more<br />
discerning in acceptance of hadith. 140<br />
Sunnah<br />
Established custom, normative precedent, conduct, <strong>and</strong> cumulative tradition, typically based<br />
on Muhammad’s example. The actions <strong>and</strong> sayings of Muhammad are believed to comple-<br />
ment <strong>the</strong> divinely revealed message of <strong>the</strong> Quran, constituting a source <strong>for</strong> establishing<br />
norms <strong>for</strong> Muslim conduct <strong>and</strong> making it a primary source of <strong>Islam</strong>ic law. In <strong>the</strong> legal field,<br />
Sunnah complements <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>s alongside <strong>the</strong> Quran, giving precision to its precepts. Sun-<br />
nah encompasses knowledge believed to have been passed down from previous generations<br />
<strong>and</strong> representing an authoritative, valued, <strong>and</strong> continuing corpus of beliefs <strong>and</strong> customs.<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 65
66<br />
Early Muslim scholars developed <strong>and</strong> elaborated <strong>the</strong> concept of Prophetic Sunnah in order<br />
to capture as complete a picture of Muhammad’s exemplary life as <strong>the</strong>y could au<strong>the</strong>nticate<br />
on <strong>the</strong> basis of hadith reports. The quest to memorialize Muhammad’s life <strong>and</strong> ground it in<br />
historically verifiable process led to <strong>the</strong> biographical tradition known as sirah. This litera-<br />
ture in<strong>for</strong>med <strong>and</strong> inspired Muslim communities’ interpretations of <strong>Islam</strong> as <strong>the</strong>y sought to<br />
ground <strong>the</strong>ir own juridical, doctrinal, <strong>and</strong> historical identities in what <strong>the</strong>y perceived to be<br />
normative Sunnah. Sunnah serves as a common template <strong>for</strong> Muslim groups <strong>and</strong> individu-<br />
als, permitting <strong>the</strong>m to represent a connection with <strong>the</strong> beginnings of <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> acting as a<br />
common referent in <strong>the</strong> religious discourse of community <strong>for</strong>mation <strong>and</strong> identity. It fosters<br />
self-identity <strong>and</strong> enhances <strong>the</strong> private moral lives of Muslims. 141<br />
Sunni <strong>Islam</strong><br />
The Sunnis are <strong>the</strong> largest branch of <strong>the</strong> Muslim community, at least 85 percent of <strong>the</strong> world’s<br />
1.2 billion Muslims. The name is derived from <strong>the</strong> Sunnah, <strong>the</strong> exemplary behavior of <strong>the</strong><br />
Prophet Muhammad. All Muslims are guided by <strong>the</strong> Sunnah, but Sunnis stress it, as well as<br />
consensus (ijma; <strong>the</strong> full name of Sunnis is Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Ijma, people of <strong>the</strong> Sunnah<br />
<strong>and</strong> consensus). The o<strong>the</strong>r branch of <strong>Islam</strong>, <strong>the</strong> Shiis, are guided as well by <strong>the</strong> wisdom of<br />
Muhammad’s descendants, but through his son-in-law Ali.<br />
Sunni life is guided by four schools of legal thought—Hanafi, Maliki, Shafii, <strong>and</strong> Hanbali—each<br />
of which strives to develop practical applications of revelation <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Prophet’s example.<br />
Although Sunni <strong>Islam</strong> comprises a variety of <strong>the</strong>ological <strong>and</strong> legal schools, attitudes, <strong>and</strong><br />
outlooks conditioned by historical setting, locale, <strong>and</strong> culture, Sunnis around <strong>the</strong> world share<br />
some common points: acceptance of <strong>the</strong> legitimacy of <strong>the</strong> first four successors of Muhammad<br />
(Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, <strong>and</strong> Ali), <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> belief that o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Islam</strong>ic sects have introduced<br />
innovations (bidah), departing from majority belief.<br />
Sunni <strong>Islam</strong>ic institutions developed out of struggles in early <strong>Islam</strong> over leadership of <strong>the</strong><br />
Muslim community. Political <strong>and</strong> religious positions, articulated by scholars, arose out of<br />
disputes over <strong>the</strong> definition of “true” belief, <strong>the</strong> status of those who profess <strong>Islam</strong> but commit<br />
a great sin, freedom, <strong>and</strong> determinism. Sunnis tend to reject excessive rationalism or intel-<br />
lectualism, focusing instead on <strong>the</strong> spirit <strong>and</strong> intent of <strong>the</strong> Quran.<br />
Re<strong>for</strong>m movements within Sunni <strong>Islam</strong> began to appear during <strong>the</strong> eighteenth century in<br />
<strong>the</strong> works of scholars seeking to revive <strong>the</strong> dynamism of <strong>Islam</strong>ic thought <strong>and</strong> life in order<br />
to meet <strong>the</strong> dem<strong>and</strong>s of <strong>the</strong> modern world. These movements gained momentum with <strong>the</strong><br />
imposition of European colonial control throughout <strong>the</strong> Muslim world. The nineteenth <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
twentieth centuries witnessed <strong>the</strong> revival of Quranic studies as well as renewed commitment<br />
to science <strong>and</strong> education as <strong>the</strong> path to independence <strong>and</strong> development within <strong>the</strong> context of<br />
<strong>Islam</strong>ic values <strong>and</strong> identity. Sunni thought of <strong>the</strong> eighteenth through twentieth centuries has<br />
also reexamined traditional <strong>Islam</strong>ic law. Many modern re<strong>for</strong>mers believe that fiqh (juris-<br />
prudence), as a human interpretation of divine law, should be open to reinterpretation in<br />
accordance with present circumstances <strong>and</strong> community needs. Almost all twentieth-century<br />
Muslim countries are debating <strong>the</strong> role of <strong>Islam</strong>ic law <strong>and</strong> civil codes in modern society <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> implications <strong>for</strong> constitutional law <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> organization of <strong>the</strong> state.<br />
Many <strong>Islam</strong>ic thinkers reject <strong>the</strong> notion that <strong>Islam</strong> requires a particular <strong>for</strong>m of state <strong>and</strong><br />
government, looking instead to Quranic principles such as shura (consultation) <strong>for</strong> guid-<br />
ance. Some believe that religion <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> state are intended to be separate entities, while<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rs, such as <strong>the</strong> Muslim Bro<strong>the</strong>rhood <strong>and</strong> Jamaat-i <strong>Islam</strong>i, believe that an <strong>Islam</strong>ic state is<br />
necessary to <strong>the</strong> development of an <strong>Islam</strong>ic social order. Many thinkers have studied in <strong>the</strong><br />
West <strong>and</strong> are open to dialogue with <strong>the</strong> West <strong>and</strong> commitment to a common struggle <strong>for</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> causes of humanity. They have examined <strong>the</strong> impact of European imperialism, Western<br />
neocolonialism, exploitation by socialist-bloc countries, <strong>the</strong> Cold War, <strong>the</strong> displacement<br />
of Palestinians, <strong>the</strong> lack of democracy in <strong>the</strong> Muslim world, <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r crisis factors. Most<br />
Muslim thinkers today stress <strong>the</strong> importance of justice, especially social justice, in <strong>Islam</strong>.<br />
A Universal <strong>Islam</strong>ic Declaration of Human Rights has been propounded, next to that of<br />
<strong>the</strong> United Nations. Increasing attention is also being given to subjects such as women <strong>and</strong><br />
gender, <strong>the</strong> family, religious freedom, pluralism, <strong>the</strong> status of minorities, <strong>and</strong> religious tol-<br />
erance. <strong>Islam</strong> is increasingly emphasized as a total way of life, encompassing both religious<br />
<strong>and</strong> worldly issues. Human beings are seen as God’s stewards on earth, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslim<br />
community is intended to reflect God’s will. In this view, secularism is often rejected as<br />
being anti<strong>the</strong>tical to religious values. Instead, <strong>Islam</strong> is presented as perfectly suited <strong>for</strong> hu-<br />
man society, individually <strong>and</strong> collectively. 142<br />
Shia <strong>Islam</strong><br />
Shii Muslims, <strong>the</strong> followers or party of Ali , believe that Muhammad ‘s religious leadership,<br />
spiritual authority, <strong>and</strong> divine guidance were passed on to his descendants, beginning with<br />
his son-in-law <strong>and</strong> cousin, Ali ibn Abi Talib, his daughter, Fatimah , <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir sons, Hasan<br />
<strong>and</strong> Husayn . The defining event of Shiism was <strong>the</strong> martyrdom of Husayn, his male family<br />
members, <strong>and</strong> many companions at Karbala (Iraq) in 681 by <strong>the</strong> Umayyads, granting an ele-<br />
ment of passion <strong>and</strong> pathos to Shiism.<br />
There are three main branches of Shiis today: <strong>the</strong> Zaydis, <strong>the</strong> Ismailis (Seveners), <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ith-<br />
na Asharis (Twelvers or Imamis). The Zaydis (followers of Zayd ibn Ali ibn al-Husayn) are<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 67
68<br />
located in Yemen, Iraq, <strong>and</strong> parts of Africa. They represent <strong>the</strong> activist groups who believe<br />
that <strong>the</strong> imam ought to fight <strong>for</strong> his rights <strong>and</strong> be a ruler of state. The Ismailis (Seveners) are<br />
named after <strong>the</strong> seventh imam, Ismail. They founded <strong>the</strong> Fatimid Empire (909–1171) <strong>and</strong><br />
represent esoteric Shiism. The Ithna Asharis (Twelvers or Imamis) are <strong>the</strong> largest <strong>and</strong> most<br />
moderate group. They believe in twelve imams, beginning with Ali <strong>and</strong> ending with Muham-<br />
mad al-Mahdi, who went into occultation <strong>and</strong> is expected to return at <strong>the</strong> end of time as <strong>the</strong><br />
messianic imam who will restore justice <strong>and</strong> equity on earth. He is <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e referred to as<br />
<strong>the</strong> imam al-muntazar, <strong>the</strong> expected or awaited imam.<br />
Shii political thought entered its modern phase during <strong>the</strong> Iranian Constitutional Revolution<br />
of 1905–11, when Shiis were divided between <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>ces of constitutionalism, modernism,<br />
reason, <strong>and</strong> secularism, on one h<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> more traditional interpretations of faith, religious<br />
law, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> role of clerics, on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r. The clerical establishment ultimately joined with<br />
secular revolutionaries in opposing European colonialism. By <strong>the</strong> 1940s <strong>and</strong> 1950s Shii<br />
political thought was addressing issues such as Communism <strong>and</strong> nationalism, often present-<br />
ing Shiism as an alternative. During <strong>the</strong> 1960s <strong>the</strong> institutional bases <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> propagation of<br />
modern Shii political thought were <strong>for</strong>med through Quranic schools <strong>and</strong> voluntary associa-<br />
tions of Muslim university students <strong>and</strong> professionals. In<strong>for</strong>mal ga<strong>the</strong>rings led by clerics<br />
<strong>and</strong> intellectuals also promoted Shii political mobilization. The most important event of <strong>the</strong><br />
1960s was <strong>the</strong> 1963 uprising led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (d. 1989), who called <strong>for</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> ouster of <strong>the</strong> shah.<br />
The most effective ideologue of modern Shiism was Ali Shariati (d. 1977). In <strong>the</strong> late 1960s<br />
<strong>and</strong> 1970s Shariati combined <strong>Islam</strong> with Third Worldism <strong>and</strong> revolution into an activist po-<br />
litical ideology. He identified Western imperialism, cultural colonialism, social injustice, <strong>and</strong><br />
political repression as <strong>the</strong> greatest contemporary challenges. In contrast to <strong>the</strong> passive, suf-<br />
fering role typically assumed by Shiis, Shariati cast Shiism as activist, radical, revolutionary,<br />
classless, <strong>and</strong> opposed to tyranny <strong>and</strong> repression. Shariati inspired <strong>the</strong> Iranian clerics Ayatol-<br />
lah Khomeini , who emerged at <strong>the</strong> head of <strong>the</strong> Iranian <strong>Islam</strong>ic revolution, <strong>and</strong> Imam Musa<br />
al-Sadr (d. 1978), who encouraged <strong>the</strong> Shiis of Lebanon to take an activist role in struggling<br />
<strong>for</strong> better socioeconomic conditions <strong>and</strong> political representation.<br />
Khomeini was <strong>the</strong> most rhetorically successful revolutionary Shii. Opposed to <strong>the</strong> increas-<br />
ing secularization of Pahlavi society <strong>and</strong> American domination of Iranian political, social,<br />
economic, <strong>and</strong> cultural life, Khomeini introduced <strong>the</strong> principle of vilayat-i faqih as <strong>the</strong><br />
foundation <strong>for</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic government. According to this principle, in <strong>the</strong> absence of an imam,<br />
<strong>the</strong> leadership of Muslim nations is to be entrusted to Shii jurists, who are to rule by virtue of<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir knowledge of sacred law <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir ability to regulate <strong>the</strong> daily affairs of Muslims. The<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
esultant <strong>Islam</strong>ic revolution of 1979 <strong>and</strong> constitution of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic Republic of Iran represent<br />
<strong>the</strong> ideological institutionalization of modern Shii political ideas. In <strong>the</strong> post-revolutionary<br />
period, such re<strong>for</strong>mist thinkers as Abd al-Karim Soroush have tried to move ideological<br />
debates beyond factionalism toward serious engagement of <strong>the</strong> consequences of <strong>the</strong> success<br />
of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic revolution. 143<br />
Takfir<br />
Pronouncement that someone is an unbeliever (kafir) <strong>and</strong> no longer Muslim. Takfir is used<br />
in <strong>the</strong> modern era <strong>for</strong> sanctioning violence against leaders of <strong>Islam</strong>ic states who are deemed<br />
insufficiently religious. It has become a central ideology of militant groups such as those<br />
in Egypt, which reflect <strong>the</strong> ideas of Sayyid Qutb, Mawdudi, Ibn Taymiyyah, <strong>and</strong> Ibn Kathir.<br />
Mainstream Muslims <strong>and</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ist groups reject <strong>the</strong> concept as a doctrinal deviation. Lead-<br />
ers such as Hasan al-Hudaybi (d. 1977) <strong>and</strong> Yusuf al-Qaradawi reject takfir as un-<strong>Islam</strong>ic <strong>and</strong><br />
marked by bigotry <strong>and</strong> zealotry. 144<br />
Fatwa<br />
Authoritative legal opinion given by a mufti (legal scholar) in response to a question posed<br />
by an individual or a court of law. A fatwa is typically requested in cases not covered by <strong>the</strong><br />
fiqh literature <strong>and</strong> is nei<strong>the</strong>r binding nor en<strong>for</strong>ceable. Its authority is based on <strong>the</strong> mufti’s<br />
education <strong>and</strong> status within <strong>the</strong> community. If <strong>the</strong> inquirer is not persuaded by <strong>the</strong> fatwa,<br />
he is free to go to ano<strong>the</strong>r mufti <strong>and</strong> obtain ano<strong>the</strong>r opinion; but once he finds a convincing<br />
opinion, he should obey it. Theoretically, muftis should be capable of exercising legal reason-<br />
ing independently of schools of law (ijtihad), although followers of tradition (muqallids) are<br />
also allowed to issue fatwas. Historically, fatwas were independent of <strong>the</strong> judicial system,<br />
although some muftis were officially attached to various courts. In <strong>the</strong> Ottoman <strong>and</strong> Mughal<br />
political systems, <strong>the</strong> chief mufti was designated shaykh al-<strong>Islam</strong>. O<strong>the</strong>r muftis were appoint-<br />
ed to positions as market inspectors, guardians of public morals, <strong>and</strong> advisers to government<br />
on religious affairs. Under colonial rule, madrasas took over <strong>the</strong> role of religious guides, <strong>and</strong><br />
special institutions were established to issue fatwas. In modern times, print <strong>and</strong> electronic<br />
media have rein<strong>for</strong>ced <strong>the</strong> role <strong>and</strong> impact of fatwas by making <strong>the</strong>m instantly available to<br />
<strong>the</strong> public. Present-day Muslim states have tried to control fatwas through official consulta-<br />
tive/advisory organizations within religious ministries. 145<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 69
70<br />
Appendix B: Al-Qaeda Nuclear Players<br />
Name: Sayf al Aadl<br />
Title: Al-Qaeda Chief of<br />
Operations<br />
Nationality: Egyptian<br />
Status (2010): Unknown -<br />
reportedly in Iran<br />
Name: Abu Bakr<br />
(al-Ghamdi)<br />
Title: Al-Qaeda Chief in<br />
Saudi Arabia<br />
Nationality: Saudi<br />
Status (2010): Surrendered to<br />
Saudis - in custody<br />
Name: Abu Khabab<br />
Title: CBRN expert,<br />
headed al-Qaeda nuclear<br />
ef<strong>for</strong>ts 2003-2008<br />
Nationality: Egyptian<br />
Status (2010): Killed July 28, 2008<br />
Name: Osama bin Laden<br />
Title: Head of Al-Qaeda<br />
Nationality: Saudi<br />
Status (2010): Unknown<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons<br />
Name: Bahsiruddin<br />
Mahmood<br />
Title: Associate of Al-<br />
Qaeda/Headed UTN<br />
Nationality: Pakistani<br />
Status (2010): Lives in <strong>Islam</strong>abad,<br />
cannot leave Pakistan<br />
Name: Abd al Aziz<br />
al-Masri<br />
Title: Al-Qaeda nuclear<br />
CEO<br />
Nationality: Egyptian<br />
Status (2010): Unknown; as of<br />
2005, reportedly in Iran<br />
Name: Abu Hamza<br />
al-Muhajir<br />
Title: Senior aide to<br />
Zarqawi<br />
Nationality: Egyptian<br />
Status (2010): Killed by Iraqi <strong>and</strong><br />
US <strong>for</strong>ces in Iraq<br />
Name: Abdul Majid<br />
Title: UTN principal,<br />
Nuclear engineer<br />
Nationality: Pakistani<br />
Status (2010): In Pakistan
Name: Abu Musan<br />
al-Suri aka Mustafa<br />
Sitmaryam<br />
Title: Member of Al-Qaeda;<br />
proficient writer<br />
Nationality: Syrian<br />
Status (2010): US claims in<br />
custody- location classified<br />
Name: Ayman<br />
al-Zawahiri<br />
Title: Operational <strong>and</strong><br />
strategic comm<strong>and</strong>er of Al-Qaeda<br />
Nationality: Egyptian<br />
Status (2010): Unknown<br />
Name: General<br />
Hamid Gul<br />
Title: Former Chief of<br />
Pakistani Intelligence, on<br />
UTN board<br />
Nationality: Pakistani<br />
Status (2010): In Pakistan<br />
Name: SulaymanAbu<br />
Ghayth al-Libi<br />
Title: Al-Qaeda Press Chief<br />
Nationality: Libyan<br />
Status (2010): Unknown -<br />
reportedly in Iran<br />
Name: Adnan<br />
el-Shkurijumah<br />
aka Jaffar al-Tayyar (“<strong>the</strong><br />
Pilot”)<br />
Title: Cased US targets be<strong>for</strong>e<br />
9/11- of nuclear interest<br />
Nationality: Saudi<br />
Status (2010): External operations<br />
chief, located in Pakistan/<br />
Afghanistan<br />
Name: Abu Rida<br />
al-Suri aka Mohammed<br />
Luay Bayazid<br />
Title: Nuclear physicist, al-Qaeda<br />
inner circle<br />
Nationality: Syrian<br />
Status (2010): In Sudan<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 71
Appendix C: Events from 2003–2010 - Nuclear Timeline Update *<br />
(*Nuclear-related supplement to 2009 Al-Qaeda WMD Threat: Hype or Reality?)<br />
Note: Although <strong>the</strong>se events do not relate specifically to <strong>the</strong> story line of al-Qaeda leadership’s justi-<br />
fication of nuclear terrorism, <strong>the</strong>y help contextualize bin Laden <strong>and</strong> Zawahiri’s thinking over time.<br />
March 2003<br />
Khaled Shaykh Muhammed captured in Pakistan. Confirms existence of al-Qaeda’s nuclear<br />
program. Provides in<strong>for</strong>mation on key operatives involved. 146<br />
Late October 2005<br />
Capture of Abu Musab al Suri aka Mustafa Sitmaryam. In December 2004, he published <strong>the</strong><br />
manuscript, ‘‘The <strong>International</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic Resistance Call.” 147 In this 1,600-page global jihadi<br />
blueprint <strong>and</strong> in his ‘‘Letter of Reply to <strong>the</strong> U.S. State Department,’’ al-Suri enthusiastically ar-<br />
gues that weapons of mass destruction should be used against <strong>the</strong> United States <strong>and</strong> criticizes<br />
Osama bin Laden <strong>for</strong> not using weapons of mass destruction in <strong>the</strong> 9/11 attacks. He states:<br />
‘‘If I were consulted in <strong>the</strong> case of that operation I would advise <strong>the</strong> use of planes in<br />
flights from outside <strong>the</strong> U.S. that would carry WMD. Hitting <strong>the</strong> U.S. with WMD<br />
was <strong>and</strong> is still very complicated. Yet, it is possible after all, with Allah’s help, <strong>and</strong><br />
more important than being possible—it is vital.” 148<br />
‘‘The ultimate choice is <strong>the</strong> destruction of <strong>the</strong> United States by operations of<br />
strategic symmetry through weapons of mass destruction, namely nuclear,<br />
chemical, or biological means, if <strong>the</strong> Muhajidin can achieve it with <strong>the</strong> help of those<br />
who possess <strong>the</strong>m or through buying <strong>the</strong>m.’’ 149<br />
He argues that acquiring WMD should be a <strong>for</strong>emost priority of <strong>the</strong> global jihadi commu-<br />
nity <strong>and</strong> is more important than attacking American troops in Iraq. Al-Suri calls on <strong>the</strong><br />
militants to create special elite squads that would carry out strategic operations <strong>and</strong> should<br />
consist of highly trained operatives who possess advanced WMD knowledge <strong>and</strong> receive<br />
ample financial support, ‘‘when <strong>the</strong>re is a need to counter attack or to achieve strategic sym-<br />
metry with <strong>the</strong> United States.” 150<br />
October 10, 2006<br />
Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, called <strong>for</strong> nuclear scientists <strong>and</strong><br />
72 <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
explosive experts to help his organization in making biological <strong>and</strong> radioactive weapons.<br />
That same year, British citizen Dhiren Barot pleaded guilty to conspiring to detonate a radio-<br />
active dirty bomb. He planned to target underground parking garages in <strong>the</strong> U.K. <strong>and</strong> U.S.<br />
institutions such as <strong>the</strong> <strong>International</strong> Monetary Fund, <strong>the</strong> World Bank, <strong>the</strong> New York Stock<br />
Exchange, <strong>and</strong> offices belonging to Citigroup <strong>and</strong> Prudential Financial. 151<br />
January 18 2006<br />
Predator strike—Abu Khabab is killed. At <strong>the</strong> time of his death, Abu Khabab was report-<br />
edly continuing his decade long ef<strong>for</strong>t to develop chemical, biological <strong>and</strong> nuclear weapons<br />
<strong>for</strong> al-Qaeda. 152<br />
November 27, 2008<br />
Zawahiri interview. Many of <strong>the</strong> questions dealt with Egypt, <strong>the</strong> history of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic Group<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Al Jihad Group, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> political situation in that country. Some of his responses<br />
were quite cryptic; responding to <strong>the</strong> question when will <strong>the</strong>re be a wing of <strong>the</strong> organization<br />
in Egypt? Zawahiri said: “<strong>the</strong> days will reveal to you what you didn’t know, And news will<br />
come to you from those who didn’t have it” 153<br />
July 23, 2009<br />
Bashiruddin Mahmud strongly endorses Pakistan’s nuclear program in a wide ranging inter-<br />
view. The <strong>for</strong>mer UTN chief, who has been under a <strong>for</strong>m of house arrest <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r restrictions<br />
<strong>for</strong> years, asserted that nuclear weapons belong to <strong>the</strong> whole “ummah” (<strong>Islam</strong>ic community). 154<br />
Mahmood, who held a fireside chat with Osama bin Laden to discuss <strong>the</strong> al-Qaeda leaders<br />
interest in nuclear weapons be<strong>for</strong>e 9/11, may have been motivated to assist terrorists in ob-<br />
taining a bomb because he shared <strong>the</strong>ir goal of fulfilling <strong>Islam</strong>ic prophecy, as he sees it. In his<br />
writings, he predicts that <strong>the</strong> period from 2007 to 2014 would be of great turmoil <strong>and</strong> destruc-<br />
tion in <strong>the</strong> world: “At <strong>the</strong> international level, terrorism will rule; <strong>and</strong> in this scenario use of mass<br />
destruction weapons cannot be ruled out. Millions, by 2002, may die through mass destruction<br />
weapons, hunger, disease, street violence, terrorist attacks, <strong>and</strong> suicide.” 155<br />
Mahmood has advocated sharing Pakistan’s nuclear weapons technology with o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Islam</strong>ic<br />
nations which he believed would give rise to Muslim dominance in <strong>the</strong> world.<br />
He is fascinated “with <strong>the</strong> role sunspots played in triggering <strong>the</strong> French <strong>and</strong> Russian Revolu-<br />
tions, World War II <strong>and</strong> assorted anti-colonial uprisings.”<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 73
In his book “Cosmology <strong>and</strong> Human Destiny” Mahmood argued that sunspots have influenced<br />
major human events, including <strong>the</strong> French Revolution, <strong>the</strong> Russian Revolution, <strong>and</strong> World War<br />
II. He asserted that governments across <strong>the</strong> world “are already being subjected to great emo-<br />
tional aggression under <strong>the</strong> catalytic effect of <strong>the</strong> abnormally high sunspot activity under which<br />
<strong>the</strong>y are most likely to adapt aggression as <strong>the</strong> natural solution <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir problems.” 156<br />
July 15, 2009<br />
Ayman Zawahiri warned in an audio message that <strong>the</strong> US intends to seize Pakistan’s<br />
nuclear arsenal. Zawahiri implied that Pakistani insiders at nuclear facilities should choose<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir loyalties carefully. 157<br />
July 2010<br />
Adnan el-Shukrijumah, an American citizen on <strong>the</strong> FBI’s most-wanted list <strong>for</strong> his unresolved<br />
WMD <strong>and</strong> possible 9/11-related connections, was named as an accomplice in <strong>the</strong> New York<br />
subway bomb plot with Najibullah Zazi. 158 Shukrijumah is reportedly named chief of ex-<br />
ternal operations <strong>for</strong> al-Qaeda, giving him responsibility <strong>for</strong> coordinating attacks against<br />
western interests, including in <strong>the</strong> US.<br />
74 <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
Appendix D: Excerpts of Gr<strong>and</strong> Mufti Gomaa’s anti-WMD fatwa<br />
Recently, various sects <strong>and</strong> groups issued several publications asserting <strong>the</strong> permissibility of<br />
using weapons of mass destruction against non-<strong>Islam</strong>ic countries claiming that <strong>the</strong>ir allega-<br />
tions con<strong>for</strong>m to <strong>Islam</strong>ic law. They substantiate <strong>the</strong>ir claims with proof from some juristic<br />
texts, <strong>and</strong> on analogy to turs [En. human shield], tabyīt [En. surprising <strong>the</strong> enemy at night]<br />
<strong>and</strong> tahrīq [En. killing with fire] mentioned in some books of <strong>Islam</strong>ic jurisprudence.<br />
Possessing <strong>the</strong>se kinds of weapons to deter enemies is a requirement of <strong>Islam</strong>ic law. This is<br />
evidenced by <strong>the</strong> words of Allah: “And prepare against <strong>the</strong>m whatever you are able of power<br />
<strong>and</strong> steeds of war by which you may terrify <strong>the</strong> enemy of Allah <strong>and</strong> your enemy”<br />
In his interpretation of <strong>the</strong> verse, <strong>the</strong> luminary, al-Alusi, said: “Anything that can be used as<br />
a deterrence in war” [10/24 Dar al-Turath al-Arabi]. In <strong>the</strong> previous verse Allah comm<strong>and</strong>s<br />
Muslims to deter <strong>the</strong>ir enemies who may be inclined to attack Muslims. Apart from being<br />
a principle of <strong>Islam</strong>ic law that factors in punishments <strong>and</strong> disciplinary actions, deterrence is<br />
also a legitimate political principle sanctioned by states in <strong>the</strong>ir defense policies <strong>and</strong> estab-<br />
lished in military strategies.<br />
It is well known that acquiring <strong>and</strong> possessing WMDs creates strategic <strong>and</strong> military bal-<br />
ance between states <strong>and</strong> serves to deter any state that is tempted to launch a hostile attack<br />
against a Muslim country <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e preventing <strong>the</strong>m from being dragged into an undesired<br />
war. This applies to acquiring WMDs <strong>and</strong> using <strong>the</strong>m to deter enemies <strong>and</strong> oppressors.<br />
There is a difference between acquiring <strong>the</strong>se weapons to deter potential aggressors <strong>and</strong><br />
between initiating <strong>the</strong>ir use.<br />
The scenario of initiating <strong>the</strong> use of WMDs which is based on <strong>the</strong> personal reasoning <strong>and</strong><br />
opinions of individual sects, factions, <strong>and</strong> groups is prohibited by <strong>Islam</strong>ic law. Any opinion<br />
that maintains its permissibility or attributes it to <strong>Islam</strong>ic law <strong>and</strong> its scholars is a false claim<br />
<strong>and</strong> accusation against [sacred] law <strong>and</strong> religion. This is substantiated by <strong>the</strong> following:<br />
The decision to declare war<br />
The principle in war is that it should be launched with <strong>the</strong> authorization of <strong>the</strong> Muslim<br />
ruler; it is imperative that <strong>the</strong> decision to declare war be based on his own reasoning <strong>and</strong> his<br />
subjects must obey him. A ruler is authorized to declare war due to his knowledge of evident<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 75
76<br />
<strong>and</strong> hidden matters, <strong>the</strong> consequences of actions <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> interest of his people. For this<br />
reason, a ruler is authorized to declare wars <strong>and</strong> hold domestic or international treaties as<br />
soon as he assumes office. In turn, he does not issue decisions based on [personal] whims.<br />
He declares a war only after consulting specialists in every relevant field such as techni-<br />
cal specialists, military personnel, <strong>and</strong> political consultants who are indispensable in <strong>the</strong><br />
military strategy.<br />
A person or persons who independently determine <strong>the</strong> use of WMDs not only impose <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
opinion on <strong>the</strong>ir rulers but on <strong>the</strong> entire [Muslim] community. They give <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>the</strong><br />
right to make decisions relating to <strong>the</strong> destiny of <strong>the</strong> entire community without recourse to<br />
ahl al-hall wal-’aqd [En. those who are qualified to elect or dispose of a ruler on behalf of <strong>the</strong><br />
Muslim community] in matters that expose <strong>the</strong> country or people to great dangers.<br />
Breach of international agreements <strong>and</strong> treaties<br />
<strong>Islam</strong>ic states must abide by <strong>the</strong> agreements <strong>and</strong> treaties that <strong>the</strong>y acknowledged <strong>and</strong> entered<br />
into on <strong>the</strong>ir own accord; st<strong>and</strong>ing firmly with <strong>the</strong> international community towards achieving<br />
global peace <strong>and</strong> security [only] to <strong>the</strong> extent of <strong>the</strong> commitment of <strong>the</strong> signatory countries.<br />
Using WMDs involves killing people <strong>and</strong> taking <strong>the</strong>m by surprise<br />
Abu Hurairra (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that <strong>the</strong> Messenger of Allah (peace<br />
<strong>and</strong> blessings be upon him) said: “A believer is not to kill [o<strong>the</strong>rs]. Faith is a deterrent to<br />
killing”. Ibn al-Athir said: “Killing [here] means taking o<strong>the</strong>rs by surprise <strong>and</strong> killing <strong>the</strong>m<br />
while <strong>the</strong>y are unprepared” [Al-Nihaya fi Gharib al-Hadith wa al-Athar 3/775]. The hadith<br />
means that faith is a deterrent to attacking o<strong>the</strong>rs suddenly while <strong>the</strong>y are unprepared. The<br />
Prophet’s words: “A believer is not to attack [o<strong>the</strong>rs] by surprise” is a clear prohibition since<br />
it involves deception. Khubayb al-Ansarī (may Allah be pleased with him) was captured<br />
by <strong>the</strong> poly<strong>the</strong>ists <strong>and</strong> sold in Mecca to Banī al-Hārith ibn ‘Amir ibn Nawfal ibn abd Manāf.<br />
It was Khubayb who killed al-Hārith ibn ‘Amir in <strong>the</strong> battle of Badr. He remained a prison-<br />
er with <strong>the</strong>m <strong>for</strong> some time. Once, he asked <strong>the</strong> daughter of al-Harith <strong>for</strong> a razor to shave<br />
<strong>and</strong> placed her son on his lap. When she came upon this scene <strong>and</strong> saw Khubayb holding<br />
<strong>the</strong> razor in his h<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> her son on his lap, she became scared. Thereupon, Khubayb said<br />
to her: “Are you afraid that I might kill him? I will never do that.” She said: “I never saw a<br />
captive better than Khubayb.” This is an example of a Muslim imprisoned by his enemies<br />
who plotted to kill him. In spite of being on <strong>the</strong> verge of death, he refrained from killing<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir son when he had <strong>the</strong> opportunity to do so. The manners of a Muslim are free from<br />
deception <strong>and</strong> killing o<strong>the</strong>rs by surprise.<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
Killing <strong>and</strong> harming women <strong>and</strong> children<br />
Al-Bukhari <strong>and</strong> Muslim reported through Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with<br />
<strong>the</strong>m both) that a woman was found dead in one of <strong>the</strong> battles fought by <strong>the</strong> Prophet. There-<br />
upon he condemned killing women <strong>and</strong> children. Ano<strong>the</strong>r phrasing of <strong>the</strong> hadith states:<br />
“The messenger of Allah <strong>for</strong>bade killing women <strong>and</strong> children.” Imam al-Nawawi said: “There is<br />
a scholarly consensus on putting this hadith in practice as long as <strong>the</strong> women <strong>and</strong> children do<br />
not fight [<strong>the</strong> Muslims]. If <strong>the</strong>y do, <strong>the</strong> majority of scholars maintain that <strong>the</strong>y should be killed”<br />
[Sharh Muslim 12/48].<br />
Killing <strong>and</strong> harming Muslim residents of <strong>the</strong> target countries<br />
Targeting o<strong>the</strong>r countries with WMDs will endanger <strong>the</strong> lives of Muslims residents, natives<br />
or visitors. The noble Shari’ah honors <strong>the</strong> life of Muslims <strong>and</strong> warns against shedding <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
blood without right. Allah Almighty says: “But whoever kills a believer intentionally—his<br />
recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, <strong>and</strong> Allah has become angry with him<br />
<strong>and</strong> has cursed him <strong>and</strong> has prepared <strong>for</strong> him a great punishment.” [Al-Nisa`]<br />
On that account: We ordained <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> children of Israel that if any one kills a person—unless<br />
it be <strong>for</strong> murder or <strong>for</strong> spreading mischief in <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>—it would be as if he killed <strong>the</strong> whole<br />
people, <strong>and</strong> if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved <strong>the</strong> life of all people [Al-Maeda.<br />
Abdullah ibn ‘Amr (may Allah be pleased with <strong>the</strong>m both) narrated that <strong>the</strong> Prophet said:<br />
“The perishing of this world is easier in <strong>the</strong> sight of Allah than taking a Muslim’s life” [Sunan<br />
al-Nassa’i].<br />
The ramifications of using WMDs<br />
Such a foolish act will bring about catastrophes not only upon Muslims but upon <strong>the</strong> entire<br />
world because <strong>the</strong> countries under attack may retaliate ei<strong>the</strong>r in kind or in a more brutal<br />
manner. Moreover, <strong>the</strong> destructive effects of some of <strong>the</strong>se weapons may exceed <strong>the</strong> targeted<br />
area <strong>and</strong> spread by wind to o<strong>the</strong>r countries not involved in <strong>the</strong> conflict. Hence, <strong>the</strong> immedi-<br />
ate <strong>and</strong> far reaching evils of WMDs are greater than <strong>the</strong> benefits, if any. It is worthy to men-<br />
tion at this point that preventing harm is among <strong>the</strong> principles of <strong>Islam</strong>ic law. This is based<br />
on legal maxim, “Preventing harm takes precedence over gaining benefit.”<br />
Consequences of using WMD<br />
Some of <strong>the</strong>se weapons damage individual <strong>and</strong> public properties, wasting wealth which is<br />
<strong>for</strong>bidden by <strong>Islam</strong>ic law. The prohibition is greater if <strong>the</strong> wasted wealth belongs to <strong>the</strong> op-<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 77
78<br />
pressed. Thus, this prohibition lies in violating <strong>Islam</strong>ic law on <strong>the</strong> one h<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> rights of<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rs on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
The use of some of <strong>the</strong>se weapons may require <strong>the</strong> perpetrator to enter <strong>the</strong> target<br />
Permission to enter a country is considered a non-verbal security agreement not to cause<br />
corruption in <strong>the</strong> host country.<br />
Imam al-Khurqī said in his Mukhtasr: “Whoever enters enemy l<strong>and</strong>s in safety is not allowed<br />
to cheat <strong>the</strong>m of <strong>the</strong>ir money.” Commenting on this statement, Ibn Qudāma said that it<br />
is prohibited to betray <strong>the</strong>m [non-Muslims in non-Muslim countries] because <strong>the</strong>re is an<br />
unspoken covenant to enter in safety on <strong>the</strong> condition that <strong>the</strong> person who seeks permission<br />
to enter a <strong>for</strong>eign country does not betray or oppress <strong>the</strong>m. So whoever enters our l<strong>and</strong>s in<br />
safety <strong>and</strong> betrays us violates this security agreement. This is prohibited because it involves<br />
treachery which is <strong>for</strong>bidden in our religion. [Al-Mughni 9/237].<br />
The legal <strong>and</strong> juristic texts used as evidence to spread this extreme idea are taken out of<br />
context. Using <strong>the</strong>se texts in such a manner disturbs peace, ignoring <strong>the</strong> differences between<br />
states of war <strong>and</strong> peace, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> special rulings pertaining to each of <strong>the</strong>m. This is a compel-<br />
ling difference that is inconsistent with using WMDs weapons based on textual evidence on<br />
<strong>the</strong> permissibility of tabīt <strong>and</strong> ramy al turs. It is a grave mistake to make this analogy even<br />
though <strong>the</strong>y are valid in <strong>the</strong>mselves within <strong>the</strong> context cited by <strong>the</strong> authors of <strong>the</strong>se texts. It<br />
is dangerous to take <strong>the</strong>se rulings from <strong>the</strong>ir context <strong>and</strong> apply <strong>the</strong>m to different situations.<br />
Moreover, it is impermissible to derive a ruling permitting <strong>the</strong> use of WMDs against an op-<br />
pressor based on analogy since it is established that <strong>the</strong>re is a difference between <strong>the</strong> rulings<br />
<strong>for</strong> repelling an aggressor <strong>and</strong> those of jihad [En. fighting <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> cause of Allah]. These in-<br />
clude repelling <strong>the</strong> aggressor by <strong>the</strong> least violent means. If it is possible to resolve <strong>the</strong> conflict<br />
in a peaceful manner, it is prohibited to use weapons against <strong>the</strong> aggressor. Using WMDs<br />
against o<strong>the</strong>rs is not consistent with <strong>Islam</strong>ic values.<br />
It is invalid to base <strong>the</strong> permissibility of using WMDs on analogy [Ar.qiyās] to tabyīt, us-<br />
ing <strong>the</strong> catapult, or tahrīq<br />
There are great <strong>and</strong> manifest differences between <strong>the</strong> two situations. The prophetic traditions<br />
mentioned on tahrīq, tabyīn, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> catapult were narrated in a state of war; <strong>the</strong>re is a differ-<br />
ence between a state of war <strong>and</strong> peace. There is a great difference in <strong>the</strong> effects of throwing<br />
stones at <strong>the</strong> enemy using <strong>the</strong> catapult <strong>and</strong> between using WMDs. The effects of <strong>the</strong> catapult<br />
are relatively restricted as compared to <strong>the</strong> effects of WMDs. The above methods of warfare<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
mentioned in <strong>the</strong> prophetic traditions were conducted with <strong>the</strong> approval of rulers. Giving a<br />
person, [o<strong>the</strong>r than a ruler], <strong>the</strong> right to declare war is a crime against <strong>the</strong> [<strong>Islam</strong>ic] commu-<br />
nity <strong>and</strong> its rulers under <strong>the</strong> pretext of jihad.<br />
Even if we assume <strong>the</strong> au<strong>the</strong>nticity of <strong>the</strong>se prophetic traditions, we must note that <strong>the</strong>y refer<br />
to specific incidents <strong>and</strong> cannot be put into general practice. For this reason, some scholars<br />
maintained that <strong>the</strong> principle [in war] is to avoid tabyīt, tahrīq, <strong>and</strong> destruction; <strong>the</strong>y base<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir opinion on <strong>the</strong> general religious texts which discuss <strong>the</strong> ethics of war.<br />
Our opinion is that WMDs that cause fires must not be used due to <strong>the</strong> prohibition of burn-<br />
ing. After ordering his troops to use fire, <strong>the</strong> prophet <strong>for</strong>bade its implementation as a weap-<br />
on even though <strong>the</strong> Muslims were in a state of war. Abū Hurayrah narrated that <strong>the</strong> prophet<br />
[pbuh] said: “Allah alone has <strong>the</strong> right to punish with fire” [Bukhārī]. It is known that many<br />
WMDs cause huge fires, <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e it is better to ban <strong>the</strong>ir use even in a state of war.<br />
It is a mistake to base <strong>the</strong> issue of <strong>the</strong> use of WMDs on tabyit because scholars restricted its<br />
permissibility by <strong>the</strong> following: It must be implemented in a state of war. The enemy must<br />
be from among those whom Muslims are permitted to fight as compared to <strong>the</strong> enemy with<br />
whom Muslims have a truce. It is impermissible to attack <strong>the</strong> enemy under <strong>the</strong> cover of night<br />
because it is a violation of <strong>the</strong> security pact between <strong>the</strong>m in terms of lives, wealth, <strong>and</strong> hon-<br />
or. If it is prohibited to attack under <strong>the</strong> cover of darkness <strong>the</strong> enemy with whom Muslims<br />
have a security pact, <strong>the</strong>n it is even more prohibited to use such lethal weapons against <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
Human Shields<br />
It is impermissible to use human shields save in state of war <strong>and</strong> under specific conditions<br />
detailed by jurists. [Bahr Ra`iq 80\5, Hashiyat ibn ‘Abī Dīn 223\3, Rawdat al Tablibīn 239\10,<br />
Mughnī al Muhtāj 223\4, Mughni ibn Qudāma 449\8, 386/10].<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 79
80<br />
Appendix E: Sunni Biographies<br />
Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani is President of Cordoba University. He also holds <strong>the</strong> Imam Al-<br />
Shafi’i Chair in <strong>Islam</strong>ic Legal Theory at The Graduate School of <strong>Islam</strong>ic <strong>and</strong> Social <strong>Science</strong>s<br />
at Corboda University. Alalwani concentrates on <strong>the</strong> fields of <strong>Islam</strong>ic legal <strong>the</strong>ory, jurispru-<br />
dence (fiqh), <strong>and</strong> usul al-fiqh. Alalwani emigrated from Saudi Arabia to <strong>the</strong> United States<br />
in 1983. Alwani has written about <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ization of Knowledge, <strong>the</strong> need <strong>for</strong> Ijtihad, <strong>and</strong><br />
is <strong>the</strong> founder toge<strong>the</strong>r with Dr. Qaradawi of fiqh al-aqalliyyat (Muslim minority jurispru-<br />
dence) which st<strong>and</strong>s <strong>for</strong> making fiqh easy. 159<br />
Gamal al-Banna. With his rationalistic, progressive interpretation of <strong>Islam</strong>, <strong>the</strong> youngest<br />
bro<strong>the</strong>r of <strong>the</strong> founder of <strong>the</strong> Muslim bro<strong>the</strong>rhood in Egypt, Hassan al-Banna, has called <strong>for</strong> an<br />
<strong>Islam</strong>ic revival (al-ihya` al-islami) based on <strong>the</strong> Quran <strong>and</strong> reason. In this context, he considers<br />
<strong>the</strong> Quran to be <strong>the</strong> au<strong>the</strong>ntic word of God, but warns that some hadiths (reports on Messen-<br />
ger Muhammad’s statements <strong>and</strong> acts) have been falsified; thus, Muslims should trust only <strong>the</strong><br />
Sunna (prophetic tradition) which does not contradict <strong>the</strong> true meaning of <strong>the</strong> Quran. 160<br />
He wrote a preface in 1991 in “A Disrupted World” that exhorted <strong>Islam</strong> to fill <strong>the</strong> moral void<br />
that he perceived exists in <strong>the</strong> world: “The collapse of Marxism doesn’t mean that capitalism<br />
will succeed. Ra<strong>the</strong>r, this means that <strong>the</strong> mistakes of Marxism were bigger than <strong>the</strong> mistakes<br />
of capitalism. <strong>Islam</strong> replaces <strong>the</strong> class system with its elitist barriers <strong>and</strong> dead ends by <strong>the</strong><br />
general equality of <strong>the</strong> people, <strong>the</strong> highest ranks or <strong>the</strong> strata of notables by <strong>the</strong> declaration<br />
of absolute equality among <strong>the</strong> people, without any difference between black <strong>and</strong> white, male<br />
<strong>and</strong> female, rich <strong>and</strong> poor, base <strong>and</strong> noble. What was new was <strong>the</strong> spirit of freedom, <strong>the</strong> prin-<br />
ciples of justice <strong>and</strong> equality that <strong>Islam</strong> let shine. Today <strong>Islam</strong> is called upon to fulfill this role<br />
a second time.” 161<br />
Gr<strong>and</strong> Mufti of Egypt Ali Gomaa began memorizing <strong>the</strong> Quran at <strong>the</strong> age of ten <strong>and</strong>, al-<br />
though he did not go to religious schools, by <strong>the</strong> time he graduated from high school he had<br />
studied <strong>the</strong> six canonical collections of hadith as well as Maliki jurisprudence. In course of<br />
his studies, he memorized many of <strong>the</strong> foundational texts in jurisprudence, Arabic grammar,<br />
Quranic recitation, <strong>and</strong> hadith methodology. 162<br />
In 2003, Shaykh Gomaa was appointed Gr<strong>and</strong> Mufti of Egypt. Since taking on <strong>the</strong> position<br />
he has revolutionized <strong>the</strong> process of issuing fatwas in in Egypt trans<strong>for</strong>ming Dar al-Ifta from<br />
an institution that was <strong>the</strong> extension of one individual (<strong>the</strong> Gr<strong>and</strong> Mufti) to a modern institu-<br />
tion with a fatwa council <strong>and</strong> a system of checks <strong>and</strong> balances. 163<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
In addition to his WMD fatwa, <strong>the</strong> gr<strong>and</strong> mufti has also stated that it is not allowed <strong>for</strong> Mus-<br />
lims to kill civilians even during a declared war. 164<br />
Faysal Mawlawi is Deputy Chairman of <strong>the</strong> European Council on Fatwa <strong>and</strong> Research<br />
(Current or Former). The Jamaa al-<strong>Islam</strong>iya (Lebanese branch of <strong>the</strong> Muslim Bro<strong>the</strong>rhood<br />
elected Ibrahim al-Masri as secretary general to replace Sheikh Faisal al-Mawlawi who is suf-<br />
fering from a chronic disease in 2008. 165<br />
Ibrahim Negm was as an intellectual at an early age, <strong>the</strong> Egyptian cleric earned distinguished<br />
scholarship to pursue <strong>Islam</strong>ic studies at Al Azhar University. He has taught <strong>and</strong> studied at<br />
many prestigious institutions in <strong>the</strong> United States, including Harvard. Sheikh Negm is cur-<br />
rently serving as a representative of Sheikh Ali Goma, <strong>and</strong> is currently teaching at al-Azhar<br />
University in Egypt. 166<br />
Abdul Mohsen al-Obeikan is a top religious scholar <strong>and</strong> an advisor in <strong>the</strong> court of Saudi<br />
King Abdullah. He has asserted that Muslims who join al-Qaeda <strong>and</strong> engage in terrorist<br />
operations are deviating from <strong>the</strong> right path of <strong>Islam</strong>. 167<br />
Salman Al-Odeh, The Saudi cleric who was a leader of <strong>the</strong> extremist Saudi Sahwa move-<br />
ment. He spent 1994–1999 in prison because of his opposition to Saudi government policy<br />
during <strong>the</strong> first Gulf War (1990–1991). In November 2004, Al-Odeh was one of 26 clerics<br />
who signed a fatwa supporting jihad against U.S. <strong>for</strong>ces in Iraq. In recent years, Al-Odeh has<br />
tempered his views, <strong>and</strong> has publicly criticized Osama bin Laden, though he continued to<br />
support resistance against coalition <strong>for</strong>ces in Iraq. 168<br />
Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri was trained both in traditional madrasas <strong>and</strong> at Punjab Uni-<br />
versity where in 1972 he earned an MA <strong>and</strong> PhD in <strong>Islam</strong>ic Studies. Qadri appeals to <strong>Islam</strong>ic<br />
traditionalists as well as to those that appreciate his integration of traditional <strong>Islam</strong>ic sciences<br />
with modern disciplines. Though he studied in Saudi Arabia, Qadri is a vocal critic of Wa-<br />
habi <strong>and</strong> Salafi <strong>Islam</strong>’s extremist <strong>and</strong> violent tendencies. 169<br />
Yusuf al-Qaradawi was once a close associate of Egyptian Muslim Bro<strong>the</strong>rhood leader Has-<br />
san al Banna. Qaradawi has denounced <strong>the</strong> attacks against civilians in <strong>the</strong> U.S. <strong>and</strong> encour-<br />
aged Muslims to donate blood to <strong>the</strong> victims of <strong>the</strong> attack: “Our hearts bleed <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> attacks<br />
that has targeted <strong>the</strong> World Trade <strong>Center</strong>, as well as o<strong>the</strong>r institutions in <strong>the</strong> United States<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 81
82<br />
despite our strong oppositions to <strong>the</strong> American biased policy towards Israel on <strong>the</strong> military,<br />
political <strong>and</strong> economic fronts” 170<br />
However, Qaradawi makes a sharp distinction in <strong>the</strong> case of Israel. Qaradawi supports sui-<br />
cide attacks on all Israelis, including women <strong>and</strong> children since he views <strong>the</strong> Israeli society as<br />
a “completely military” society that did not include any civilians. He also considers pregnant<br />
women <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir unborn babies to be valid targets on <strong>the</strong> ground that <strong>the</strong> babies could grow<br />
up to join <strong>the</strong> Israeli Army. 171<br />
Tariq Ramadan is considered to be a liberal, progressive bridge-builder between <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> west. As a young man, Ramadan took his French wife <strong>and</strong> his children to Egypt, where<br />
he embarked on an intense, 20-month study of <strong>Islam</strong>, <strong>and</strong> his family studied both <strong>Islam</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> Arabic. His purpose: “I now meant to st<strong>and</strong> up <strong>for</strong> my religion, explain it, <strong>and</strong>, above<br />
all, show that we have so much in common with Judaism <strong>and</strong> Christianity but also with <strong>the</strong><br />
values advocated by humanists, a<strong>the</strong>ists, <strong>and</strong> agnostics. I meant to question prejudices, to<br />
question false constructions of Europe’s past, <strong>and</strong> of course, help open <strong>the</strong> way to confidently<br />
living toge<strong>the</strong>r in harmony as our common future requires.” 172<br />
As Ramadan’s prolife grew, he was accused by some “of being a ‘prince of doublespeak’:<br />
essentially, saying one thing in French <strong>and</strong> ano<strong>the</strong>r in Arabic.” 173 The mistrust with which<br />
Ramadan is viewed in <strong>the</strong> United States relates to his familial connections to his uncle, <strong>the</strong><br />
founder of <strong>the</strong> Muslim Bro<strong>the</strong>rhood in Egypt, <strong>and</strong> to alleged meetings he is said to have<br />
arranged with terrorists, including Ayman al-Zawahiri <strong>and</strong> Omar Abdel Rahman. He has<br />
denied meeting ei<strong>the</strong>r man. 174<br />
Imam Abdulaziz al-Sharif is <strong>the</strong> imprisoned founder of <strong>the</strong> Egyptian Jihad organization<br />
<strong>and</strong> a prominent jihad <strong>the</strong>oretician better known as “Doctor Fadl.” His work, called Tarshid<br />
al-amal al-jihadi fi misr wa al-alam (Rationalizing <strong>the</strong> Jihadi Action in Egypt <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> World),<br />
harshly criticized Salafi-jihadist extremism. 175 Ayman Zawahiri attempted to rebut his cri-<br />
tique in his own book “Exoneration” (2008). Dr Fadl wrote a sequel in response to “Exon-<br />
eration” in 2010.<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
Appendix F: Shia Biographies<br />
Kazem Mosavi Bojnoordi sat on <strong>the</strong> defense committee of Iran’s parliament during part of<br />
<strong>the</strong> war <strong>and</strong> is now chief editor of Iran’s <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Great <strong>Islam</strong>ic Encyclopedia. 176<br />
Mohsen Gharavian is a disciple of <strong>the</strong> ultra-conservative Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi<br />
Mesbah-Yazdi, who is widely regarded as <strong>the</strong> cleric closest to Iran’s new president, Mahmoud<br />
Ahmadinejad. He is a lecturer based in a religious school in <strong>the</strong> holy city of Qom. 177<br />
Ayatollah Mohsen Kadivar is an Iranian philosopher, University lecturer, cleric <strong>and</strong> activist.<br />
A political dissident, Kadivar has been a vocal critic of <strong>the</strong> doctrine of clerical rule, also<br />
known as Velayat-e Faqih (Guardianship of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic Jurist), <strong>and</strong> a strong advocate of<br />
democratic <strong>and</strong> liberal re<strong>for</strong>ms in Iran. In 1999, he became <strong>the</strong> first intellectual jailed in a<br />
crackdown on Iran’s democracy movement. As a student, in <strong>the</strong> religious city of Qom, he was<br />
taught by prominent teachers like Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri. Kadivar taught fiqh <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>Islam</strong>ic philosophy at Qom Seminary. Kadivar has written a detailed critique of Ayatollah’s<br />
Khomeini’s <strong>the</strong>ory of <strong>Islam</strong>ic government as rule by Shia clerics. 178<br />
Gr<strong>and</strong> Ayatollah Ali Hoseyni Khāmene’i is <strong>the</strong> head of <strong>the</strong> Muslim conservative establish-<br />
ment in Iran <strong>and</strong> Twelver shi’a marja. He was president of Iran from 1981 to 1989, <strong>and</strong> has<br />
been Supreme Leader of Iran since June 1989 when <strong>the</strong> Assembly of Experts selected him to<br />
succeed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. He has been described as one of only three people<br />
having “important influences” on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic Republic of Iran (<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r two being <strong>the</strong><br />
founder of <strong>the</strong> republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> president of Iran <strong>for</strong> much of<br />
<strong>the</strong> 1990s, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani). 179<br />
Seyed Mohammad Khātamī is an Iranian scholar <strong>and</strong> politician. He served as <strong>the</strong> fifth<br />
President of Iran from August 2, 1997 to August 3, 2005. Khatami attracted global attention<br />
during his first election to <strong>the</strong> presidency when, as “a little known cleric, he captured almost<br />
70% of <strong>the</strong> vote.” Khatami had run on a plat<strong>for</strong>m of liberalization <strong>and</strong> re<strong>for</strong>m. During his<br />
two terms as president, Khatami advocated freedom of expression, tolerance <strong>and</strong> civil society,<br />
constructive diplomatic relations with o<strong>the</strong>r states including those in <strong>the</strong> Asia <strong>and</strong> European<br />
Union, <strong>and</strong> an economic policy that supported a free market <strong>and</strong> <strong>for</strong>eign investment. 180<br />
Mohammad Khazaee is <strong>the</strong> current Permanent Representative of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic Republic of Iran<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 83
84<br />
to <strong>the</strong> United Nations. He presented his credentials to <strong>the</strong> United Nations Secretary-General<br />
Ban Ki-moon on July, 2007. Khazaee has a B.A. in Business Administration from <strong>the</strong> Universi-<br />
ty of Guilan, <strong>and</strong> master’s degree from George Mason University in <strong>the</strong> United States. Khazaee<br />
has taught macroeconomics <strong>and</strong> philosophy at Tehran’s Allameh Tabatabai University. 181<br />
Syed Ruhollah Moosavi Khomeini (24 September 1900–3 June 1989) was an Iranian reli-<br />
gious leader <strong>and</strong> politician, <strong>and</strong> leader of <strong>the</strong> 1979 Iranian Revolution which saw <strong>the</strong> over-<br />
throw of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, <strong>the</strong> Shah of Iran. Following <strong>the</strong> revolution <strong>and</strong> a national<br />
referendum, Khomeini became <strong>the</strong> country’s Supreme Leader—a position created in <strong>the</strong><br />
constitution as <strong>the</strong> highest-ranking political <strong>and</strong> religious authority of <strong>the</strong> nation—until his<br />
death. Khomeini was a marja (“source of emulation”, also known as a Gr<strong>and</strong> Ayatollah) in<br />
Twelver Shi’a <strong>Islam</strong>, but is most famous <strong>for</strong> his political role. In his writings <strong>and</strong> preachings<br />
he exp<strong>and</strong>ed <strong>the</strong> Shi’a Usuli <strong>the</strong>ory of velayat-e faqih, <strong>the</strong> “guardianship of <strong>the</strong> jurisconsult<br />
(clerical authority)” to include <strong>the</strong>ocratic political rule by <strong>Islam</strong>ic jurists. 182<br />
Ali Larijani is an Iranian politician <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> chairman/speaker of <strong>the</strong> Iranian parliament.<br />
Larijani was <strong>the</strong> secretary of <strong>the</strong> Supreme National Security Council from August 15, 2005<br />
to October 20, 2007. In his post as secretary he functioned as a top negotiator on issues of<br />
national security, including Iran’s nuclear program. 183<br />
Fazal Miboudi is a pro-re<strong>for</strong>m mullah who is a professor of political science at Mofid<br />
University in Esfahan. 184<br />
Gr<strong>and</strong> Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri (1922–19 December 2009) was a prominent<br />
Iranian scholar, <strong>Islam</strong>ic <strong>the</strong>ologian, democracy advocate, writer <strong>and</strong> human rights activist.<br />
He was one of <strong>the</strong> leaders of <strong>the</strong> Iranian Revolution in 1979. He was once <strong>the</strong> designated<br />
successor to <strong>the</strong> revolution’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini, with whom he had a<br />
falling out in 1989 over government policies that Montazeri claimed had infringed on<br />
people’s freedom <strong>and</strong> denied <strong>the</strong>m <strong>the</strong>ir rights. Montazeri was essentially exiled in his later<br />
years to <strong>the</strong> holy city of Qom, where he remained influential to <strong>the</strong> re<strong>for</strong>mist movement.<br />
He was widely known as one of <strong>the</strong> most knowledgeable senior <strong>Islam</strong>ic scholars in Iran <strong>and</strong><br />
a Gr<strong>and</strong> Marja (religious authority) of Shi’ite <strong>Islam</strong>. 185<br />
Hassan Rowhani is an Iranian politician <strong>and</strong> cleric, <strong>and</strong> as of March 2007, a member of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
Supreme National Security Council. He served as chief negotiator with UK, France, <strong>and</strong> Ger-<br />
many on Iran’s nuclear program. Under his supervision, his team agreed to unconditionally<br />
suspend nuclear enrichment. He was subsequently replaced, <strong>and</strong> enrichment was resumed.<br />
Rowhani has previously been a Deputy Speaker of Majlis, as a representative from Tehran<br />
<strong>and</strong> is currently member of <strong>the</strong> Expediency Discernment Council. On August 14, 2005,<br />
Rowhani was replaced by Ali Larijani as <strong>the</strong> secretary of <strong>the</strong> council. 186<br />
Gr<strong>and</strong> Ayatollah Yousef Sanei is a scholar, <strong>the</strong>ologian <strong>and</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic philosopher who has<br />
called <strong>for</strong> radical re<strong>for</strong>m. Born in Isfahan in 1937, Sanei retired from <strong>the</strong> Guardian Coun-<br />
cil in 1983 <strong>and</strong> has not held any political office since that time. Sanei has been considered<br />
<strong>the</strong> successor of Gr<strong>and</strong> Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri as <strong>the</strong> spiritual leader of <strong>the</strong> op-<br />
position movement. 187<br />
Mashallah Shakiri is <strong>the</strong> Iranian ambassador to Pakistan. 188<br />
Hossein Shariatmadari is <strong>the</strong> managing editor of Kayhan, a conservative Iranian newspaper.<br />
A supporter of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he has been described as being a close<br />
confidant of Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei. He reportedly has inks to Iran’s intelligence<br />
services. On February 12, 2009, he wrote a controversial article suggesting that <strong>for</strong>mer Presi-<br />
dent Khatami might be assassinated if he ran again <strong>for</strong> President. 189<br />
Ayatollah Jalal Al-Din Taheri Esfahani is an Iranian scholar, <strong>the</strong>ologian <strong>and</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic Philos-<br />
opher. Taheri was a member of Assembly of Experts <strong>and</strong> representative of Ayatollah Khomeini<br />
in Isfahan province. In 2002, Taheri resigned after 30 years as prayer leader in Isfahan. Taheri’s<br />
resignation letter complained of “generalized corruption of religious power in Iran.” He is a critic<br />
of <strong>Islam</strong>ic extremism <strong>and</strong> supreme leader of Iran. In 30 June 2009, Taheri wrote an open letter<br />
in which he called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s election to President illegitimate. 190<br />
Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi is a hardline Iranian Twelver Shi’i cleric <strong>and</strong> politician<br />
who is widely seen as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s spiritual advisor. He<br />
is also a member of Iran’s Assembly of Experts, <strong>the</strong> body responsible <strong>for</strong> choosing <strong>the</strong> Su-<br />
preme Leader, where he heads a minority ultraconservative faction. He has been called “<strong>the</strong><br />
most conservative” <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> most “powerful” <strong>and</strong> “influential ... clerical oligarch” in Iran’s<br />
leading center of religious learning, <strong>the</strong> city of Qom. Mesbah Yazdi advocates <strong>Islam</strong>ic phi-<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 85
86<br />
losophy <strong>and</strong> in particular Sadra Mutahillin’s Transcendent School of Philosophy (Hikmat-e<br />
Muta`aliya). He believes Iran has strayed from <strong>the</strong> values of <strong>the</strong> 1979 Iranian revolution <strong>and</strong><br />
strongly opposes democratic rule <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Re<strong>for</strong>mist movement in Iran. 191<br />
Dr. Mohammad Javad Zarif is a <strong>for</strong>mer Permanent Representative of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic Republic of<br />
Iran to <strong>the</strong> United Nations. He presented his credentials to <strong>the</strong> United Nations Secretary-Gen-<br />
eral on August 5, 2002. He attended <strong>the</strong> Graduate School of <strong>International</strong> Studies at <strong>the</strong> Uni-<br />
versity of Denver <strong>and</strong> obtained a Ph.D. in <strong>International</strong> Law <strong>and</strong> Policy. He also attended San<br />
Francisco State University as a graduate student in <strong>the</strong> Department of <strong>International</strong> Relations.<br />
Zarif currently teaches at Iran’s School of <strong>International</strong> Relations in Tehran. 192<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
Appendix G: Same Author Correlation by Text <strong>and</strong> Page Number<br />
Referencing Al-Nawawi<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 6, 7<br />
Killing in a good manner; distinguishing <strong>the</strong> possible from <strong>the</strong> impossible, fulfilling God’s<br />
comm<strong>and</strong> as you are able.<br />
Zawahiri: Page 26, 41, 72, 80, 81, 108, 110, 167, 168, 170, 173, 176, 211, 244<br />
Obligation to depose rulers’ who show signs of non-belief <strong>and</strong> try to alter Shari’ah—<strong>the</strong>y<br />
should depose him only if <strong>the</strong>y are able to do so; appeasing this ruler is a sin; a true Muslim<br />
should live in ano<strong>the</strong>r l<strong>and</strong> to safeguard <strong>the</strong> religion if <strong>the</strong>y are unable to do anything.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> context of killing women, children, young boys <strong>and</strong> old men: “Old men among infi-<br />
dels should be killed if <strong>the</strong>y are men of counsel.”<br />
“Someone trying to change vice to virtue has <strong>the</strong> right to use all possible means…he also has<br />
<strong>the</strong> right to retrieve any possession from a person who has <strong>for</strong>cibly taken it from ano<strong>the</strong>r.”<br />
“If <strong>the</strong> infidels enter a Muslim city or are deployed in a place overlooking it, jihad becomes<br />
<strong>the</strong> duty of every single Muslim even if <strong>the</strong>y do not enter <strong>the</strong> city.”<br />
In <strong>the</strong> context of night attacks <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> inability to distinguish women <strong>and</strong> children, <strong>the</strong> Prophet<br />
has been quoted as saying “They are of <strong>the</strong>m”—With regard to <strong>the</strong> rule governing children of<br />
non-believers attacked during <strong>the</strong> night, <strong>the</strong> children belong to <strong>the</strong> parents, <strong>and</strong> thus it is per-<br />
missible; so long as <strong>the</strong>y are not targeted intentionally without necessity, it is permissible; with<br />
regard to this hadith concerning <strong>the</strong> killing of women <strong>and</strong> children, one cannot distinguish in<br />
<strong>the</strong> night <strong>and</strong> this hadith contains proof of <strong>the</strong> permissibility to attack at night.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> context of permissibility to kill non-believers with a catapult, <strong>and</strong> by analogy, o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
kinds of weapons such as artillery, tanks <strong>and</strong> war planes—justifying <strong>the</strong> cutting <strong>and</strong> burning<br />
of “date palms” <strong>and</strong> “palm-trees.”<br />
“If he murders by <strong>the</strong> sword, vengeance is exacted from him only by <strong>the</strong> sword, on <strong>the</strong> basis<br />
of God’s word: ‘Whoso commits aggression against you, do you commit aggression against<br />
him like as he has committed against you; If <strong>the</strong> murderer burned his victim, drowned him,<br />
stoned him, threw him from a cliff, hit him with a piece of wood, locked him up <strong>and</strong> de-<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 87
88<br />
nied him food <strong>and</strong> drink until he died, <strong>the</strong> next-of-kin may take vengeance in <strong>the</strong> same way,<br />
on <strong>the</strong> basis of God’s word: ‘And if you chastise, chastise even as you have been chastised’<br />
[Quranic verse; al-Nahl 16:126]. This is also based on what al-Bara’ related, that <strong>the</strong> prophet<br />
said: ‘Whoever burns, we burn him; whoever drowns, we drown him.’”<br />
Referencing Abu Dawud<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, 20<br />
In <strong>the</strong> context of <strong>the</strong> Prophets orders on raids to not mutilate or kill a child, citing <strong>the</strong> basic<br />
rule of killing in a good manner those who are lawful targets without being excessive, <strong>the</strong>n<br />
describes all <strong>the</strong> exceptions to this rule, starting with <strong>the</strong> notion of distinguishing <strong>the</strong> possible<br />
from <strong>the</strong> impossible re: necessity, women <strong>and</strong> children, killing Muslims, <strong>and</strong> Muslim shields.<br />
“Ahmad [ibn Hanbal] <strong>and</strong> Abu Dawud relate a hadith from Salamah ibn al-Akwa’, who said<br />
“The Messenger of God, may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace, appointed Abu Bakr to<br />
be our comm<strong>and</strong>er, <strong>and</strong> we raided a group of poly<strong>the</strong>ists. We lay wait <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>m at night to<br />
kill <strong>the</strong>m. Our slogan that night was ‘Kill! Kill!’ With my own h<strong>and</strong> that night I killed seven<br />
high-ranking poly<strong>the</strong>ists.””<br />
“Ahmad [ibn Hanbal], Abu Dawud, <strong>and</strong> Ibn Majah transmit a hadith from Usamah ibn Zayd,<br />
a Companion of <strong>the</strong> Prophet, that <strong>the</strong> Prophet sent him to a country called Ubna <strong>and</strong> said<br />
“Come upon <strong>the</strong>m at dawn, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>n set it afire”—justifying setting enemy territory on fire,<br />
cutting down trees <strong>and</strong> crops.”<br />
Citing a hadith describing <strong>the</strong> Prophet’s action of setting up a catapult to attack <strong>the</strong> people of<br />
al-Ta’if—“As everyone knows, a catapult stone does not distinguish between women, chil-<br />
dren, <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs; it destroys anything that it hits, buildings or o<strong>the</strong>rwise. This proves that <strong>the</strong><br />
principle of destroying <strong>the</strong> infidels’ l<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> killing <strong>the</strong>m if <strong>the</strong> jihad requires it <strong>and</strong> those in<br />
authority over <strong>the</strong> jihad decide so is legitimate; <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims bombarded <strong>the</strong>se countries<br />
with catapults until <strong>the</strong>y were conquered. No one reports that <strong>the</strong>y ceased <strong>for</strong> fear of annihi-<br />
lating <strong>the</strong> infidels or <strong>for</strong> fear of destroying <strong>the</strong>ir territory. God alone knows best.”<br />
Abu Dawud is quoted as transmitting a hadith that has <strong>the</strong> Prophey saying “Only God, <strong>the</strong><br />
master of fire, punishes with fire.” He is also quoted as transmitting a story of <strong>the</strong> Prophet<br />
where “The Messenger of God <strong>the</strong>n cut down <strong>the</strong>ir date-palms <strong>and</strong> set fires. When <strong>the</strong>y saw<br />
<strong>the</strong> date-palms being cut down <strong>and</strong> burned, <strong>the</strong>y cried out: “Muhammad, you used to pro-<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
hibit corruption! How can you cut down <strong>and</strong> burn date-palms?” God <strong>the</strong>n revealed <strong>the</strong> verse,<br />
“Whatever palm-trees you cut down…” (Quran 59:5).”<br />
Zawahiri: Page 35, 83, 85, 86, 89, 90, 103, 136, 141, 142, 169, 172, 203, 239<br />
Quoting a hadith transmitted by Abu Dawud: “He who is killed defending his property is a<br />
martyr, he who is killed defending his life is a martyr, he who is killed defending his religion<br />
is a martyr, <strong>and</strong> he who is killed defending his kinfolk is a martyr.”<br />
In <strong>the</strong> context of: “God has said: ‘Whoso commits aggression against you, do you commit ag-<br />
gression against him like as he has committed against you’ [Quranic verse; al-Baqarah 2:194].<br />
And also: ‘And if you chastise, chastise even as you have been chastised’ [Quranic verse; al-<br />
Nahl 16:126-127].”<br />
“They said that this is a general rule in all things. They supported it by <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong><br />
prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) confined <strong>the</strong> broken bowl to <strong>the</strong> tent of<br />
<strong>the</strong> woman who broke it <strong>and</strong> h<strong>and</strong>ed over <strong>the</strong> whole one, saying, ‘Vessel <strong>for</strong> vessel, <strong>and</strong> food<br />
<strong>for</strong> food.’ The tradition is included by Abu Dawud.”<br />
Abu Dawud narrated about Al-Zuhari that Irwah said: “So Usama told me that <strong>the</strong> prophet,<br />
prayers <strong>and</strong> peace of God be upon him, had entrusted him with it saying ‘attack Ubna in <strong>the</strong><br />
morning <strong>and</strong> destroy it by fire’.<br />
Referencing Al-Bukhari<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 6, 10, 16<br />
“Mutilation has been <strong>for</strong>bidden”<br />
In <strong>the</strong> context of setting fire to enemy territory, burning trees <strong>and</strong> crops: “Al Bukhari devoted<br />
a chapter to it, entitled, “On Burning Houses <strong>and</strong> Palm-Trees.”<br />
“The Prophet besieged <strong>the</strong> people of al-Ta’if, as related by both Muslim <strong>and</strong> al-Bukhari, <strong>and</strong><br />
according to al-Bayhaqi he set up a catapult against <strong>the</strong>m. Judge by analogy to this anything<br />
that causes general destruction.”<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 89
90<br />
Zawahiri: Page 5, 8, 25, 26, 50, 59, 70, 101, 102, 133, 134, 140, 143, 167, 173, 204, 217<br />
Al-Bukhari writes: “From al-Sa’b Ibn Jaththamah: “The prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong><br />
grant him peace) passed by me at al-Abwa or Waddan, <strong>and</strong> was asked whe<strong>the</strong>r it was permis-<br />
sible to attack non-believer tribesmen at night, in such wise as <strong>the</strong>ir women <strong>and</strong> children<br />
might be hit. The prophet replied, ‘They are of <strong>the</strong>m.’ I also heard him say, ‘There is no sacred<br />
enclosure (hima) except <strong>for</strong> God <strong>and</strong> His Messenger’.””<br />
Referencing al-Sa’b ibn Jaththamah / al Sa’b ibn Jathama<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 9, 10, 19<br />
“Among <strong>the</strong>m is a hadith transmitted in both Sahihs from al-Sa’b ibn Jaththamah, a Com-<br />
panion of <strong>the</strong> Prophet, who said that <strong>the</strong> Prophet was asked about some Muslims who had<br />
raided <strong>the</strong> poly<strong>the</strong>ists at night, wounding some of <strong>the</strong>ir women <strong>and</strong> children. He replied,<br />
“They are of <strong>the</strong>m.””<br />
“Al-Bayhaqi devoted a chapter of al-Sunan al-Kubra (9:78) to al-Sa’b’s hadith, entitling it: “On<br />
Unintentionally Killing Women <strong>and</strong> Children in a Night Raid or Attack, Hadiths Transmitted<br />
Permitting Night Attacks.”<br />
“Al-Tahawi mentions <strong>the</strong> reports relevant to <strong>the</strong> prohibition on killing women <strong>and</strong> children.<br />
Then he mentions <strong>the</strong> hadith of al-Sa’b ibn Jaththamah about <strong>the</strong> night raid <strong>and</strong> says…This<br />
agrees with my interpretation of <strong>the</strong> hadith of al-Sa’b. Thus, he as enjoined us to fight <strong>the</strong><br />
enemy, but he has <strong>for</strong>bidden us to kill women <strong>and</strong> children. It is a sin <strong>for</strong> us to intend to do<br />
what he has <strong>for</strong>bidden us to do, but it is permitted <strong>for</strong> us to intend to do what has been per-<br />
mitted <strong>for</strong> us, even if it involves harming o<strong>the</strong>rs whom we have been <strong>for</strong>bidden to harm <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>for</strong> whom we are not responsible.”<br />
“O<strong>the</strong>r au<strong>the</strong>ntic texts prove that it is permitted to kill women <strong>and</strong> children in <strong>the</strong> case of a<br />
night attack or invasion. There is <strong>the</strong> tradition from Sa’b ibn Jaththamah, a Companion of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Prophet. Putting <strong>the</strong>se texts toge<strong>the</strong>r, scholars concluded that <strong>the</strong> prohibition applies<br />
to cases when women <strong>and</strong> children can be distinguished from o<strong>the</strong>rs; when <strong>the</strong>y cannot be<br />
distinguished from o<strong>the</strong>rs, it is permitted to kill <strong>the</strong>m collaterally with <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs.”<br />
Zawahiri: Page 39, 158, 159, 167, 169, 184, 186, 209<br />
“The second ambiguity: They say that among <strong>the</strong> dead were innocent people who had<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
done nothing wrong. The answer to this ambiguity is this:<br />
First: Al-Sa’b Bin-Jathamah, may his soul find favor with God, recounted that <strong>the</strong> prophet<br />
was asked what rule pertained to <strong>the</strong> worshipers of idols who are attacked at night <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>n<br />
find that <strong>the</strong>ir women <strong>and</strong> children had been killed. He replied: “They are of <strong>the</strong>m.”<br />
This Hadith shows that women <strong>and</strong> young boys, that is, those who may not be killed sepa-<br />
rately, may be killed if <strong>the</strong>y are mixed with o<strong>the</strong>rs <strong>and</strong> it is not possible to distinguish be-<br />
tween one <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r. The Muslims were asking about night raids, when it is not possible<br />
to distinguish one person from ano<strong>the</strong>r. The prophet permitted this because an act that<br />
follows ano<strong>the</strong>r as a consequence is permitted even if it is not permitted separately.<br />
Second: Muslim comm<strong>and</strong>ers used catapults in <strong>the</strong>ir wars with <strong>the</strong> infidels. It is known that<br />
a catapult cannot differentiate among those whom it hits. It might hit those so-called in-<br />
nocent people. Yet <strong>the</strong> Muslim custom in <strong>the</strong>ir wars was to use catapults. They used <strong>the</strong>m<br />
against Al-Ta’if ’s inhabitants.”<br />
“They say that <strong>the</strong>re are innocent people who have done no wrong among those who were<br />
killed, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> answer to this accusation has a number of aspects:<br />
First aspect: Al-Sa’b Ibn Jathama, may God be content with him, narrated about <strong>the</strong> prophet,<br />
prayers <strong>and</strong> peace of God be upon him, that he was asked about <strong>the</strong> nonbelievers in <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>s<br />
who were attacked by night <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir women <strong>and</strong> children were harmed, so he said: “They<br />
are of <strong>the</strong>m,” Hadith.<br />
This Hadith proves that women <strong>and</strong> children <strong>and</strong> those whose killing is not permissible as<br />
individuals can be killed when mixed with o<strong>the</strong>rs <strong>and</strong> could not be singled out, because <strong>the</strong>y<br />
asked <strong>the</strong> prophet, prayers <strong>and</strong> peace of God be upon him, about <strong>the</strong> night raids which is kill-<br />
ing by night, <strong>for</strong> in night raids it is not possible to differentiate. Thus, what is permitted as a<br />
consequence of [circumstances] is not permitted independently of [<strong>the</strong> circumstances].<br />
“Al-Zuhri related from Ubaydallah Ibn Abdallah, who related from Ibn Abbas, who related<br />
from al-Sa’b Ibn Jaththamah, who said: ‘The prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him<br />
peace) was asked about <strong>the</strong> poly<strong>the</strong>ist tribesmen who were being attacked by night <strong>and</strong> some<br />
of whose children <strong>and</strong> women were being hit. He said that <strong>the</strong> latter were of <strong>the</strong>m.’<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 91
92<br />
“As everyone knows, whoever attacks such people cannot help hitting <strong>the</strong>ir children <strong>and</strong><br />
women whom it is <strong>for</strong>bidden to kill. Similarly, if <strong>the</strong>re are Muslims among <strong>the</strong>m, that must<br />
not prevent <strong>the</strong> launching of an attack on <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> shooting <strong>the</strong>m with arrows <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
things, even if <strong>the</strong>re is fear of hitting a Muslim.”<br />
“Someone might argue that <strong>the</strong> only reason <strong>for</strong> this is that <strong>the</strong> children of poly<strong>the</strong>ists are of<br />
<strong>the</strong>m, as <strong>the</strong> prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) said in <strong>the</strong> Hadith of al-Sa’b<br />
Ibn Jaththamah. The answer would be that <strong>the</strong> prophet could not have intended to say about<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir children that <strong>the</strong>y were of <strong>the</strong>m in non-belief, since minors cannot actually be non-<br />
believers, nor can <strong>the</strong>y deserve to be killed or punished <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> deeds of <strong>the</strong>ir parents in terms<br />
of <strong>the</strong> cancellation of blood money <strong>and</strong> expiation.”<br />
From al-Sa’b Ibn Jaththamah: “The prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) passed<br />
by me at al-Abwa or Waddan, <strong>and</strong> was asked whe<strong>the</strong>r it was permissible to attack non-believ-<br />
er tribesmen at night, in such wise as <strong>the</strong>ir women <strong>and</strong> children might be hit. The prophet<br />
replied, ‘They are of <strong>the</strong>m.’ I also heard him say, ‘There is no sacred enclosure (hima) except<br />
<strong>for</strong> God <strong>and</strong> His Messenger’.”<br />
“Sufyan recited <strong>the</strong> following tradition to him on <strong>the</strong> authority of al-Zuhri, who had it from<br />
Abdallah, who had it from Ibn Abbas, who had it from al-Sa’b Ibn Jaththamah, who said: ‘I<br />
heard <strong>the</strong> messenger of God (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) being asked about <strong>the</strong><br />
poly<strong>the</strong>ist tribesmen, whe<strong>the</strong>r we should attack <strong>the</strong>m by night <strong>and</strong> hit some of <strong>the</strong>ir women<br />
<strong>and</strong> children. He said that <strong>the</strong> latter were of <strong>the</strong>m.’<br />
The Imam al-Shirazi (may God have mercy on him) said: “Chapter: If he erects a catapult<br />
against <strong>the</strong>m or attacks <strong>the</strong>m by night when <strong>the</strong>re are women <strong>and</strong> children among <strong>the</strong>m, this is<br />
permissible on <strong>the</strong> basis of what Ali (may God honor him) transmitted: that <strong>the</strong> prophet (may<br />
God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) erected a catapult against <strong>the</strong> people of al-Ta’if although<br />
<strong>the</strong> city was not devoid of women <strong>and</strong> children. Also, al-Sa’b Ibn Jaththamah related: ‘I asked<br />
<strong>the</strong> prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) about <strong>the</strong> children of non-believers who<br />
are attacked by night <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir women <strong>and</strong> children are hit. He said <strong>the</strong> latter were of <strong>the</strong>m.’<br />
This is because <strong>the</strong> non-believers are not devoid of women <strong>and</strong> children, <strong>and</strong> if we abstained<br />
from shooting at <strong>the</strong>m <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> sake of <strong>the</strong> women <strong>and</strong> children, jihad would cease.”<br />
Abu Bakr al-Jassas (may God have mercy on him) said: “Al-Zuhri related from Ubaydallah<br />
Ibn Abdallah, who related from Ibn Abbas, who related from al-Sa’b Ibn Jaththamah, who<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
said: ‘The prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) was asked about <strong>the</strong> poly<strong>the</strong>ist<br />
tribesmen who were being attacked by night <strong>and</strong> some of whose children <strong>and</strong> women were<br />
being hit. He said that <strong>the</strong> latter were of <strong>the</strong>m.’”<br />
Referencing Ahmad ibn Hanbal<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 9, 10, 11, 16, 17<br />
“Ahmad [ibn Hanbal] <strong>and</strong> Abu Dawud relate a hadith from Salamah ibn al-Akwa’, who said<br />
“The Messenger of God, may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace, appointed Abu Bakr to<br />
be our comm<strong>and</strong>er, <strong>and</strong> we raided a group of poly<strong>the</strong>ists. We lay wait <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>m at night to<br />
kill <strong>the</strong>m. Our slogan that night was ‘Kill! Kill!’ With my own h<strong>and</strong> that night I killed seven<br />
high-ranking poly<strong>the</strong>ists.””<br />
“The Imam Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal] said, as stated in al-Mughni (9:230): “There is nothing<br />
wrong with night attacks. The attack on <strong>the</strong> Byzantines was nothing but a night attack. We<br />
know of no one who finds it reprehensible to attack <strong>the</strong> enemy by night.”<br />
“Ahmad [ibn Hanbal], Abu Dawud, <strong>and</strong> Ibn Majah transmit a hadith from Usamah ibn Zayd,<br />
a Companion of <strong>the</strong> Prophet, that <strong>the</strong> Prophet sent him to a country called Ubna <strong>and</strong> said<br />
“Come upon <strong>the</strong>m at dawn, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>n set it afire”—justifying setting enemy territory on fire,<br />
cutting down trees <strong>and</strong> crops.”<br />
Al-‘Ayni said in ‘Umdat al-Qari, 14:270: “Ibn ‘Umar’s hadith proves that Muslims may em-<br />
ploy any stratagems that will sap <strong>the</strong>ir poly<strong>the</strong>ist enemy’s strength, weaken <strong>the</strong>ir cunning, <strong>and</strong><br />
facilitate victory over <strong>the</strong>m. They may cut down <strong>the</strong>ir crops, divert <strong>the</strong>ir water, <strong>and</strong> besiege<br />
<strong>the</strong>m. Those permitted this were <strong>the</strong> Kufans, Malik, al-Sahfi’I, Ahmad [ibn Hanbal], Ishaq,<br />
al-Thawri, <strong>and</strong> Ibn al-Qasim. The Kufans said that <strong>the</strong>ir trees could be cut down, <strong>the</strong>ir l<strong>and</strong>s<br />
devastated, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir cattle slaughtered or hamstrung if <strong>the</strong>y could not be dislodged.”<br />
This hadith is clear in its indication that setting fire to enemy territory is permissible if <strong>the</strong><br />
fighting requires it.”<br />
“Ibn Qudamah (al-Mughni, 9:230): Al-Khiraqi said, ‘When <strong>the</strong> enemy is fought, <strong>the</strong>y are<br />
not burnt with fire.’ When one has power over <strong>the</strong> enemy, one may not burn him with fire.<br />
We know of no disagreement about this. Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, may God be pleased with<br />
him, used to order that <strong>the</strong> people who apostatized after <strong>the</strong> Prophety’s death should be<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 93
94<br />
fought with fire, <strong>and</strong> Khalid ibn al-Walid did this at his comm<strong>and</strong>. Today, however, I know<br />
of no disagreement among scholars concerning this. As <strong>for</strong> bombarding <strong>the</strong>m with fire<br />
be<strong>for</strong>e taking <strong>the</strong>m: if <strong>the</strong>y can be taken without fire, one may not bombard <strong>the</strong>m with it,<br />
because <strong>the</strong>y fall under <strong>the</strong> category of those over whom one has power. However, if one is<br />
powerless against <strong>the</strong>m without fire, one may do so, according to what most scholars hold.<br />
So said al-Thawri, al-Awza’I, <strong>and</strong> al-Shafi’i. The same holds <strong>for</strong> opening <strong>the</strong> floodgates<br />
against <strong>the</strong>m to drown <strong>the</strong>m: if <strong>the</strong>y can be overcome without it, it is not permissible, since<br />
this involves annihilating women <strong>and</strong> children, whom it is <strong>for</strong>bidden to annihilate inten-<br />
tionally. However, if <strong>the</strong>y cannot be overcome o<strong>the</strong>rwise, it is permissible. Night raids<br />
that involve this are also permissible, <strong>and</strong> one may setup a catapult against <strong>the</strong>m. The plain<br />
sense of <strong>the</strong> words of Ahmad [ibn Hanbal] is that it is permissible both when <strong>the</strong>re is need<br />
<strong>and</strong> when <strong>the</strong>re is not.”<br />
“Al-Rahibani (Matalib Uli al-Nuha, 2:516): “’Also’ it is permitted ‘to bombard <strong>the</strong>m with <strong>the</strong><br />
catapult.’ This is explicit, ‘because <strong>the</strong> Prophet set up a catapult against al-Ta’if.’ Al-Tirmidhi<br />
transmitted <strong>the</strong> report with a gap in <strong>the</strong> chain of transmission. Also, ‘Amr ibn Al-‘As set up<br />
catapults against Alex<strong>and</strong>ria. The plain sense of <strong>the</strong> words of Ahmad [ibn Hanbal] is that it is<br />
permissible both when <strong>the</strong>re is need <strong>and</strong> when <strong>the</strong>re is none. ‘Also’ <strong>the</strong>y may be bombarded<br />
with ‘fire <strong>and</strong> things like scorpions.’ Such as adders. ‘They may be smoked out of under-<br />
ground dens,’ i.e., excavations in <strong>the</strong> ground, as defined in <strong>the</strong> dictionary of al-Qamus. ‘Also’<br />
it is permitted ‘to cut off <strong>the</strong> road,’ i.e., <strong>the</strong>ir highway, ‘<strong>and</strong>’ to cut off ‘<strong>the</strong> water’ from <strong>the</strong>m,<br />
‘or open it to drown <strong>the</strong>m. ‘And’ it is permitted to ‘destroy <strong>the</strong>ir cultivated l<strong>and</strong>,’ even if it<br />
includes annihilating some women <strong>and</strong> children unintentionally, because it falls under <strong>the</strong><br />
same rule as night raids.<br />
Zawahiri: Page 33, 40, 61, 71, 79, 88, 89, 90, 91, 124, 136, 141, 142, 151, 165, 168, 169, 170,<br />
175, 176, 177, 183, 211<br />
“First class: They might be those who do not fight alongside <strong>the</strong> countries <strong>the</strong>y live in <strong>and</strong> do<br />
not help <strong>the</strong>m with <strong>the</strong>ir persons, wealth, counsel, or o<strong>the</strong>r types of assistance. These may not<br />
be killed but on condition that <strong>the</strong>y hold <strong>the</strong>mselves separately from <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs. If <strong>the</strong>y are<br />
not separated from <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs, it is permitted to kill <strong>the</strong>m including old people, women, young<br />
boys, sick persons, incapacitated persons, <strong>and</strong> unworldly monks. Ibn-Qudamah said: Women<br />
<strong>and</strong> children may be killed during a night raid on condition that <strong>the</strong>y are not killed intentional-<br />
ly <strong>and</strong> separately. It is permitted to kill <strong>the</strong>ir riding animals <strong>and</strong> livestock if this helps <strong>the</strong> Mus-<br />
lims to kill <strong>the</strong>m. There is no disagreement on this point. He added: It is permitted to carry out<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
a night raid on <strong>the</strong> enemy. Ibn-Hanbal said night raids were permitted especially against <strong>the</strong><br />
Byzantines. We will not discourage anyone from carrying out night raids.”<br />
“Chapter: The ruling is similar regarding opening <strong>the</strong> floodgates on <strong>the</strong>m to drown <strong>the</strong>m: if<br />
<strong>the</strong>y can be overcome in ano<strong>the</strong>r way, it is not permissible —if that entails <strong>the</strong> destruction of<br />
women <strong>and</strong> children, whose intentional destruction is <strong>for</strong>bidden. If <strong>the</strong>y can be overcome<br />
only in that way, it is permissible, as night attacks entailing <strong>the</strong> same things are permis-<br />
sible, <strong>and</strong> it is permissible to erect a catapult against <strong>the</strong>m. The plain sense of Ahmad [Ibn<br />
Hanbal] is that it is permissible when need is present <strong>and</strong> when it is absent. This is because<br />
<strong>the</strong> prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) erected a catapult against <strong>the</strong> people<br />
of al-Ta’if. Among those who hold this opinion are al-Thawri, al-Awza’i, al-Shafi’i, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
masters of opinion. Ibn al-Mundhir said that a tradition from <strong>the</strong> prophet states that he set<br />
up a catapult against <strong>the</strong> people of al-Ta’if <strong>and</strong> one from Amr Ibn al-As states that he set up a<br />
catapult against <strong>the</strong> people of Alex<strong>and</strong>ria. Also: because fighting by such means is customary<br />
<strong>and</strong> like shooting arrows.”<br />
“Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal] said <strong>the</strong>re was nothing wrong with attacking by night. ‘Are <strong>the</strong> attacks<br />
of <strong>the</strong> Byzantines anything but night attacks? We know of no one who disapproves of attack-<br />
ing <strong>the</strong> enemy by night.’<br />
“Sufyan recited <strong>the</strong> following tradition to him on <strong>the</strong> authority of al-Zuhri, who had it from<br />
Abdallah, who had it from Ibn Abbas, who had it from al-Sa’b Ibn Jaththamah, who said: ‘I<br />
heard <strong>the</strong> messenger of God (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) being asked about <strong>the</strong><br />
poly<strong>the</strong>ist tribesmen, whe<strong>the</strong>r we should attack <strong>the</strong>m by night <strong>and</strong> hit some of <strong>the</strong>ir women<br />
<strong>and</strong> children. He said that <strong>the</strong> latter were of <strong>the</strong>m.’<br />
“He [Ibn Hanbal] said that <strong>the</strong> chain of transmitters was good.”<br />
“Someone might object that <strong>the</strong> prophet <strong>for</strong>bade <strong>the</strong> killing of women <strong>and</strong> children.”<br />
“We would say that it refers to killing <strong>the</strong>m intentionally.”<br />
“Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal] said, ‘If he intends to kill <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>the</strong>n it is not permissible’.”<br />
The Imam al-Nawawi (may God have mercy on him) said: “3288: Yahya Ibn Yahya <strong>and</strong><br />
Muhammad Ibn Rumh reported to us that <strong>the</strong>y had been told by al-Layth; <strong>and</strong> Qutaybah Ibn<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 95
96<br />
Sa’id reported to us that al-Layth also reported to him from Nafi’, who had it from Abdal-<br />
lah, that <strong>the</strong> messenger of God (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) set fire to <strong>the</strong> date<br />
palms of <strong>the</strong> Banu al-Nadir at al-Buwayrah <strong>and</strong> cut <strong>the</strong>m down. Qutaybah <strong>and</strong> Ibn Rumh<br />
added in <strong>the</strong>ir report that God revealed <strong>the</strong> following verse on this occasion: ‘Whatever<br />
palm-tress you cut down, or left st<strong>and</strong>ing upon <strong>the</strong>ir roots, that was by God’s leave, <strong>and</strong> that<br />
He might degrade <strong>the</strong> ungodly.” [Quranic verse; al-Hashr 59:5].<br />
“In this Hadith <strong>the</strong>re is permission to cut down <strong>and</strong> burn <strong>the</strong> trees of <strong>the</strong> non-believers.<br />
This was held by Abd-al-Rahman Ibn al-Qasim, Nafi’ <strong>the</strong> mawla of Ibn Umar, Malik, al-<br />
Thawri, Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal], Ishaq, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> great majority.<br />
However, <strong>the</strong>re is a tradition from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, al-Layth Ibn Sa’d, Abu Thawr,<br />
<strong>and</strong> al-Awza’i (may God be pleased with him) that it is not permitted.”<br />
“God allowed <strong>the</strong> Muslims to mutilate <strong>the</strong> non-believers if <strong>the</strong> latter mutilated <strong>the</strong>m, even<br />
though mutilation is <strong>for</strong>bidden. God has said: ‘And if you chastise, chastise even as you<br />
have been chastised’ [Quranic verse; Al-Nahl 16:126]. This indicates that punishment by<br />
cutting off <strong>the</strong> nose or <strong>the</strong> ear, ripping open <strong>the</strong> belly, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> like, is punishment in kind,<br />
not aggression, <strong>and</strong> that equivalence is justice.<br />
“As <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> prohibition of mutilation, it is based on <strong>the</strong> Hadith that Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal]<br />
included in his Musnad on <strong>the</strong> authority of Samurah Ibn Jundub <strong>and</strong> Imran Ibn al-<br />
Husayn: ‘Never did <strong>the</strong> messenger of God (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace)<br />
preach a sermon to us but that he comm<strong>and</strong>ed us to charity <strong>and</strong> <strong>for</strong>bade us to mutilate.’”<br />
Ibn Muflih (may God have mercy on him) said: “Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal] said that <strong>the</strong>y ought<br />
not to torture him. He also said that if <strong>the</strong>y mutilated, <strong>the</strong>y can be mutilated. Abu Bakr<br />
mentioned this.” Ibn Taymiyyah (may God have mercy on him) has said:<br />
“For this reason, scholars have agreed on <strong>the</strong> permissibility of destroying trees <strong>and</strong> crops be-<br />
longing to <strong>the</strong> non-believers if <strong>the</strong>y have done <strong>the</strong> same to us or if <strong>the</strong>y can be overcome only<br />
by <strong>the</strong>se means. About its permissibility short of such circumstances <strong>the</strong>re is a well-known<br />
controversy. There are two accounts related on <strong>the</strong> authority of Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal]. Per-<br />
mitting it is <strong>the</strong> doctrine of al-Shafi’i <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs.”<br />
“What do you mean by <strong>the</strong> innocent?”<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
Those whose answers are not void of three cases: First case: “That <strong>the</strong>y would not be of those<br />
who fought with <strong>the</strong>ir countries nor had been hired by <strong>the</strong>m physically, financially, by opin-<br />
ion, consultation nor o<strong>the</strong>rwise, <strong>for</strong> it is not permissible to attack this type on condition that<br />
<strong>the</strong>y be outst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>and</strong> not having mixed with o<strong>the</strong>rs. But if <strong>the</strong>y mixed with o<strong>the</strong>rs <strong>and</strong><br />
were not distinguishable <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>ir killing would be permissible in con<strong>for</strong>mity <strong>and</strong> subject<br />
to those such as <strong>the</strong> aged, women, children, sick people, <strong>the</strong> h<strong>and</strong>icapped, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> dedicated<br />
monks. Ibn Qudamah [al-Maqdisi] narrated: <strong>and</strong> it is possible to unintentionally kill women<br />
<strong>and</strong> children in night attacks <strong>and</strong> burial places, if not intentionally individually killed. It is<br />
permissible to kill <strong>the</strong>ir cattle leading to <strong>the</strong>ir killing <strong>and</strong> defeat, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re is no dispute about<br />
that (meaning <strong>and</strong> elaboration 10/503). And he said: it is permissible to attack <strong>the</strong> enemy by<br />
night. Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said <strong>the</strong>re is no harm in attacking by night, <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> conquest of <strong>the</strong><br />
West is but by night, <strong>and</strong> he said <strong>and</strong> we know not anyone who disliked <strong>the</strong> attacks by night.”<br />
Referencing Salamah ibn al-Akwa<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 9<br />
“Ahmad [ibn Hanbal] <strong>and</strong> Abu Dawud relate a hadith from Salamah ibn al-Akwa’, who said<br />
“The Messenger of God, may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace, appointed Abu Bakr to<br />
be our comm<strong>and</strong>er, <strong>and</strong> we raided a group of poly<strong>the</strong>ists. We lay wait <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>m at night to<br />
kill <strong>the</strong>m. Our slogan that night was ‘Kill! Kill!’ With my own h<strong>and</strong> that night I killed seven<br />
high-ranking poly<strong>the</strong>ists.””<br />
Zawahiri: Page 168<br />
In <strong>the</strong> context of night-raids <strong>and</strong> intentional/unintentional killing of women <strong>and</strong> children:<br />
“From Salamah Ibn al-Akwa (may God be pleased with him): “Our battle cry <strong>the</strong> night we at-<br />
tacked Hawazin with Abu Bakr al-Siddiq—<strong>the</strong> prophet had made him our comm<strong>and</strong>er—was<br />
‘Kill! Kill!’ I killed with my own h<strong>and</strong>s that night seven prominent people.”<br />
Referencing ibn Umar<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 9, 10, 11<br />
“Among <strong>the</strong>m is a hadith transmitted in both Sahihs from al-Sa’b ibn Jaththamah, a Compan-<br />
ion of <strong>the</strong> Prophet, who said that <strong>the</strong> Prophet was asked about some Muslims who had raided<br />
<strong>the</strong> poly<strong>the</strong>ists at night, wounding some of <strong>the</strong>ir women <strong>and</strong> children. He replied, “They are of<br />
<strong>the</strong>m.” Also in both Sahihs is a hadith from Ibn ‘Umar, a Companion of <strong>the</strong> Prophet, that says:<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 97
98<br />
“The Prophet, may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace, attacked <strong>the</strong> Banu-Mustaliq while <strong>the</strong>y<br />
were off guard among <strong>the</strong>ir cattle. He killed <strong>the</strong> fighters <strong>and</strong> took <strong>the</strong> children captive.”<br />
“We read in both Sahihs from Ibn ‘Umar, a Companion of <strong>the</strong> Prophet: “The Messenger<br />
of God, may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace, burned <strong>and</strong> cut down <strong>the</strong> date palms of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Banu al-Nadir.” Concerning this, God said: “Whatever palm-trees you cut down, or left<br />
st<strong>and</strong>ing upon <strong>the</strong>ir roots, that was by God’s leave.” (Quran 59:5). In some traditions related<br />
by <strong>the</strong> two shaykhs [Muslim <strong>and</strong> al-Bukhari] one reads that <strong>the</strong> name of <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong> set afire<br />
was al-Buwayrah.<br />
Al-‘Ayni said in ‘Umdat al-Qari, 14:270: “Ibn ‘Umar’s hadith proves that Muslims may em-<br />
ploy any stratagems that will sap <strong>the</strong>ir poly<strong>the</strong>ist enemy’s strength, weaken <strong>the</strong>ir cunning, <strong>and</strong><br />
facilitate victory over <strong>the</strong>m. They may cut down <strong>the</strong>ir crops, divert <strong>the</strong>ir water, <strong>and</strong> besiege<br />
<strong>the</strong>m. Those permitted this were <strong>the</strong> Kufans, Malik, al-Sahfi’I, Ahmad [ibn Hanbal], Ishaq,<br />
al-Thawri, <strong>and</strong> Ibn al-Qasim. The Kufans said that <strong>the</strong>ir trees could be cut down, <strong>the</strong>ir l<strong>and</strong>s<br />
devastated, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir cattle slaughtered or hamstrung if <strong>the</strong>y could not be dislodged.”<br />
This hadith is clear in its indication that setting fire to enemy territory is permissible if <strong>the</strong><br />
fighting requires it.”<br />
Zawahiri: Page 170<br />
The Imam al-Nawawi (may God have mercy on him) said: “3288: Yahya Ibn Yahya <strong>and</strong><br />
Muhammad Ibn Rumh reported to us that <strong>the</strong>y had been told by al-Layth; <strong>and</strong> Qutaybah Ibn<br />
Sa’id reported to us that al-Layth also reported to him from Nafi’, who had it from Abdal-<br />
lah, that <strong>the</strong> messenger of God (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) set fire to <strong>the</strong> date<br />
palms of <strong>the</strong> Banu al-Nadir at al-Buwayrah <strong>and</strong> cut <strong>the</strong>m down. Qutaybah <strong>and</strong> Ibn Rumh<br />
added in <strong>the</strong>ir report that God revealed <strong>the</strong> following verse on this occasion: ‘Whatever<br />
palm-tress you cut down, or left st<strong>and</strong>ing upon <strong>the</strong>ir roots, that was by God’s leave, <strong>and</strong> that<br />
He might degrade <strong>the</strong> ungodly.’ [Quranic verse; al-Hashr 59:5].<br />
“In this Hadith <strong>the</strong>re is permission to cut down <strong>and</strong> burn <strong>the</strong> trees of <strong>the</strong> non-believers. This<br />
was held by Abd-al-Rahman Ibn al-Qasim, Nafi’ <strong>the</strong> mawla of Ibn Umar, Malik, al-Thawri,<br />
Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal], Ishaq, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> great majority. However, <strong>the</strong>re<br />
is a tradition from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, al-Layth Ibn Sa’d, Abu Thawr, <strong>and</strong> al-Awza’i (may God<br />
be pleased with him) that it is not permitted.”<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
Referencing Usama / Usamah ibn Zayd<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 10<br />
“Ahmad [ibn Hanbal], Abu Dawud, <strong>and</strong> Ibn Majah transmit a hadith from Usamah ibn Zayd,<br />
a Companion of <strong>the</strong> Prophet, that <strong>the</strong> Prophet sent him to a country called Ubna <strong>and</strong> said<br />
“Come upon <strong>the</strong>m at dawn, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>n set it afire”—justifying setting enemy territory on fire,<br />
cutting down trees <strong>and</strong> crops.”<br />
Zawahiri: Page 8, 159, 168, 184, 203<br />
“The prophet, prayers <strong>and</strong> peace of God be upon him, sent Usama Ibn Zayd to Abani in<br />
Palestine <strong>and</strong> comm<strong>and</strong>ed him to attack <strong>and</strong> set it on fire. This was during <strong>the</strong> time of <strong>the</strong><br />
prophecy <strong>and</strong> be<strong>for</strong>e <strong>the</strong> conquest of <strong>the</strong> Levante.<br />
Abu Dawud narrated about Al-Zuhari that Irwah said: “So Usama told me that <strong>the</strong> prophet,<br />
prayers <strong>and</strong> peace of God be upon him, had entrusted him with it saying ‘attack Ubna in <strong>the</strong><br />
morning <strong>and</strong> destroy it by fire’.”<br />
“Al-Zuhri related from Ubaydallah Ibn Abdallah, who related from Ibn Abbas, who related<br />
from al-Sa’b Ibn Jaththamah, who said: ‘The prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him<br />
peace) was asked about <strong>the</strong> poly<strong>the</strong>ist tribesmen who were being attacked by night <strong>and</strong> some<br />
of whose children <strong>and</strong> women were being hit. He said that <strong>the</strong> latter were of <strong>the</strong>m.’”<br />
“The prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) once sent Usama bin Zayd <strong>and</strong> said<br />
to him, ‘Attack Ubna195 in <strong>the</strong> morning <strong>and</strong> burn it.’ He used to order <strong>the</strong> expeditions to wait<br />
<strong>for</strong> those <strong>the</strong>y were attacking <strong>and</strong> to refrain from <strong>the</strong>m if <strong>the</strong>y gave <strong>the</strong> call to prayer; if <strong>the</strong>y<br />
heard no call, <strong>the</strong>y were to attack. The well-guided caliphs continued this policy.<br />
“As everyone knows, whoever attacks such people cannot help hitting <strong>the</strong>ir children <strong>and</strong><br />
women whom it is <strong>for</strong>bidden to kill. Similarly, if <strong>the</strong>re are Muslims among <strong>the</strong>m, that must<br />
not prevent <strong>the</strong> launching of an attack on <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> shooting <strong>the</strong>m with arrows <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
things, even if <strong>the</strong>re is fear of hitting a Muslim.””<br />
The Imam al-Jassas (may God have mercy on him) said: “The prophet (may God bless him<br />
<strong>and</strong> grant him peace) once sent Usama bin Zayd <strong>and</strong> said to him, ‘Attack Ubna212 in <strong>the</strong><br />
morning <strong>and</strong> burn it.’ He used to order <strong>the</strong> expeditions to wait <strong>for</strong> those <strong>the</strong>y were attacking<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 99
100<br />
<strong>and</strong> to refrain from <strong>the</strong>m if <strong>the</strong>y gave <strong>the</strong> call to prayer; if <strong>the</strong>y heard no call, <strong>the</strong>y were to at-<br />
tack. The well guided caliphs continued this policy.”<br />
“It is common knowledge that anyone who attacks such people cannot avoid hitting <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
children <strong>and</strong> women who are <strong>for</strong>bidden to be killed; similarly, if <strong>the</strong>re are Muslims among<br />
<strong>the</strong>m. This must not prevent <strong>the</strong> launching of <strong>the</strong> raid against <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> shooting at <strong>the</strong>m<br />
with arrows <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r things, even if <strong>the</strong>re is danger of hitting <strong>the</strong> Muslim.””<br />
“Abu Bakr al-Jassas (may God have mercy on him) said: “Al-Zuhri related from Ubaydallah<br />
Ibn Abdallah, who related from Ibn Abbas, who related from al-Sa’b Ibn Jaththamah, who<br />
said: ‘The prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) was asked about <strong>the</strong> poly<strong>the</strong>ist<br />
tribesmen who were being attacked by night <strong>and</strong> some of whose children <strong>and</strong> women were<br />
being hit. He said that <strong>the</strong> latter were of <strong>the</strong>m.’<br />
“The prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) once sent Usama bin Zayd <strong>and</strong> said<br />
to him, ‘Attack Ubna195 in <strong>the</strong> morning <strong>and</strong> burn it.’ He used to order <strong>the</strong> expeditions to wait<br />
<strong>for</strong> those <strong>the</strong>y were attacking <strong>and</strong> to refrain from <strong>the</strong>m if <strong>the</strong>y gave <strong>the</strong> call to prayer; if <strong>the</strong>y<br />
heard no call, <strong>the</strong>y were to attack. The well-guided caliphs continued this policy.<br />
“As everyone knows, whoever attacks such people cannot help hitting <strong>the</strong>ir children <strong>and</strong><br />
women whom it is <strong>for</strong>bidden to kill. Similarly, if <strong>the</strong>re are Muslims among <strong>the</strong>m, that must<br />
not prevent <strong>the</strong> launching of an attack on <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> shooting <strong>the</strong>m with arrows <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
things, even if <strong>the</strong>re is fear of hitting a Muslim.””<br />
“The prophet, prayers <strong>and</strong> peace of God be upon him, sent Usama Ibn Zayd to Abani in<br />
Palestine <strong>and</strong> comm<strong>and</strong>ed him to attack <strong>and</strong> set it on fire. This was during <strong>the</strong> time of <strong>the</strong><br />
prophecy <strong>and</strong> be<strong>for</strong>e <strong>the</strong> conquest of <strong>the</strong> Levante.”<br />
Referencing Al-Tirmidhi<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 10, 17<br />
“Al-Tirmidhi cites <strong>the</strong> hadith <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>n says: “This is a good <strong>and</strong> sound hadith. Many scholars<br />
have held this opinion <strong>and</strong> have seen nothing wrong in cutting down trees <strong>and</strong> laying waste<br />
to strongholds. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r h<strong>and</strong>, some have judged it to be reprehensible: such was <strong>the</strong><br />
opinion of al-Awza’i.”<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
“He also said (Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 1:623): “’Also,’ it is permitted ‘to bombard <strong>the</strong>m’ viz.,<br />
<strong>the</strong> infidels, ‘with a catapult.’ This is explicit, because <strong>the</strong> Prophet ‘set up a catapult against al-<br />
Ta’if.’ The report is transmitted by al-Tirmidhi with a gap in <strong>the</strong> chain of transmission.”<br />
“Al-Rahibani (Matalib Uli al-Nuha, 2:516): “’Also’ it is permitted ‘to bombard <strong>the</strong>m with <strong>the</strong><br />
catapult.’ This is explicit, ‘because <strong>the</strong> Prophet set up a catapult against al-Ta’if.’ Al-Tirmidhi<br />
transmitted <strong>the</strong> report with a gap ijn <strong>the</strong> chain of transmission.<br />
Zawahiri: Page 161<br />
Regarding his saying, “by erecting catapults,” i.e., it is against <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>for</strong>ts because <strong>the</strong> prophet<br />
erected <strong>the</strong>m against Al-Ta’if. Al-Tirmidhi transmitted this.<br />
Referencing Al-Awza’i<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 10, 15, 16, 17, 21<br />
“The great mass of scholars held <strong>the</strong> view that burning <strong>and</strong> devastating are permissible in<br />
enemy territory. Those who held it reprehensible were al-Awza’I, al-Layth, <strong>and</strong> Abu Thawr.”<br />
“Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani (Fath al-Bari, 6:155): “The majority of scholars have held it<br />
permissible to burn <strong>and</strong> devastate in enemy territory. Al-Awza’I, al-Layth, <strong>and</strong> Abu Thawr<br />
considered it reprehensible.”<br />
“Ibn Qudamah (al-Mughni, 9:230): “Al-Khiraqi said, ‘When <strong>the</strong> enemy is fought, <strong>the</strong>y are<br />
not burnt with fire.’ When one has power over <strong>the</strong> enemy, one may not burn him with fire.<br />
We know of no disagreement about this. Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, may God be pleased with him,<br />
used to order that <strong>the</strong> people who apostatized after <strong>the</strong> Prophety’s death should be fought<br />
with fire, <strong>and</strong> Khalid ibn al-Walid did this at his comm<strong>and</strong>. Today, however, I know of no<br />
disagreement among scholars concerning this. As <strong>for</strong> bombarding <strong>the</strong>m with fire be<strong>for</strong>e<br />
taking <strong>the</strong>m: if <strong>the</strong>y can be taken without fire, one may not bombard <strong>the</strong>m with it, because<br />
<strong>the</strong>y fall under <strong>the</strong> category of those over whom one has power. However, if one is power-<br />
less against <strong>the</strong>m without fire, one may do so, according to what most scholars hold. So said<br />
al-Thawri, al-Awza’I, <strong>and</strong> al-Shafi’i. The same holds <strong>for</strong> opening <strong>the</strong> floodgates against <strong>the</strong>m<br />
to drown <strong>the</strong>m: if <strong>the</strong>y can be overcome without it, it is not permissible, since this involves<br />
annihilating women <strong>and</strong> children, whom it is <strong>for</strong>bidden to annihilate intentionally. However,<br />
if <strong>the</strong>y cannot be overcome o<strong>the</strong>rwise, it is permissible. Night raids that involve this are also<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 101
102<br />
permissible, <strong>and</strong> one may setup a catapult against <strong>the</strong>m. The plain sense of <strong>the</strong> words of Ah-<br />
mad [ibn Hanbal] is that it is permissible both when <strong>the</strong>re is need <strong>and</strong> when <strong>the</strong>re is not.”<br />
“The following Quranic verse was revealed regarding this: ‘Whatever palm-trees you cut<br />
down…’ (Quran 59:5). The poly<strong>the</strong>ists said, ‘You prohibit corruption in <strong>the</strong> earth. What<br />
about cutting down <strong>and</strong> burning trees?’ The majority have held that it is permitted to burn<br />
<strong>and</strong> despoil in enemy territory. Al-Awza’I <strong>and</strong> Abu Thawr considered it reprehensible.”<br />
Zawahiri: Page 156, 165, 166, 170, 185, 207<br />
“Ibn Qudamah <strong>the</strong> Hanbali (may God have mercy on him) said: “Chapter: The ruling is simi-<br />
lar regarding opening <strong>the</strong> floodgates on <strong>the</strong>m to drown <strong>the</strong>m: if <strong>the</strong>y can be overcome in an-<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r way, it is not permissible—if that entails <strong>the</strong> destruction of women <strong>and</strong> children, whose<br />
intentional destruction is <strong>for</strong>bidden. If <strong>the</strong>y can be overcome only in that way, it is permis-<br />
sible, as night attacks entailing <strong>the</strong> same things are permissible, <strong>and</strong> it is permissible to erect a<br />
catapult against <strong>the</strong>m. The plain sense of Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal] is that it is permissible when<br />
need is present <strong>and</strong> when it is absent. This is because <strong>the</strong> prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong><br />
grant him peace) erected a catapult against <strong>the</strong> people of al-Ta’if. Among those who hold this<br />
opinion are al-Thawri, al-Awza’i, al-Shafi’i, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> masters of opinion. Ibn al-Mundhir said<br />
that a tradition from <strong>the</strong> prophet states that he set up a catapult against <strong>the</strong> people of al-Ta’if<br />
<strong>and</strong> one from Amr Ibn al-As states that he set up a catapult against <strong>the</strong> people of Alex<strong>and</strong>ria.<br />
Also: because fighting by such means is customary <strong>and</strong> like shooting arrows.”<br />
“Ibn Qudamah also said: “Chapter: If <strong>the</strong>y take a Muslim as a shield <strong>and</strong> necessity does not<br />
call <strong>for</strong> shooting at <strong>the</strong>m due to <strong>the</strong> war’s not being ongoing, or because <strong>the</strong>y can be over-<br />
come without it, or because one feels safe from <strong>the</strong>ir evil, it is not permissible to shoot at<br />
<strong>the</strong>m; <strong>and</strong> so if he shoots at <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> hits a Muslim, he bears liability <strong>for</strong> him. However,<br />
if necessity calls <strong>for</strong> shooting at <strong>the</strong>m because of fear <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims, shooting at <strong>the</strong>m is<br />
permissible because it is a case of necessity <strong>and</strong> so <strong>the</strong> non-believers are targeted. If <strong>the</strong>re is<br />
no fear <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims, but <strong>the</strong> enemy can be overcome only by shooting, al-Awza’i <strong>and</strong> al-<br />
Layth say that shooting at <strong>the</strong>m is not permissible, on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong> Quranic verse: ‘If it had<br />
not been <strong>for</strong> certain men believers <strong>and</strong> certain women believers whom you knew not, lest<br />
you should trample <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re befall you guilt unwittingly on <strong>the</strong>ir account…’ [Quranic<br />
verse; Al-Fath 48:25].<br />
“Having cited <strong>the</strong> scholarly positions available to us from <strong>the</strong> various legal schools on <strong>the</strong><br />
question of shooting at non-believers when <strong>the</strong>y are mixed with Muslims or when <strong>the</strong>y take<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
<strong>the</strong>m as human shields or take as shields people who may not be killed, such as women,<br />
children, protected minorities (dhimmis), or people with safe-conduct, we say in summary:<br />
Prohibition: This is <strong>the</strong> position cited from Malik <strong>and</strong> al-Awza’i.”<br />
“The Imam al-Nawawi (may God have mercy on him) said: “3288: Yahya Ibn Yahya <strong>and</strong><br />
Muhammad Ibn Rumh reported to us that <strong>the</strong>y had been told by al-Layth; <strong>and</strong> Qutaybah Ibn<br />
Sa’id reported to us that al-Layth also reported to him from Nafi’, who had it from Abdal-<br />
lah, that <strong>the</strong> messenger of God (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) set fire to <strong>the</strong> date<br />
palms of <strong>the</strong> Banu al-Nadir at al-Buwayrah <strong>and</strong> cut <strong>the</strong>m down. Qutaybah <strong>and</strong> Ibn Rumh<br />
added in <strong>the</strong>ir report that God revealed <strong>the</strong> following verse on this occasion: ‘Whatever<br />
palm-trees you cut down, or left st<strong>and</strong>ing upon <strong>the</strong>ir roots, that was by God’s leave, <strong>and</strong> that<br />
He might degrade <strong>the</strong> ungodly.’ [Quranic verse; al-Hashr 59:5].<br />
“In this Hadith <strong>the</strong>re is permission to cut down <strong>and</strong> burn <strong>the</strong> trees of <strong>the</strong> non-believers. This<br />
was held by Abd-al-Rahman Ibn al-Qasim, Nafi’ <strong>the</strong> mawla of Ibn Umar, Malik, al-Thawri,<br />
Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal], Ishaq, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> great majority. However, <strong>the</strong>re<br />
is a tradition from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, al-Layth Ibn Sa’d, Abu Thawr, <strong>and</strong> al-Awza’i (may God<br />
be pleased with him) that it is not permitted.”<br />
“Ibn Qudamah also said: “Chapter: If <strong>the</strong>y take a Muslim as a shield <strong>and</strong> necessity does not<br />
call <strong>for</strong> shooting at <strong>the</strong>m due to <strong>the</strong> war’s not being ongoing, or because <strong>the</strong>y can be over-<br />
come without it, or because one feels safe from <strong>the</strong>ir evil, it is not permissible to shoot at<br />
<strong>the</strong>m; <strong>and</strong> so if he shoots at <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> hits a Muslim, he bears liability <strong>for</strong> him. However, if<br />
necessity calls <strong>for</strong> shooting at <strong>the</strong>m because of fear <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims, shooting at <strong>the</strong>m is per-<br />
missible because it is a case of necessity <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> non-believers are targeted. If <strong>the</strong>re is no fear<br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims, but <strong>the</strong> enemy can be overcome only by shooting, al-Awza’i <strong>and</strong> al-Layth say<br />
that shooting at <strong>the</strong>m is not permissible, on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong> Quranic verse: ‘If it had not been<br />
<strong>for</strong> certain men believers <strong>and</strong> certain women believers whom you knew not, lest you should<br />
trample <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re befall you guilt unwittingly on <strong>the</strong>ir account’<br />
Referencing Al-Shafi’i<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 10, 11, 15, 16, 19, 21, 23<br />
“Al-Shafi’I said <strong>the</strong>re was nothing wrong with setting fires in enemy territory <strong>and</strong> cutting<br />
down trees <strong>and</strong> crops.”<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 103
104<br />
“Al-‘Ayni said in ‘Umdat al-Qari, 14:270: “Ibn ‘Umar’s hadith proves that Muslims may em-<br />
ploy any stratagems that will sap <strong>the</strong>ir poly<strong>the</strong>ist enemy’s strength, weaken <strong>the</strong>ir cunning, <strong>and</strong><br />
facilitate victory over <strong>the</strong>m. They may cut down <strong>the</strong>ir crops, divert <strong>the</strong>ir water, <strong>and</strong> besiege<br />
<strong>the</strong>m. Those permitted this were <strong>the</strong> Kufans, Malik, al-Sahfi’I, Ahmad [ibn Hanbal], Ishaq,<br />
al-Thawri, <strong>and</strong> Ibn al-Qasim. The Kufans said that <strong>the</strong>ir trees could be cut down, <strong>the</strong>ir l<strong>and</strong>s<br />
devastated, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir cattle slaughtered or hamstrung if <strong>the</strong>y could not be dislodged.”<br />
This hadith is clear in its indication that setting fire to enemy territory is permissible if <strong>the</strong><br />
fighting requires it.”<br />
“Al-Shafi’I (Kitab al-Umm, 4:257): “If <strong>the</strong> enemy <strong>for</strong>tifies himself on a hill, by a stronghold, by<br />
entrenchment, or by scattering caltrops, or any kind of <strong>for</strong>tification, <strong>the</strong>y may be bombarded<br />
with catapults, siege engines, fire, scorpions, snakes, <strong>and</strong> anything hateful to <strong>the</strong>m. The fight-<br />
ers may divert water against <strong>the</strong>m to drown <strong>the</strong>m or so that <strong>the</strong>y become bogged down in<br />
mud. All this may be done whe<strong>the</strong>r or not <strong>the</strong>re are children, women, <strong>and</strong> monks with <strong>the</strong>m,<br />
because <strong>the</strong> abode has not become immune by profession of <strong>Islam</strong> or treaty. Similarily, <strong>the</strong>re<br />
is nothing wrong with burning <strong>the</strong>ir fruit trees <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r trees <strong>and</strong> devastating <strong>the</strong>ir culti-<br />
vated l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> any of <strong>the</strong>ir inanimate possessions.”<br />
“As <strong>for</strong> bombarding <strong>the</strong>m with fire be<strong>for</strong>e taking <strong>the</strong>m: if <strong>the</strong>y can be taken without fire, one<br />
may not bombard <strong>the</strong>m with it, because <strong>the</strong>y fall under <strong>the</strong> category of those over whom one<br />
has power. However, if one is powerless against <strong>the</strong>m without fire, one may do so, according<br />
to what most scholars hold. So said al-Thawri, al-Awza’I, <strong>and</strong> al-Shafi’i. The same holds <strong>for</strong><br />
opening <strong>the</strong> floodgates against <strong>the</strong>m to drown <strong>the</strong>m: if <strong>the</strong>y can be overcome without it, it is<br />
not permissible, since this involves annihilating women <strong>and</strong> children, whom it is <strong>for</strong>bidden<br />
to annihilate intentionally. However, if <strong>the</strong>y cannot be overcome o<strong>the</strong>rwise, it is permissible.<br />
Night raids that involve this are also permissible, <strong>and</strong> one may set up a catapult against <strong>the</strong>m.”<br />
in al-Risalah, p.299: “In our view, <strong>and</strong> God alone knows best, <strong>the</strong> meaning of <strong>the</strong> prohibition<br />
of killing women <strong>and</strong> children is on intentionally seeking to kill <strong>the</strong>m when <strong>the</strong>y can be rec-<br />
ognized <strong>and</strong> distinguished from those who have been ordered to be killed. The meaning of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Prophet’s words, ‘They are of <strong>the</strong>m,’ is that <strong>the</strong>y unite two traits: <strong>the</strong>y do not have <strong>the</strong> legal<br />
factor of faith, which spares one’s blood, nor do <strong>the</strong>y live in an abode of faith, which prevents<br />
an attack on that abode.”<br />
They cannot be distinguished when <strong>the</strong>y are hit by <strong>the</strong>se weapons, <strong>and</strong> so <strong>the</strong> legal ruling is<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
like <strong>the</strong> one that applies to night attacks, bombardment by catapult, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> like. Some schol-<br />
ars, cited in <strong>the</strong> preceding chapter, said that by analogy <strong>the</strong> ruling applicable to <strong>the</strong> catapult<br />
applies to anything else that causes general destruction. Al-Shafi’i, <strong>for</strong> example, said, “Judge<br />
analogously whatever belongs to <strong>the</strong> same category of causing general destruction.”<br />
Al-Shafi’I says: “We prefer al-Awza’I’s position if we have no compelling necessity to fight<br />
<strong>the</strong> people of <strong>the</strong> stronghold. Desisting from <strong>the</strong>m if <strong>the</strong>re are Muslims among <strong>the</strong>m is more<br />
magnanimous <strong>and</strong> more likely to avoid harming <strong>the</strong> Muslims among <strong>the</strong>m. However, if we<br />
have compelling necessity to fear <strong>for</strong> our lives if we desist from fighting <strong>the</strong>m, we should fight<br />
<strong>the</strong>m, but not intending to kill any Muslims. If we do harm any, we should make expiation.<br />
Whenever <strong>the</strong>re is no such compelling necessity, desisting from fighting <strong>the</strong>m is <strong>the</strong> safer<br />
course <strong>and</strong> preferable in my view.”<br />
“In <strong>the</strong> jihad to repel, it is unrestrictedly permitted if <strong>the</strong> enemy cannot be repelled o<strong>the</strong>r-<br />
wise. This ought to be a point of agreement among jurists. We have already cited <strong>the</strong> words<br />
of al-Shafi’i: “However, if we have compelling necessity to fear <strong>for</strong> our lives if we desist from<br />
fighting <strong>the</strong>m, we should fight <strong>the</strong>m, but not intending to kill any Muslims.” It is exactly like<br />
<strong>the</strong> question of using human shields, <strong>for</strong> scholars have agreed that infidels may be killed even<br />
if <strong>the</strong>y use Muslims as shields, if <strong>the</strong>re is compelling necessity.<br />
Zawahiri: Page 29, 32, 35, 103, 108, 110, 130, 131, 148, 157, 158, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166,<br />
170, 172, 177, 184, 185, 186<br />
“I say: “As <strong>for</strong> Ibn al-Arabi’s saying about al-Shafi’i, ‘Al-Shafi’i held our position’: if he meant<br />
prohibiting shooting at poly<strong>the</strong>ists if <strong>the</strong>y use Muslims as human shields—<strong>and</strong> I think that is<br />
what he meant, based on what he says afterward, i.e., ‘This is evident; <strong>for</strong> it is not permitted<br />
to reach a permitted end by <strong>for</strong>bidden means, especially by means of <strong>the</strong> life of a Muslim;<br />
<strong>and</strong> so <strong>the</strong>re is no position except <strong>the</strong> one held by Malik (may God be pleased with him)’—<br />
<strong>the</strong>n he is at variance with <strong>the</strong> facts. Al-Shafi’i in fact allowed shooting at poly<strong>the</strong>ists if Mus-<br />
lims are mixed with <strong>the</strong>m, whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y have taken <strong>the</strong>m as human shields or not, as will be<br />
discussed later, God willing.””<br />
“If he meant that al-Shafi’i made someone who shot a Muslim amid <strong>the</strong> poly<strong>the</strong>ists liable to<br />
paying blood money, <strong>the</strong> fact is that al-Shafi’i (may God have mercy on him) distinguished in<br />
<strong>the</strong> matter between someone who shot <strong>and</strong> hit a Muslim unwittingly—he must per<strong>for</strong>m ex-<br />
piation, but not pay blood money—but if he knew <strong>the</strong> person to be a Muslim <strong>and</strong> shot when<br />
he was <strong>for</strong>ced to shoot, he is liable both to blood money <strong>and</strong> to expiation, as will be discussed<br />
later, God willing.”<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 105
106<br />
C. The third position on <strong>the</strong> issue is that it is permissible to shoot at <strong>the</strong> non-believers, along<br />
with at any Muslims mixed in with <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> any non-believers whose killing has been spe-<br />
cifically prohibited.<br />
Al-Shafi’i (may God have mercy on him) says: “Someone might object, saying, ‘How have you<br />
permitted bombardment by catapult <strong>and</strong> fire of a group of non-believers among whom <strong>the</strong>re<br />
are children <strong>and</strong> women that it is prohibited to kill?’ The answer is that we have permitted<br />
it in <strong>the</strong> way we have described <strong>and</strong> because <strong>the</strong> prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him<br />
peace) launched an attack on <strong>the</strong> Banu al-Mustaliq, taking <strong>the</strong>m by surprise, <strong>and</strong> ordering a<br />
night attack <strong>and</strong> burning, knowing all <strong>the</strong> while that <strong>the</strong>re were children <strong>and</strong> women among<br />
<strong>the</strong>m. The principle was that <strong>the</strong> tribe was a tribe of poly<strong>the</strong>ism <strong>and</strong> not <strong>for</strong>bidden.<br />
“He only <strong>for</strong>bade intentionally killing women <strong>and</strong> children, when <strong>the</strong>ir killer knows <strong>the</strong>m in-<br />
dividually. This is because of <strong>the</strong> report from <strong>the</strong> prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him<br />
peace) <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> prophet took <strong>the</strong>m captive <strong>and</strong> made <strong>the</strong>m property. He has written this<br />
be<strong>for</strong>e this. If <strong>the</strong>re are Muslim captives or merchants with safe-conduct among <strong>the</strong> tribe,<br />
I dislike exposing <strong>the</strong>m to <strong>the</strong> general burning <strong>and</strong> drowning, but I do not clearly <strong>for</strong>bid it.<br />
This is because if <strong>the</strong> tribe is a permissible target, it is not clear that it becomes prohibited<br />
by <strong>the</strong>re being a Muslim whose blood is <strong>for</strong>bidden in it. I only dislike it as a precaution <strong>and</strong><br />
because it is permitted to us, were <strong>the</strong>re no Muslim in it, to pass it by <strong>and</strong> not fight it; <strong>and</strong> if<br />
we fight it, we fight it by means that are not all-encompassing, such as burning <strong>and</strong> drown-<br />
ing. However, if <strong>the</strong> Muslims or some of <strong>the</strong>m are in close combat <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>y think that <strong>the</strong>y<br />
can harm those fighting <strong>the</strong>m by drowning or burning <strong>the</strong>m, I think that <strong>the</strong>y should do it<br />
<strong>and</strong> do not dislike it <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>m. That is because <strong>the</strong>y receive two rewards: one <strong>for</strong> defending<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves, <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>for</strong> harming <strong>the</strong>ir enemy not in close combat. So shield yourselves with<br />
<strong>the</strong> children of <strong>the</strong> poly<strong>the</strong>ists. It has been said that <strong>the</strong>y do not protect <strong>the</strong>mselves <strong>and</strong> those<br />
of <strong>the</strong>m that use a human shield are struck, but that <strong>the</strong> child is not intended. It has been<br />
said that one desists from <strong>the</strong> person being used as a shield. If <strong>the</strong>y should use a Muslim as a<br />
shield, I think that one should desist from <strong>the</strong> person <strong>the</strong>y are using as a shield, except if <strong>the</strong><br />
Muslims are in close combat; <strong>the</strong>n one does not desist from <strong>the</strong> person using <strong>the</strong> shield: one<br />
strikes at <strong>the</strong> poly<strong>the</strong>ist <strong>and</strong> protects <strong>the</strong> Muslim as far as possible. If in any of <strong>the</strong>se cases<br />
one strikes a Muslim, one frees a slave [as expiation].”<br />
Al-Shafi’i also says (may God have mercy on him): “If he shoots into enemy territory <strong>and</strong> hits<br />
a Muslim with a safe-conduct or captive, or an non-believer who has converted to <strong>Islam</strong>, <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
did not shoot at <strong>the</strong>m intentionally <strong>and</strong> did not see <strong>the</strong>m, he should free a slave [as expia-<br />
tion], but <strong>the</strong>re is no blood money <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> victim. However, if he saw <strong>the</strong> person, knew his<br />
status, <strong>and</strong> shot being <strong>for</strong>ced to do so, <strong>and</strong> killed him, he must pay blood money <strong>and</strong> per-<br />
<strong>for</strong>m expiation. If he shot intentionally, knowing <strong>the</strong> person to be a Muslim, he is subject to<br />
retribution (qasas) if he shot him without necessity or error <strong>and</strong> intended to kill him. If an<br />
non-believer uses <strong>the</strong> person as a human shield <strong>and</strong> he knows him to be a Muslim <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
man grapples with him, so that he thinks he can save himself only by striking <strong>the</strong> Muslim,<br />
he should strike him intending to kill <strong>the</strong> non-believer. If he strikes <strong>the</strong> Muslim, we shield<br />
him from retribution, but impose blood money on him. All of this is if he is in <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong> of<br />
non-believers or in <strong>the</strong>ir ranks. However, if he frees himself from <strong>the</strong> non-believers <strong>and</strong> is<br />
between <strong>the</strong> lines of <strong>the</strong> Muslims <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> non-believers, that is a place where <strong>the</strong>re might<br />
be Muslims <strong>and</strong> non-believers. So if a man kills a man <strong>and</strong> says, ‘I thought he was an non-<br />
believer, but <strong>the</strong>n I found him to be a Muslim,’ this was <strong>the</strong> result of error. He pays a fine <strong>for</strong><br />
bloodshed (‘aql); if <strong>the</strong> man’s next-of-kin are suspicious, he swears to <strong>the</strong>m that he did not<br />
know he was a Muslim when he killed him.”<br />
Al-Shafi’i also says (may God have mercy on him): “If <strong>the</strong> enemy shuts up women, children,<br />
<strong>and</strong> captives in <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>for</strong>ts, should <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>ts be bombarded by catapults?”<br />
“The answer is that if <strong>the</strong>re are women, children, <strong>and</strong> Muslim captives in <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>t, it is not<br />
wrong to set up <strong>the</strong> catapult against <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>t, to <strong>the</strong> exclusion of <strong>the</strong> houses in which <strong>the</strong>re<br />
are residents. However, if <strong>the</strong> Muslims grapple close to <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>t, it is not wrong to shoot at<br />
its houses <strong>and</strong> walls. If <strong>the</strong>re are fighters entrenched in <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>t, <strong>the</strong> houses <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>t are<br />
shot at. If <strong>the</strong>y shield <strong>the</strong>mselves with Muslim or non-Muslim children <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims<br />
are in close combat, it is not wrong to target <strong>the</strong> fighters to <strong>the</strong> exclusion of <strong>the</strong> Muslims <strong>and</strong><br />
children. If <strong>the</strong>y are not in close combat, I would prefer that he desist from <strong>the</strong>m until he can<br />
fight <strong>the</strong>m when <strong>the</strong>y are not using human shields. It is similar if <strong>the</strong>y bring <strong>the</strong>m out <strong>and</strong><br />
say, ‘If you shoot at us <strong>and</strong> fight us, we will kill <strong>the</strong>m.’ Naphtha <strong>and</strong> fire are like <strong>the</strong> catapult,<br />
<strong>and</strong> likewise water <strong>and</strong> smoke.”<br />
“Chapter: The ruling is similar regarding opening <strong>the</strong> floodgates on <strong>the</strong>m to drown <strong>the</strong>m: if<br />
<strong>the</strong>y can be overcome in ano<strong>the</strong>r way, it is not permissible—if that entails <strong>the</strong> destruction of<br />
women <strong>and</strong> children, whose intentional destruction is <strong>for</strong>bidden. If <strong>the</strong>y can be overcome<br />
only in that way, it is permissible, as night attacks entailing <strong>the</strong> same things are permis-<br />
sible, <strong>and</strong> it is permissible to erect a catapult against <strong>the</strong>m. The plain sense of Ahmad [Ibn<br />
Hanbal] is that it is permissible when need is present <strong>and</strong> when it is absent. This is because<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 107
108<br />
<strong>the</strong> prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) erected a catapult against <strong>the</strong> people<br />
of al-Ta’if. Among those who hold this opinion are al-Thawri, al-Awza’i, al-Shafi’i, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
masters of opinion. Ibn al-Mundhir said that a tradition from <strong>the</strong> prophet states that he set<br />
up a catapult against <strong>the</strong> people of al-Ta’if <strong>and</strong> one from Amr Ibn al-As states that he set up a<br />
catapult against <strong>the</strong> people of Alex<strong>and</strong>ria. Also: because fighting by such means is customary<br />
<strong>and</strong> like shooting arrows.”<br />
Al-Layth said that abstaining from <strong>the</strong> conquest of a <strong>for</strong>t that could be conquered was better<br />
than wrongly killing a Muslim. Al-Awza’i said: ‘How are <strong>the</strong>y to shoot when <strong>the</strong>y do not see?<br />
They would only be shooting at <strong>the</strong> children of Muslims.’ Al-Qadi <strong>and</strong> al-Shafi’i said that <strong>the</strong>y<br />
may be shot at when <strong>the</strong> war is ongoing, because not doing so would lead to halting jihad.<br />
Two texts are offered in support of this view, that if he kills a Muslim, he is liable to expiation<br />
<strong>and</strong> blood money.<br />
The Imam al-Nawawi (may God have mercy on him) said: “3288: Yahya Ibn Yahya <strong>and</strong><br />
Muhammad Ibn Rumh reported to us that <strong>the</strong>y had been told by al-Layth; <strong>and</strong> Qutaybah Ibn<br />
Sa’id reported to us that al-Layth also reported to him from Nafi’, who had it from Abdal-<br />
lah, that <strong>the</strong> messenger of God (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) set fire to <strong>the</strong> date<br />
palms of <strong>the</strong> Banu al-Nadir at al-Buwayrah <strong>and</strong> cut <strong>the</strong>m down. Qutaybah <strong>and</strong> Ibn Rumh<br />
added in <strong>the</strong>ir report that God revealed <strong>the</strong> following verse on this occasion: ‘Whatever<br />
palm-tress you cut down, or left st<strong>and</strong>ing upon <strong>the</strong>ir roots, that was by God’s leave, <strong>and</strong> that<br />
He might degrade <strong>the</strong> ungodly.’ [Quranic verse; al-Hashr 59:5].<br />
“In this Hadith <strong>the</strong>re is permission to cut down <strong>and</strong> burn <strong>the</strong> trees of <strong>the</strong> non-believers. This<br />
was held by Abd-al-Rahman Ibn al-Qasim, Nafi’ <strong>the</strong> mawla of Ibn Umar, Malik, al-Thawri,<br />
Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal], Ishaq, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> great majority. However, <strong>the</strong>re<br />
is a tradition from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, al-Layth Ibn Sa’d, Abu Thawr, <strong>and</strong> al-Awza’i (may God<br />
be pleased with him) that it is not permitted.”<br />
The Imam al-Qurtubi (may God have mercy on him) said: “Scholars differ regarding<br />
someone who destroys or spoils any animals or wares that have not been measured or<br />
weighed. Al-Shafi’i, Abu Hanifah, <strong>the</strong>ir colleagues, <strong>and</strong> one group of scholars say that <strong>the</strong><br />
person is liable to <strong>the</strong> like, <strong>and</strong> one does not turn toward <strong>the</strong> value except in <strong>the</strong> absence<br />
of <strong>the</strong> like. This is because God has said: ‘Whoso commits aggression against you, do you<br />
commit aggression against him like as he has committed against you’ [Quranic verse; al-<br />
Baqarah 2:194]. And also: ‘And if you chastise, chastise even as you have been chastised’<br />
[Quranic verse; al-Nahl 16:126-127].<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
Ibn Taymiyyah (may God have mercy on him) has said: “For this reason, scholars have<br />
agreed on <strong>the</strong> permissibility of destroying trees <strong>and</strong> crops belonging to <strong>the</strong> non-believers if<br />
<strong>the</strong>y have done <strong>the</strong> same to us or if <strong>the</strong>y can be overcome only by <strong>the</strong>se means. About its<br />
permissibility short of such circumstances <strong>the</strong>re is a well-known controversy. There are two<br />
accounts related on <strong>the</strong> authority of Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal]. Permitting it is <strong>the</strong> doctrine of<br />
al-Shafi’i <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs.”<br />
Al-Shafi’i (may God have mercy on him) said: “Someone might object, saying, ‘How have<br />
you permitted bombardment by catapult <strong>and</strong> fire of a group of non-believers among whom<br />
<strong>the</strong>re are children <strong>and</strong> women that it is prohibited to kill?’ The answer is that we have permit-<br />
ted it in <strong>the</strong> way we have described <strong>and</strong> because <strong>the</strong> prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant<br />
him peace) launched an attack on <strong>the</strong> Banu al-Mustaliq, taking <strong>the</strong>m by surprise, <strong>and</strong> order-<br />
ing a night attack <strong>and</strong> burning, knowing all <strong>the</strong> while that <strong>the</strong>re were children <strong>and</strong> women<br />
among <strong>the</strong>m. The principle was that <strong>the</strong> tribe was a tribe of poly<strong>the</strong>ism <strong>and</strong> not <strong>for</strong>bidden.<br />
“He only <strong>for</strong>bade intentionally killing women <strong>and</strong> children, when <strong>the</strong>ir killer knows <strong>the</strong>m in-<br />
dividually. This is because of <strong>the</strong> report from <strong>the</strong> prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him<br />
peace) <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> prophet took <strong>the</strong>m captive <strong>and</strong> made <strong>the</strong>m property. This has been writ-<br />
ten previously. If <strong>the</strong>re are Muslim captives or merchants with safe-conduct among <strong>the</strong> tribe,<br />
I dislike exposing <strong>the</strong>m to <strong>the</strong> general burning <strong>and</strong> drowning, but I do not clearly <strong>for</strong>bid it.<br />
This is because if <strong>the</strong> tribe is permissible, it is not clear that it becomes prohibited by <strong>the</strong>re<br />
being a Muslim whose blood is <strong>for</strong>bidden in it. I only dislike it as a precaution <strong>and</strong> because it<br />
is permitted to us, were <strong>the</strong>re no Muslim in it, to pass it by <strong>and</strong> not fight it; <strong>and</strong> if we fight it,<br />
we fight it by means that are not all-encompassing, such as burning <strong>and</strong> drowning. However,<br />
if <strong>the</strong> Muslims or some of <strong>the</strong>m are in close combat <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>y think that <strong>the</strong>y can harm those<br />
fighting <strong>the</strong>m by drowning or burning <strong>the</strong>m, I think that <strong>the</strong>y should do it <strong>and</strong> do not dis-<br />
like it <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>m. That is because <strong>the</strong>y receive two rewards: one <strong>for</strong> defending <strong>the</strong>mselves, <strong>the</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>for</strong> harming <strong>the</strong>ir enemy.”<br />
Referencing Ishaq<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 10, 11, 20, 22<br />
“Ishaq said that setting fire was Sunnah if it would cause damage to <strong>the</strong>m.”<br />
“Al-‘Ayni said in ‘Umdat al-Qari, 14:270: “Ibn ‘Umar’s hadith proves that Muslims may em-<br />
ploy any stratagems that will sap <strong>the</strong>ir poly<strong>the</strong>ist enemy’s strength, weaken <strong>the</strong>ir cunning, <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 109
110<br />
facilitate victory over <strong>the</strong>m. They may cut down <strong>the</strong>ir crops, divert <strong>the</strong>ir water, <strong>and</strong> besiege<br />
<strong>the</strong>m. Those permitted this were <strong>the</strong> Kufans, Malik, al-Sahfi’I, Ahmad [ibn Hanbal], Ishaq,<br />
al-Thawri, <strong>and</strong> Ibn al-Qasim. The Kufans said that <strong>the</strong>ir trees could be cut down, <strong>the</strong>ir l<strong>and</strong>s<br />
devastated, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir cattle slaughtered or hamstrung if <strong>the</strong>y could not be dislodged.” This<br />
hadith is clear in its indication that setting fire to enemy territory is permissible if <strong>the</strong> fighting<br />
requires it.”<br />
Ibn Ishaq transmits a report that when The Messenger of God <strong>the</strong>n cut down <strong>the</strong>ir date-<br />
palms <strong>and</strong> set fires. When <strong>the</strong>y saw <strong>the</strong> date-palms being cut down <strong>and</strong> burned, <strong>the</strong>y cried<br />
out: “Muhammad, you used to prohibit corruption! How can you cut down <strong>and</strong> burn date-<br />
palms?” God <strong>the</strong>n revealed <strong>the</strong> verse, “Whatever palm-trees you cut down…” (Quran 59:5).”<br />
Al Jassas said (Akham al-Qur’an, 3:589): “As <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> argument of those who cite <strong>the</strong> verse, “If<br />
it had not been <strong>for</strong> certain men believers <strong>and</strong> certain women believers…’ (Quran 48:25), as<br />
ground <strong>for</strong> prohibiting bombarding <strong>the</strong> infidels because of <strong>the</strong> Muslims in <strong>the</strong>ir midst, <strong>the</strong><br />
verse cannot be used to prove <strong>the</strong> point of contention. That is because <strong>the</strong> most <strong>the</strong> verse says<br />
is that God turned Muslims away from <strong>the</strong>m because among <strong>the</strong>m were some Muslims that<br />
<strong>the</strong> Prophet’s companions were in danger of harming if <strong>the</strong>y entered Mecca with <strong>the</strong> sword.<br />
This only proves that it is permitted to eschew bombarding <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> advancing on <strong>the</strong>m. It<br />
does not prove that it is <strong>for</strong>bidden to advance against <strong>the</strong>m with <strong>the</strong> knowledge that <strong>the</strong>re are<br />
Muslims among <strong>the</strong>m. It might permit desisting from <strong>the</strong>m <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> sake of <strong>the</strong> Muslims, <strong>and</strong><br />
it also might permit advancing as an option. Thus it contains no proof that advancing is <strong>for</strong>-<br />
bidden. “Someone might say that <strong>the</strong> import of <strong>the</strong> verse implies prohibition, because it says,<br />
‘Whom you knew not, lest you should trample <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re befall you guilt unwittingly<br />
on <strong>the</strong>ir account,’ <strong>and</strong>, but <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> prohibition no guilt of murdering <strong>the</strong>m by striking <strong>the</strong>m<br />
would have befallen <strong>the</strong>m. The reply is that interpreters have differed over <strong>the</strong> meaning of<br />
‘guilt (ma’arrah)’ here. Ibn Ishaq interpreted it as meaning <strong>the</strong> fine of blood money (diyah);<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rs interpreted it as meaning expiation (kaffarah); o<strong>the</strong>rs interpreted it as grief (ghamm)<br />
at having occasioned a Muslim’s death, because a believer would be grieved at this even if he<br />
had not done it intentionally. O<strong>the</strong>rs interpreted it as meaning disgrace (‘ayb). One inter-<br />
preter is reported to have said that ma’arrah meant sin (ithm), but this is false, because God<br />
said that it had happened, it would have happened without our knowledge: ‘Whom you knew<br />
not, lest you should trample <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re befall you ma’arrah unwittingly or <strong>the</strong>ir account,<br />
<strong>and</strong> one incurs no sin <strong>for</strong> what one does not know <strong>and</strong> of which God has given no indication.<br />
For God says ‘There is no fault in you if you make mistakes, but only in what your hearts<br />
premedidate.’ (Quran 33:5). Thus we know that ma’arrah does not mean sin…”<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
Zawahiri: Page 159, 170<br />
“As <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> argument of those who cite <strong>the</strong> verse, ‘If it had not been <strong>for</strong> certain men believers<br />
<strong>and</strong> certain women believers whom you knew not, lest you should trample <strong>the</strong>m…’ [Quranic<br />
verse; Al-Fath 48:25] as prohibiting shooting at non-believers <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> sake of <strong>the</strong> Muslims<br />
among <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>the</strong> verse contains no evidence regarding <strong>the</strong> point at issue. The most that it<br />
says is that God restrained <strong>the</strong> Muslims from <strong>the</strong>m because <strong>the</strong>re were Muslims among <strong>the</strong>m<br />
whom <strong>the</strong> Companions of <strong>the</strong> prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) feared <strong>the</strong>y<br />
would smite if <strong>the</strong>y entered Mecca by <strong>the</strong> sword. This merely shows that it is permissible to<br />
abstain from shooting <strong>and</strong> attacking <strong>the</strong>m, given that one knows <strong>the</strong> presence of Muslims<br />
among <strong>the</strong>m. It is permissible to allow desisting from <strong>the</strong>m <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> sake of <strong>the</strong> Muslims, <strong>and</strong><br />
it is also permissible to allow attacking as an option. There<strong>for</strong>e, <strong>the</strong>re is no indication in <strong>the</strong><br />
verse of a prohibition of an attack. Someone might argue that something in <strong>the</strong> tenor of <strong>the</strong><br />
verse indicates prohibition, namely <strong>the</strong> words, ‘Whom you knew not, lest you should trample<br />
<strong>the</strong>m, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re befall you guilt unwittingly on <strong>the</strong>ir account.’ Were it not <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> prohibi-<br />
tion, no guilt would have befallen <strong>the</strong>m from killing <strong>the</strong>m by hitting <strong>the</strong>m. The reply to him<br />
is that <strong>the</strong> commentators have disagreed about <strong>the</strong> meaning of ‘guilt’ (ma’arrah) here. “Ibn<br />
Ishaq is reported to have said that ma’arrah means <strong>the</strong> payment of blood money. Someone<br />
else said it means expiation. A third person said it means grief because of <strong>the</strong> slaying of a<br />
Muslim at his h<strong>and</strong>s, as a believer will be grieved by this, even if he did not intend it. Oth-<br />
ers said it means shame. Someone is reported to have said that ma’arrah means sin, but that<br />
must be false, since God says, ‘Whom you knew not, lest you should trample <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re<br />
befall you ma’arrah unwittingly on <strong>the</strong>ir account,’ <strong>and</strong> no sin is incurred where <strong>the</strong>re is no<br />
knowledge—God never indicated that. God has said, ‘There is no fault in you if you make<br />
mistakes, but only in what your hearts premeditate’ [Quranic verse; al-Ahzab 33:5]. Thus we<br />
learn that He did not mean sin.”<br />
“The Imam al-Nawawi (may God have mercy on him) said: “3288: Yahya Ibn Yahya <strong>and</strong><br />
Muhammad Ibn Rumh reported to us that <strong>the</strong>y had been told by al-Layth; <strong>and</strong> Qutaybah Ibn<br />
Sa’id reported to us that al-Layth also reported to him from Nafi’, who had it from Abdal-<br />
lah, that <strong>the</strong> messenger of God (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) set fire to <strong>the</strong> date<br />
palms of <strong>the</strong> Banu al-Nadir at al-Buwayrah <strong>and</strong> cut <strong>the</strong>m down. Qutaybah <strong>and</strong> Ibn Rumh<br />
added in <strong>the</strong>ir report that God revealed <strong>the</strong> following verse on this occasion: ‘Whatever<br />
palm-tress you cut down, or left st<strong>and</strong>ing upon <strong>the</strong>ir roots, that was by God’s leave, <strong>and</strong> that<br />
He might degrade <strong>the</strong> ungodly’ [Quranic verse; al-Hashr 59:5].<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 111
112<br />
“In this Hadith <strong>the</strong>re is permission to cut down <strong>and</strong> burn <strong>the</strong> trees of <strong>the</strong> non-believers. This<br />
was held by Abd-al-Rahman Ibn al-Qasim, Nafi’ <strong>the</strong> mawla of Ibn Umar, Malik, al-Thawri,<br />
Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal], Ishaq, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> great majority. However, <strong>the</strong>re<br />
is a tradition from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, al-Layth Ibn Sa’d, Abu Thawr, <strong>and</strong> al-Awza’i (may God<br />
be pleased with him) that it is not permitted.”<br />
Referencing Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani / al-Askalani<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 10, 15, 18<br />
Al-Hafiz [Ibn Hajar] commented as on <strong>the</strong> hadith of Ibn ‘Umar in Fath al-Bari, 6:155, as<br />
follows: “The great mass of scholars held <strong>the</strong> view that burning <strong>and</strong> devastating are permis-<br />
sible in enemy territory. Those who held it reprehensible were al-Awza’I, al-Layth, <strong>and</strong> Abu<br />
Thawr. They argued from Abu Bakr’s instructions to his armies not to do anything of <strong>the</strong><br />
sort. Al-Tabari replied that <strong>the</strong> prohibition should be taken to mean intent to do so, not if<br />
such damage was done in <strong>the</strong> course of fighting, as happened when <strong>the</strong> catapult was used<br />
against al-Ta’if. He replied similarily about <strong>the</strong> prohibition on killing women <strong>and</strong> children.<br />
Most Scholars held <strong>the</strong> same view, including death by drowning. Ano<strong>the</strong>r scholar said that<br />
Abu Bakr prohibited his armies from doing <strong>the</strong>se things because he knew that <strong>the</strong>se coun-<br />
tries would be conquered, so he wanted to preserve <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims. Only God knows which<br />
view is correct.”<br />
Al-Shawkani (Nayl al-Awtar, 8:78): Having cited a series of hadiths, including <strong>the</strong> a<strong>for</strong>emen-<br />
tioned hadith of Ibn ‘Umar, he says: “In <strong>the</strong>se hadiths <strong>the</strong>re is proof that burning is permitted<br />
in enemy territory, as al-Hafiz [Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani] said in Fath al-Bari.” He cites approv-<br />
ingly <strong>the</strong> passage mentioned above, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>n says, “It is obvious that what was done by Abu<br />
Bakr is not sufficient to invalidate what <strong>the</strong> Prophet is known to have done, since by agree-<br />
ment <strong>the</strong> words of a companion are not a conclusive argument [against <strong>the</strong> Prophet].”<br />
Zawahiri: Page 134, 135, 140, 143, 167, 177, 205<br />
Ibn Hajar (may God have mercy on him) says: “The word bayat, as used in <strong>the</strong> Hadith, means<br />
that <strong>the</strong> non-believers are attacked at night, so that one cannot distinguished among <strong>the</strong>m as<br />
individuals.”<br />
“The phrase, ‘They are of <strong>the</strong>m,’ means that it is so in that case. It does not mean that <strong>the</strong>y<br />
may be killed by aiming at <strong>the</strong>m; <strong>the</strong> meaning is that if <strong>the</strong> parents can be reached only by<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
trampling <strong>the</strong> children, who, if hit, are hit because <strong>the</strong>y were mixed with <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>mer, <strong>the</strong> latter<br />
may be killed.”<br />
Ibn Hajar (may God have mercy on him) said: “One of <strong>the</strong> lessons to be derived from this Ha-<br />
dith… is that equivalence in retaliation is not <strong>the</strong> kind of mutilation that has been <strong>for</strong>bidden.”<br />
Referencing Al-Layth<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 10, 15<br />
Al-Hafiz [Ibn Hajar] commented as on <strong>the</strong> hadith of Ibn ‘Umar in Fath al-Bari, 6:155, as<br />
follows: “The great mass of scholars held <strong>the</strong> view that burning <strong>and</strong> devastating are permis-<br />
sible in enemy territory. Those who held it reprehensible were al-Awza’I, al-Layth, <strong>and</strong> Abu<br />
Thawr. They argued from Abu Bakr’s instructions to his armies not to do anything of <strong>the</strong><br />
sort. Al-Tabari replied that <strong>the</strong> prohibition should be taken to mean intent to do so, not if<br />
such damage was done in <strong>the</strong> course of fighting, as happened when <strong>the</strong> catapult was used<br />
against al-Ta’if. He replied similarily about <strong>the</strong> prohibition on killing women <strong>and</strong> children.<br />
Most Scholars held <strong>the</strong> same view, including death by drowning. Ano<strong>the</strong>r scholar said that<br />
Abu Bakr prohibited his armies from doing <strong>the</strong>se things because he knew that <strong>the</strong>se coun-<br />
tries would be conquered, so he wanted to preserve <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims. Only God knows which<br />
view is correct.”<br />
Zawahiri: Page 78, 161, 166, 170, 183, 185<br />
However, if necessity calls <strong>for</strong> shooting at <strong>the</strong>m because of fear <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims, shooting at<br />
<strong>the</strong>m is permissible because it is a case of necessity <strong>and</strong> so <strong>the</strong> non-believers are targeted. If<br />
<strong>the</strong>re is no fear <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims, but <strong>the</strong> enemy can be overcome only by shooting, al-Awza’i<br />
<strong>and</strong> al-Layth say that shooting at <strong>the</strong>m is not permissible, on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong> Quranic verse:<br />
‘If it had not been <strong>for</strong> certain men believers <strong>and</strong> certain women believers whom you knew<br />
not, lest you should trample <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re befall you guilt unwittingly on <strong>the</strong>ir account…’<br />
[Quranic verse; Al-Fath 48:25]. Al-Layth said that abstaining from <strong>the</strong> conquest of a <strong>for</strong>t that<br />
could be conquered was better than wrongly killing a Muslim. Al-Awza’i said: ‘How are <strong>the</strong>y<br />
to shoot when <strong>the</strong>y do not see? They would only be shooting at <strong>the</strong> children of Muslims.’ Al-<br />
Qadi <strong>and</strong> al-Shafi’i said that <strong>the</strong>y may be shot at when <strong>the</strong> war is ongoing, because not doing<br />
so would lead to halting jihad. Two texts are offered in support of this view, that if he kills a<br />
Muslim, he is liable to expiation <strong>and</strong> blood money.<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 113
114<br />
The Imam al-Nawawi (may God have mercy on him) said: “3288: Yahya Ibn Yahya <strong>and</strong><br />
Muhammad Ibn Rumh reported to us that <strong>the</strong>y had been told by al-Layth; <strong>and</strong> Qutaybah Ibn<br />
Sa’id reported to us that al-Layth also reported to him from Nafi’, who had it from Abdal-<br />
lah, that <strong>the</strong> messenger of God (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) set fire to <strong>the</strong> date<br />
palms of <strong>the</strong> Banu al-Nadir at al-Buwayrah <strong>and</strong> cut <strong>the</strong>m down. Qutaybah <strong>and</strong> Ibn Rumh<br />
added in <strong>the</strong>ir report that God revealed <strong>the</strong> following verse on this occasion: ‘Whatever<br />
palm-tress you cut down, or left st<strong>and</strong>ing upon <strong>the</strong>ir roots, that was by God’s leave, <strong>and</strong> that<br />
He might degrade <strong>the</strong> ungodly’ [Quranic verse; al-Hashr 59:5]. “In this Hadith <strong>the</strong>re is per-<br />
mission to cut down <strong>and</strong> burn <strong>the</strong> trees of <strong>the</strong> non-believers. This was held by Abd-al-Rah-<br />
man Ibn al-Qasim, Nafi’ <strong>the</strong> mawla of Ibn Umar, Malik, al-Thawri, Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi’i,<br />
Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal], Ishaq, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> great majority. However, <strong>the</strong>re is a tradition from Abu<br />
Bakr al-Siddiq, al-Layth Ibn Sa’d, Abu Thawr, <strong>and</strong> al-Awza’i (may God be pleased with him)<br />
that it is not permitted.”<br />
Ibn Qudamah also said: “Chapter: If <strong>the</strong>y take a Muslim as a shield <strong>and</strong> necessity does not<br />
call <strong>for</strong> shooting at <strong>the</strong>m due to <strong>the</strong> war’s not being ongoing, or because <strong>the</strong>y can be over-<br />
come without it, or because one feels safe from <strong>the</strong>ir evil, it is not permissible to shoot at<br />
<strong>the</strong>m; <strong>and</strong> so if he shoots at <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> hits a Muslim, he bears liability <strong>for</strong> him. However,<br />
if necessity calls <strong>for</strong> shooting at <strong>the</strong>m because of fear <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims, shooting at <strong>the</strong>m<br />
is permissible because it is a case of necessity <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> non-believers are targeted. If <strong>the</strong>re<br />
is no fear <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims, but <strong>the</strong> enemy can be overcome only by shooting, al-Awza’i<br />
<strong>and</strong> al-Layth say that shooting at <strong>the</strong>m is not permissible, on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong> Quranic<br />
verse: ‘If it had not been <strong>for</strong> certain men believers <strong>and</strong> certain women believers whom you<br />
knew not, lest you should trample <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re befall you guilt unwittingly on <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
account’[Quranic verse; Al-Fath 48:25].<br />
Al-Layth said that abstaining from <strong>the</strong> conquest of a <strong>for</strong>t that could be conquered was better<br />
than wrongly killing a Muslim. Al-Awza’i said: ‘How are <strong>the</strong>y to shoot when <strong>the</strong>y do not see?<br />
They would only be shooting at <strong>the</strong> children of Muslims.’ Al-Qadi <strong>and</strong> al-Shafi’i said that <strong>the</strong>y<br />
may be shot at when <strong>the</strong> war is ongoing, because not doing so would lead to halting jihad.”<br />
Referencing Abu Thawr<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 10, 15, 17<br />
Al-Hafiz [Ibn Hajar] commented as on <strong>the</strong> hadith of Ibn ‘Umar in Fath al-Bari, 6:155, as<br />
follows: “The great mass of scholars held <strong>the</strong> view that burning <strong>and</strong> devastating are permis-<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
sible in enemy territory. Those who held it reprehensible were al-Awza’I, al-Layth, <strong>and</strong> Abu<br />
Thawr. They argued from Abu Bakr’s instructions to his armies not to do anything of <strong>the</strong><br />
sort. Al-Tabari replied that <strong>the</strong> prohibition should be taken to mean intent to do so, not if<br />
such damage was done in <strong>the</strong> course of fighting, as happened when <strong>the</strong> catapult was used<br />
against al-Ta’if. He replied similarily about <strong>the</strong> prohibition on killing women <strong>and</strong> children.<br />
Most Scholars held <strong>the</strong> same view, including death by drowning. Ano<strong>the</strong>r scholar said that<br />
Abu Bakr prohibited his armies from doing <strong>the</strong>se things because he knew that <strong>the</strong>se coun-<br />
tries would be conquered, so he wanted to preserve <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims. Only God knows which<br />
view is correct.”<br />
Al-San’ani (Subl al-Salam, 4:51): From Ibn ‘Umar, a Companion of <strong>the</strong> Prophet: “The Mes-<br />
senger of God, may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace, burned <strong>and</strong> cut <strong>the</strong> d ate-palms of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Banu al-Nadir.’ The hadith is generally accepted. It proves thatit is permitted to spoil<br />
<strong>the</strong> possessions of belligerents by burning <strong>and</strong> cutting <strong>for</strong> a benefit. The following Quranic<br />
verse was revealed regarding this: “Whatever palm-trees you cut down…’ (Quran 59:5). The<br />
poly<strong>the</strong>ists said, ‘You prohibit corruption in <strong>the</strong> earth. What about cutting down <strong>and</strong> burn-<br />
ing trees?’ The majority have held that it is permitted to burn <strong>and</strong> despoil in enemy territory.<br />
Al-Awza’I <strong>and</strong> Abu Thawr considered it reprehensible, arguing that Abu Bakr, <strong>the</strong> Prophet’s<br />
companion, ordered his armies not to do it. The response is that he saw benefit in <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
remaining because he knew that <strong>the</strong>y would become <strong>the</strong> Muslims’, so he wanted <strong>the</strong>m to<br />
remain <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>m, thus it depends on <strong>the</strong> perception of benefit.<br />
Zawahiri: Page 170<br />
“3288: Yahya Ibn Yahya <strong>and</strong> Muhammad Ibn Rumh reported to us that <strong>the</strong>y had been told by<br />
al-Layth; <strong>and</strong> Qutaybah Ibn Sa’id reported to us that al-Layth also reported to him from Nafi’,<br />
who had it from Abdallah, that <strong>the</strong> messenger of God (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him<br />
peace) set fire to <strong>the</strong> date palms of <strong>the</strong> Banu al-Nadir at al-Buwayrah <strong>and</strong> cut <strong>the</strong>m down.<br />
Qutaybah <strong>and</strong> Ibn Rumh added in <strong>the</strong>ir report that God revealed <strong>the</strong> following verse on this<br />
occasion: ‘Whatever palm-tress you cut down, or left st<strong>and</strong>ing upon <strong>the</strong>ir roots, that was by<br />
God’s leave, <strong>and</strong> that He might degrade <strong>the</strong> ungodly’ [Quranic verse; al-Hashr 59:5].<br />
“In this Hadith <strong>the</strong>re is permission to cut down <strong>and</strong> burn <strong>the</strong> trees of <strong>the</strong> non-believers. This<br />
was held by Abd-al-Rahman Ibn al-Qasim, Nafi’ <strong>the</strong> mawla of Ibn Umar, Malik, al-Thawri,<br />
Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal], Ishaq, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> great majority. However, <strong>the</strong>re<br />
is a tradition from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, al-Layth Ibn Sa’d, Abu Thawr, <strong>and</strong> al-Awza’i (may God<br />
be pleased with him) that it is not permitted.”<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 115
116<br />
Referencing Al-Ayni<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 11<br />
“Al-‘Ayni said in ‘Umdat al-Qari, 14:270: “Ibn ‘Umar’s hadith proves that Muslims may em-<br />
ploy any stratagems that will sap <strong>the</strong>ir poly<strong>the</strong>ist enemy’s strength, weaken <strong>the</strong>ir cunning, <strong>and</strong><br />
facilitate victory over <strong>the</strong>m. They may cut down <strong>the</strong>ir crops, divert <strong>the</strong>ir water, <strong>and</strong> besiege<br />
<strong>the</strong>m. Those permitted this were <strong>the</strong> Kufans, Malik, al-Sahfi’I, Ahmad [ibn Hanbal], Ishaq,<br />
al-Thawri, <strong>and</strong> Ibn al-Qasim. The Kufans said that <strong>the</strong>ir trees could be cut down, <strong>the</strong>ir l<strong>and</strong>s<br />
devastated, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir cattle slaughtered or hamstrung if <strong>the</strong>y could not be dislodged.”<br />
This hadith is clear in its indication that setting fire to enemy territory is permissible if <strong>the</strong><br />
fighting requires it.”<br />
Zawahiri: Page 161<br />
Regarding his saying, “by erecting catapults,” i.e., it is against <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>for</strong>ts because <strong>the</strong> prophet<br />
erected <strong>the</strong>m against Al-Ta’if. Al-Tirmidhi transmitted this. The word majaniq (catapults)<br />
is <strong>the</strong> plural of manjaniq (so vocalized by most), which is a loan-word from Persian, some-<br />
times treated as masculine, but better as feminine. It is a device <strong>for</strong> hurling large stones. It<br />
is no longer used today as it is not needed because of modern cannons. His words, “burning<br />
<strong>the</strong>m,” refer to burning <strong>the</strong>ir homes <strong>and</strong> possessions. Al-Ayni said: “The outward sense is<br />
burning <strong>the</strong>ir persons by means of catapults. Now if it is licit to make war on <strong>the</strong>m by burn-<br />
ing <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>the</strong>ir possessions can be burnt with greater reason.”<br />
Referencing Malik<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 11, 14, 15<br />
“Al-‘Ayni said in ‘Umdat al-Qari, 14:270: “Ibn ‘Umar’s hadith proves that Muslims may em-<br />
ploy any stratagems that will sap <strong>the</strong>ir poly<strong>the</strong>ist enemy’s strength, weaken <strong>the</strong>ir cunning, <strong>and</strong><br />
facilitate victory over <strong>the</strong>m. They may cut down <strong>the</strong>ir crops, divert <strong>the</strong>ir water, <strong>and</strong> besiege<br />
<strong>the</strong>m. Those permitted this were <strong>the</strong> Kufans, Malik, al-Sahfi’I, Ahmad [ibn Hanbal], Ishaq,<br />
al-Thawri, <strong>and</strong> Ibn al-Qasim. The Kufans said that <strong>the</strong>ir trees could be cut down, <strong>the</strong>ir l<strong>and</strong>s<br />
devastated, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir cattle slaughtered or hamstrung if <strong>the</strong>y could not be dislodged.”<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
This hadith is clear in its indication that setting fire to enemy territory is permissible if <strong>the</strong><br />
fighting requires it.”<br />
“Ibn al-‘Arabi (ahkam al-Qur’an, 4:176): “Authorities have differed about devastating <strong>and</strong><br />
burning enemy territory <strong>and</strong> cutting down <strong>the</strong>ir crops. There are two opinions. The first is<br />
that it is permissible, [Malik] said so in al-Mudawwanah. The second is that <strong>the</strong> Muslims<br />
know that <strong>the</strong>se things will be <strong>the</strong>irs, <strong>the</strong>y do not do it; if <strong>the</strong>y have no such hope, <strong>the</strong>y do<br />
it. [Malik] said this in al-Wadihah, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Shafi’is dispute with him about this. The correct<br />
opinion is <strong>the</strong> first. The Messenger of God, may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace, knew<br />
that <strong>the</strong> date-palms of <strong>the</strong> Banu al-Nadir would be his, yet he cut <strong>the</strong>m down <strong>and</strong> burned<br />
<strong>the</strong>m so as to damage <strong>and</strong> weaken <strong>the</strong> Banu al-Nadir <strong>and</strong> induce <strong>the</strong>m to depart. Destroying<br />
some property <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> sake of rest is permitted by religious law <strong>and</strong> approved by reason.”<br />
“Al-Mawwaq (Al-Taj wa-al-Iklil, 4:544): “By cutting off water <strong>and</strong> by a machine.’ Ibn al-<br />
Qasim said [this means] that <strong>the</strong>re is nothing wrong with bombarding <strong>the</strong>ir strongholds by<br />
means of <strong>the</strong> catapult <strong>and</strong> cutting off <strong>the</strong>ir provisions <strong>and</strong> water, even if <strong>the</strong>re are Muslims<br />
<strong>and</strong> children among <strong>the</strong>m. Ashhab also said this. [Malik] said in al-Mudawwanah that <strong>the</strong>re<br />
is nothing wrong with burning <strong>the</strong>ir villages <strong>and</strong> strongholds, flooding <strong>the</strong>m with water,<br />
plundering <strong>the</strong>m, cutting down fruit trees, <strong>and</strong> so <strong>for</strong>th, because God has said, ‘Nei<strong>the</strong>r tread<br />
<strong>the</strong>y any tread enraging <strong>the</strong> unbelievers, nor gain any gain from any enemy, but a righteous<br />
deed is <strong>the</strong>reby written to <strong>the</strong>ir account.’ (Quran 9:120). The Prophet cut down <strong>and</strong> burned<br />
<strong>the</strong> date-palms of <strong>the</strong> Banu al-Nadir.”<br />
Zawahiri: Page 108, 156, 157, 158, 166, 167, 170, 172, 191, 207, 211, 244<br />
Chapter Eight: The Legal Judgment on Shooting at Non-Believers if Muslims or Persons Who<br />
May Not Be Killed Are Mixed With Them<br />
A. The first position is to <strong>for</strong>bid shooting at <strong>the</strong> non-believers if Muslims are mixed with<br />
<strong>the</strong>m. This position is reported to have been that of Malik <strong>and</strong> al-Awza’i, though later mem-<br />
bers of <strong>the</strong> Maliki school disagreed, as will be seen later, God willing.<br />
“Abu Zayd said, ‘I asked Ibn al-Qasim what his opinion would be if <strong>the</strong> people of <strong>Islam</strong> be-<br />
sieged some poly<strong>the</strong>ists in a <strong>for</strong>t of <strong>the</strong>irs while <strong>the</strong>y were holding Muslim captives—should<br />
this <strong>for</strong>t be burned or not?’ He said: ‘I heard Malik when he was asked about some non-<br />
believers in <strong>the</strong>ir boats, whe<strong>the</strong>r we should hurl fire at <strong>the</strong>ir boats when <strong>the</strong>y had captives on<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 117
118<br />
board with <strong>the</strong>m. Malik said that he did not think it was right to do so, on <strong>the</strong> basis of God’s<br />
word regarding <strong>the</strong> people of Mecca: ‘Had <strong>the</strong>y been separated clearly, <strong>the</strong>n We would have<br />
chastised <strong>the</strong> non-believers among <strong>the</strong>m with a painful chastisement.’<br />
“Malik also said: ‘We had besieged <strong>the</strong> city of <strong>the</strong> Greeks <strong>and</strong> cut off <strong>the</strong>ir water. They would<br />
send down captives to draw water <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>and</strong> no one could shoot arrows at <strong>the</strong>m. So wa-<br />
ter reached <strong>the</strong>m without our choice.’<br />
“Al-Shafi’i held our position. This is evident; <strong>for</strong> it is not permitted to reach a permitted end by<br />
<strong>for</strong>bidden means, especially by means of <strong>the</strong> life of a Muslim; <strong>and</strong> so <strong>the</strong>re is no position except<br />
<strong>the</strong> one held by Malik (may God be pleased with him). And God is most knowledgeable.”<br />
“As <strong>for</strong> Ibn al-Arabi’s saying about al-Shafi’i, ‘Al-Shafi’i held our position’: if he meant prohib-<br />
iting shooting at poly<strong>the</strong>ists if <strong>the</strong>y use Muslims as human shields—<strong>and</strong> I think that is what<br />
he meant, based on what he says afterward, i.e., ‘This is evident; <strong>for</strong> it is not permitted to<br />
reach a permitted end by <strong>for</strong>bidden means, especially by means of <strong>the</strong> life of a Muslim; <strong>and</strong><br />
so <strong>the</strong>re is no position except <strong>the</strong> one held by Malik (may God be pleased with him)’—<strong>the</strong>n<br />
he is at variance with <strong>the</strong> facts. Al-Shafi’i in fact allowed shooting at poly<strong>the</strong>ists if Muslims<br />
are mixed with <strong>the</strong>m, whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y have taken <strong>the</strong>m as human shields or not, as will be dis-<br />
cussed later, God willing.”<br />
In what he says, Al-Qurtubi was trying to reconcile allowing shooting at <strong>the</strong> human shield<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> argument of Imam Malik. He <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e set severe restrictions that I do not think can<br />
be met in reality: one of <strong>the</strong>se being that if <strong>the</strong> non-believers are not shot at, <strong>the</strong>y will kill <strong>the</strong><br />
human shield <strong>and</strong> take control of <strong>the</strong> whole nation!<br />
Having cited <strong>the</strong> scholarly positions available to us from <strong>the</strong> various legal schools on <strong>the</strong><br />
question of shooting at non-believers when <strong>the</strong>y are mixed with Muslims or when <strong>the</strong>y take<br />
<strong>the</strong>m as human shields or take as shields people who may not be killed, such as women, chil-<br />
dren, protected minorities (dhimmis), or people with safe-conduct, we say in summary:<br />
The jurists’ positions can be divided into three:<br />
A. Prohibition: This is <strong>the</strong> position cited from Malik <strong>and</strong> al-Awza’i.<br />
B. Unconditional permission, with cancellation of blood money <strong>and</strong> expiation: This is <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
position of <strong>the</strong> Hanafis <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> later Malikis who agree with <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
C. Distinction: This is <strong>the</strong> position of <strong>the</strong> Shafi’is <strong>and</strong> Hanbalis. They do not prohibit shoot-<br />
ing, as long as <strong>the</strong>re is necessity or need <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims to do so. Muslims are not aimed at<br />
except in cases of necessity, because omitting to do so would lead to halting <strong>the</strong> jihad. They<br />
disagree about any Muslims killed, whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> slayer has no liability, whe<strong>the</strong>r he is liable<br />
<strong>for</strong> blood money along with expiation, or whe<strong>the</strong>r he is liable <strong>for</strong> expiation only, as we have<br />
mentioned. And God is most knowing!<br />
Al-Nawawi says: “Its implied meaning: He was asked about <strong>the</strong> rule governing <strong>the</strong> children of<br />
nonbelievers who are attacked while <strong>the</strong>y are spending <strong>the</strong> night, <strong>and</strong> so some of <strong>the</strong>ir wom-<br />
en <strong>and</strong> children are mortally wounded. He said that <strong>the</strong> children belong to <strong>the</strong>ir parents; in<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r words, <strong>the</strong>re is nothing wrong with doing so. The legal status of <strong>the</strong>ir parents applies to<br />
<strong>the</strong>m in inheritance, marriage, retaliation, bloodwit, <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r matters. The meaning also is<br />
if <strong>the</strong>y are not intentionally targeted without necessity.<br />
“As <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> previous Hadith, concerning <strong>the</strong> prohibition on killing women <strong>and</strong> children, <strong>the</strong><br />
intention is if <strong>the</strong>y can be distinguished. This Hadith that we have just mentioned, concern-<br />
ing <strong>the</strong> permissibility of attacking <strong>the</strong>m by night <strong>and</strong> killing women <strong>and</strong> children in <strong>the</strong> night<br />
raid, is our doctrine <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> doctrine of Malik, Abu Hanifah, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> majority.<br />
“The Imam al-Nawawi (may God have mercy on him) said: “3288: Yahya Ibn Yahya <strong>and</strong><br />
Muhammad Ibn Rumh reported to us that <strong>the</strong>y had been told by al-Layth; <strong>and</strong> Qutaybah Ibn<br />
Sa’id reported to us that al-Layth also reported to him from Nafi’, who had it from Abdal-<br />
lah, that <strong>the</strong> messenger of God (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) set fire to <strong>the</strong> date<br />
palms of <strong>the</strong> Banu al-Nadir at al-Buwayrah <strong>and</strong> cut <strong>the</strong>m down. Qutaybah <strong>and</strong> Ibn Rumh<br />
added in <strong>the</strong>ir report that God revealed <strong>the</strong> following verse on this occasion: ‘Whatever<br />
palm-tress you cut down, or left st<strong>and</strong>ing upon <strong>the</strong>ir roots, that was by God’s leave, <strong>and</strong> that<br />
He might degrade <strong>the</strong> ungodly’ [Quranic verse; al-Hashr 59:5].<br />
“In this Hadith <strong>the</strong>re is permission to cut down <strong>and</strong> burn <strong>the</strong> trees of <strong>the</strong> non-believers. This<br />
was held by Abd-al-Rahman Ibn al-Qasim, Nafi’ <strong>the</strong> mawla of Ibn Umar, Malik, al-Thawri,<br />
Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal], Ishaq, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> great majority. However, <strong>the</strong>re<br />
is a tradition from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, al-Layth Ibn Sa’d, Abu Thawr, <strong>and</strong> al-Awza’i (may God<br />
be pleased with him) that it is not permitted.”<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 119
120<br />
“They said that this is a general rule in all things. They supported it by <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong><br />
prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) confined <strong>the</strong> broken bowl to <strong>the</strong> tent of<br />
<strong>the</strong> woman who broke it <strong>and</strong> h<strong>and</strong>ed over <strong>the</strong> whole one, saying, ‘Vessel <strong>for</strong> vessel, <strong>and</strong> food<br />
<strong>for</strong> food.’ The tradition is included by Abu Dawud.<br />
“Malik <strong>and</strong> his colleagues say that in <strong>the</strong> case of animals or wares that have not been mea-<br />
sured or weighed, <strong>the</strong> person is liable <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> value, not <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> replacement.<br />
“There is no disagreement among <strong>the</strong> scholars that this verse is <strong>the</strong> basic rule with regard to<br />
similarity in matters of retribution. For example, someone who murders with something is<br />
killed by <strong>the</strong> same thing by means of which he murdered. This is <strong>the</strong> opinion of <strong>the</strong> great<br />
majority—unless he murdered his victim by means of such depravity as homosexual inter-<br />
course or giving alcohol to drink, in which case he is killed by <strong>the</strong> sword.<br />
“The position of <strong>the</strong> Shafi’is is that he is to be killed in <strong>the</strong> same way. A stick of <strong>the</strong> same de-<br />
scription is taken <strong>and</strong> driven up his anus until he dies, or he is make to drink wine until he dies.”<br />
It is here that many scholars prohibit <strong>the</strong> killing of Muslim human shields along with non-<br />
believers, except in case of necessity maintained by unquestionable fear of eradication of<br />
Muslims at large <strong>and</strong> not merely out of necessity or benefit. Of <strong>the</strong> scholars who strictly en-<br />
dorsed this is Imam Malik [Imam Malik Ibn Anas, one of <strong>the</strong> most highly respected scholars<br />
of jurisprudence in Sunni <strong>Islam</strong>], may God have mercy on him.<br />
Referencing Al-Thawri<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 11, 16<br />
“Al-‘Ayni said in ‘Umdat al-Qari, 14:270: “Ibn ‘Umar’s hadith proves that Muslims may em-<br />
ploy any stratagems that will sap <strong>the</strong>ir poly<strong>the</strong>ist enemy’s strength, weaken <strong>the</strong>ir cunning, <strong>and</strong><br />
facilitate victory over <strong>the</strong>m. They may cut down <strong>the</strong>ir crops, divert <strong>the</strong>ir water, <strong>and</strong> besiege<br />
<strong>the</strong>m. Those permitted this were <strong>the</strong> Kufans, Malik, al-Sahfi’I, Ahmad [ibn Hanbal], Ishaq,<br />
al-Thawri, <strong>and</strong> Ibn al-Qasim. The Kufans said that <strong>the</strong>ir trees could be cut down, <strong>the</strong>ir l<strong>and</strong>s<br />
devastated, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir cattle slaughtered or hamstrung if <strong>the</strong>y could not be dislodged.”<br />
This hadith is clear in its indication that setting fire to enemy territory is permissible if <strong>the</strong><br />
fighting requires it.”<br />
“Ibn Qudamah (al-Mughni, 9:230): “Al-Khiraqi said, ‘When <strong>the</strong> enemy is fought, <strong>the</strong>y are<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
not burnt with fire.’ When one has power over <strong>the</strong> enemy, one may not burn him with fire.<br />
We know of no disagreement about this. Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, may God be pleased with him,<br />
used to order that <strong>the</strong> people who apostatized after <strong>the</strong> Prophety’s death should be fought<br />
with fire, <strong>and</strong> Khalid ibn al-Walid did this at his comm<strong>and</strong>. Today, however, I know of no<br />
disagreement among scholars concerning this. As <strong>for</strong> bombarding <strong>the</strong>m with fire be<strong>for</strong>e<br />
taking <strong>the</strong>m: if <strong>the</strong>y can be taken without fire, one may not bombard <strong>the</strong>m with it, because<br />
<strong>the</strong>y fall under <strong>the</strong> category of those over whom one has power. However, if one is power-<br />
less against <strong>the</strong>m without fire, one may do so, according to what most scholars hold. So said<br />
al-Thawri, al-Awza’I, <strong>and</strong> al-Shafi’i. The same holds <strong>for</strong> opening <strong>the</strong> floodgates against <strong>the</strong>m<br />
to drown <strong>the</strong>m: if <strong>the</strong>y can be overcome without it, it is not permissible, since this involves<br />
annihilating women <strong>and</strong> children, whom it is <strong>for</strong>bidden to annihilate intentionally. However,<br />
if <strong>the</strong>y cannot be overcome o<strong>the</strong>rwise, it is permissible. Night raids that involve this are also<br />
permissible, <strong>and</strong> one may setup a catapult against <strong>the</strong>m. The plain sense of <strong>the</strong> words of Ah-<br />
mad [ibn Hanbal] is that it is permissible both when <strong>the</strong>re is need <strong>and</strong> when <strong>the</strong>re is not.”<br />
Zawahiri: Page 157, 165, 170<br />
“Abu Hanifah, his colleagues, <strong>and</strong> Al-Thawri permitted shooting into <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>ts of poly<strong>the</strong>ists<br />
even if <strong>the</strong>re were Muslim prisoners <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir children among <strong>the</strong>m. Even if an non-believer<br />
uses a Muslim child to shield himself, <strong>the</strong> poly<strong>the</strong>ist is shot at; <strong>and</strong> if a Muslim is hit, <strong>the</strong>re is<br />
no blood money or expiation <strong>for</strong> him.”<br />
“Al-Thawri said that <strong>the</strong>re is expiation, but not blood money.”<br />
“Al-Shafi’i held our position. This is evident; <strong>for</strong> it is not permitted to reach a permitted end by<br />
<strong>for</strong>bidden means, especially by means of <strong>the</strong> life of a Muslim; <strong>and</strong> so <strong>the</strong>re is no position except<br />
<strong>the</strong> one held by Malik (may God be pleased with him). And God is most knowledgeable.”<br />
Ibn Qudamah <strong>the</strong> Hanbali (may God have mercy on him) said: “Chapter: The ruling is simi-<br />
lar regarding opening <strong>the</strong> floodgates on <strong>the</strong>m to drown <strong>the</strong>m: if <strong>the</strong>y can be overcome in an-<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r way, it is not permissible—if that entails <strong>the</strong> destruction of women <strong>and</strong> children, whose<br />
intentional destruction is <strong>for</strong>bidden. If <strong>the</strong>y can be overcome only in that way, it is permis-<br />
sible, as night attacks entailing <strong>the</strong> same things are permissible, <strong>and</strong> it is permissible to erect a<br />
catapult against <strong>the</strong>m. The plain sense of Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal] is that it is permissible when<br />
need is present <strong>and</strong> when it is absent. This is because <strong>the</strong> prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong><br />
grant him peace) erected a catapult against <strong>the</strong> people of al-Ta’if. Among those who hold this<br />
opinion are al-Thawri, al-Awza’i, al-Shafi’i, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> masters of opinion. Ibn al-Mundhir said<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 121
122<br />
that a tradition from <strong>the</strong> prophet states that he set up a catapult against <strong>the</strong> people of al-Ta’if<br />
<strong>and</strong> one from Amr Ibn al-As states that he set up a catapult against <strong>the</strong> people of Alex<strong>and</strong>ria.<br />
Also: because fighting by such means is customary <strong>and</strong> like shooting arrows.”<br />
“The Imam al-Nawawi (may God have mercy on him) said: “3288: Yahya Ibn Yahya <strong>and</strong><br />
Muhammad Ibn Rumh reported to us that <strong>the</strong>y had been told by al-Layth; <strong>and</strong> Qutaybah Ibn<br />
Sa’id reported to us that al-Layth also reported to him from Nafi’, who had it from Abdal-<br />
lah, that <strong>the</strong> messenger of God (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) set fire to <strong>the</strong> date<br />
palms of <strong>the</strong> Banu al-Nadir at al-Buwayrah <strong>and</strong> cut <strong>the</strong>m down. Qutaybah <strong>and</strong> Ibn Rumh<br />
added in <strong>the</strong>ir report that God revealed <strong>the</strong> following verse on this occasion: ‘Whatever<br />
palm-tress you cut down, or left st<strong>and</strong>ing upon <strong>the</strong>ir roots, that was by God’s leave, <strong>and</strong> that<br />
He might degrade <strong>the</strong> ungodly’[Quranic verse; al-Hashr 59:5].<br />
“In this Hadith <strong>the</strong>re is permission to cut down <strong>and</strong> burn <strong>the</strong> trees of <strong>the</strong> non-believers. This<br />
was held by Abd-al-Rahman Ibn al-Qasim, Nafi’ <strong>the</strong> mawla of Ibn Umar, Malik, al-Thawri,<br />
Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal], Ishaq, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> great majority. However, <strong>the</strong>re<br />
is a tradition from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, al-Layth Ibn Sa’d, Abu Thawr, <strong>and</strong> al-Awza’i (may God<br />
be pleased with him) that it is not permitted.”<br />
Referencing Ibn al-Qasim<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 11, 15<br />
“Al-‘Ayni said in ‘Umdat al-Qari, 14:270: “Ibn ‘Umar’s hadith proves that Muslims may<br />
employ any stratagems that will sap <strong>the</strong>ir poly<strong>the</strong>ist enemy’s strength, weaken <strong>the</strong>ir cun-<br />
ning, <strong>and</strong> facilitate victory over <strong>the</strong>m. They may cut down <strong>the</strong>ir crops, divert <strong>the</strong>ir water, <strong>and</strong><br />
besiege <strong>the</strong>m. Those permitted this were <strong>the</strong> Kufans, Malik, al-Sahfi’I, Ahmad [ibn Hanbal],<br />
Ishaq, al-Thawri, <strong>and</strong> Ibn al-Qasim. The Kufans said that <strong>the</strong>ir trees could be cut down, <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
l<strong>and</strong>s devastated, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir cattle slaughtered or hamstrung if <strong>the</strong>y could not be dislodged.”<br />
This hadith is clear in its indication that setting fire to enemy territory is permissible if <strong>the</strong><br />
fighting requires it.”<br />
“Al-Mawwaq (Al-Taj wa-al-Iklil, 4:544): “By cutting off water <strong>and</strong> by a machine.’ Ibn al-<br />
Qasim said [this means] that <strong>the</strong>re is nothing wrong w ith bombarding <strong>the</strong>ir strongholds by<br />
means of <strong>the</strong> catapult <strong>and</strong> cutting off <strong>the</strong>ir provisions <strong>and</strong> water, even if <strong>the</strong>re are Muslims<br />
<strong>and</strong> children among <strong>the</strong>m. Ashhab also said this. [Malik] said in al-Mudawwanah that <strong>the</strong>re<br />
is nothing wrong with burning <strong>the</strong>ir villages <strong>and</strong> strongholds, flooding <strong>the</strong>m with water,<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
plundering <strong>the</strong>m, cutting down fruit trees, <strong>and</strong> so <strong>for</strong>th, because God has said, ‘Nei<strong>the</strong>r tread<br />
<strong>the</strong>y any tread enraging <strong>the</strong> unbelievers, nor gain any gain from any enemy, but a righteous<br />
deed is <strong>the</strong>reby written to <strong>the</strong>ir account.’ (Quran 9:120). The Prophet cut down <strong>and</strong> burned<br />
<strong>the</strong> date-palms of <strong>the</strong> Banu al-Nadir.”<br />
Zawahiri: Page 38, 39, 41, 156, 170<br />
Second: Muslim comm<strong>and</strong>ers used catapults in <strong>the</strong>ir wars with <strong>the</strong> infidels. It is known that<br />
a catapult cannot differentiate among those whom it hits. It might hit those so-called in-<br />
nocent people. Yet <strong>the</strong> Muslim custom in <strong>the</strong>ir wars was to use catapults. They used <strong>the</strong>m<br />
against Al-Ta’if ’s inhabitants.<br />
Ibn-Qudamah, may he rest in peace, said: Using catapults is permitted because <strong>the</strong> prophet,<br />
may God’s prayers <strong>and</strong> peace be upon him, used catapults against Al-Ta’if ’s inhabitants <strong>and</strong><br />
Amru Bin-al-As used catapults against <strong>the</strong> people of Alex<strong>and</strong>ria. Ibn-Qasim says in his<br />
commentary: It is permitted to use catapults against <strong>the</strong> infidels even if young boys, women,<br />
old people, <strong>and</strong> monks are killed along with <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs because it is permitted to attack <strong>the</strong>m<br />
collectively. Ibn-Rushud, may he rest in peace, said: Collective attacks against all types of<br />
idolaters are permitted.<br />
Third: Muslim jurists permitted killing Muslims used as human shields by <strong>the</strong> enemy af-<br />
ter <strong>the</strong>y fall captive into <strong>the</strong> infidels’ h<strong>and</strong>s. If <strong>the</strong> infidels use Muslim captives to protect<br />
<strong>the</strong>mselves from <strong>the</strong> Muslims’ arrows, <strong>the</strong>y may be killed although <strong>the</strong>y are faultless. Ibn-<br />
Taymiyyah, may he rest in peace, said: The ulema have agreed that if <strong>the</strong> infidel army uses<br />
captive Muslims as human shields <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re is fear <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims’ lives if <strong>the</strong>y do not fight,<br />
<strong>the</strong>y should attack even if this leads to killing <strong>the</strong> human shields. Ibn-Qasim, may he rest in<br />
peace, said: If <strong>the</strong>y use a Muslim as a human shield, it is not permitted to fire arrows at <strong>the</strong>m<br />
unless we fear <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslim army’s safety.<br />
“Abu Zayd said, ‘I asked Ibn al-Qasim what his opinion would be if <strong>the</strong> people of <strong>Islam</strong> be-<br />
sieged some poly<strong>the</strong>ists in a <strong>for</strong>t of <strong>the</strong>irs while <strong>the</strong>y were holding Muslim captives—should<br />
this <strong>for</strong>t be burned or not?’ He said: ‘I heard Malik when he was asked about some non-<br />
believers in <strong>the</strong>ir boats, whe<strong>the</strong>r we should hurl fire at <strong>the</strong>ir boats when <strong>the</strong>y had captives on<br />
board with <strong>the</strong>m. Malik said that he did not think it was right to do so, on <strong>the</strong> basis of God’s<br />
word regarding <strong>the</strong> people of Mecca: ‘Had <strong>the</strong>y been separated clearly, <strong>the</strong>n We would have<br />
chastised <strong>the</strong> non-believers among <strong>the</strong>m with a painful chastisement.’<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 123
124<br />
“Similarly, if an non-believer uses a Muslim as a human shield, it is not permissible to shoot<br />
at him. If someone does so <strong>and</strong> annihilates a Muslim, he must pay blood money(diyah) <strong>and</strong><br />
per<strong>for</strong>m expiation (kaffarah). If <strong>the</strong> person did not know, he is liable nei<strong>the</strong>r to blood money<br />
nor to expiation. If <strong>the</strong>y knew, <strong>the</strong>y should not have shot; <strong>and</strong> if <strong>the</strong>y did, <strong>the</strong>y became unin-<br />
tentional homicides, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir fellow tribesmen (aqilah) became liable <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> blood money.<br />
However, if <strong>the</strong>y did not know, <strong>the</strong>y could shoot; <strong>and</strong> if <strong>the</strong>y permitted <strong>the</strong> deed, it is not<br />
allowed <strong>for</strong> consequence of it to remain against <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
“The Imam al-Nawawi (may God have mercy on him) said: “3288: Yahya Ibn Yahya <strong>and</strong><br />
Muhammad Ibn Rumh reported to us that <strong>the</strong>y had been told by al-Layth; <strong>and</strong> Qutaybah Ibn<br />
Sa’id reported to us that al-Layth also reported to him from Nafi’, who had it from Abdal-<br />
lah, that <strong>the</strong> messenger of God (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) set fire to <strong>the</strong> date<br />
palms of <strong>the</strong> Banu al-Nadir at al-Buwayrah <strong>and</strong> cut <strong>the</strong>m down. Qutaybah <strong>and</strong> Ibn Rumh<br />
added in <strong>the</strong>ir report that God revealed <strong>the</strong> following verse on this occasion: ‘Whatever<br />
palm-tress you cut down, or left st<strong>and</strong>ing upon <strong>the</strong>ir roots, that was by God’s leave, <strong>and</strong> that<br />
He might degrade <strong>the</strong> ungodly’ [Quranic verse; al-Hashr 59:5].<br />
“In this Hadith <strong>the</strong>re is permission to cut down <strong>and</strong> burn <strong>the</strong> trees of <strong>the</strong> non-believers. This<br />
was held by Abd-al-Rahman Ibn al-Qasim, Nafi’ <strong>the</strong> mawla of Ibn Umar, Malik, al-Thawri,<br />
Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi’i, Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal], Ishaq, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> great majority. However, <strong>the</strong>re<br />
is a tradition from Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, al-Layth Ibn Sa’d, Abu Thawr, <strong>and</strong> al-Awza’i (may God<br />
be pleased with him) that it is not permitted.”<br />
Referencing Amr Ibn al-As<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 11, 17<br />
“Al-Bayhaqi <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs relate that ‘Amr ibn al-‘As, a Companion of <strong>the</strong> Prophet, set up a cata-<br />
pult to attack <strong>the</strong> people of Alex<strong>and</strong>ria.”<br />
“He also said (Sharh Muntaha al-Iradat, 1:623): “’Also,’ it is permitted ‘to bombard <strong>the</strong>m’ viz.,<br />
<strong>the</strong> infidels, ‘with a catapult.’ This is explicit, because <strong>the</strong> Prophet ‘set up a catapult against al-<br />
Ta’if.’ The report is transmitted by al-Tirmidhi with a gap in <strong>the</strong> chain of transmission. Also,<br />
‘Amr ibn al-‘As set up catapults against Alex<strong>and</strong>ria. The plain sense of <strong>the</strong> words of Ahmad<br />
[ibn Hanbal’ is that it is permissible both when <strong>the</strong>re is need <strong>and</strong> when <strong>the</strong>re is not. ‘Also’<br />
it is permissible to bombard <strong>the</strong>m ‘with fire, <strong>and</strong>’ it is permissible ‘to cut off <strong>the</strong> road,’ i.e.,<br />
<strong>the</strong> highway, ‘<strong>and</strong>’ cut off ‘water’ from <strong>the</strong>m, ‘or open it to drown <strong>the</strong>m. And’ it is permitted<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
‘to destroy <strong>the</strong>ir cultivated l<strong>and</strong>,’ even if it includes annihilating some women <strong>and</strong> children,<br />
because it falls under <strong>the</strong> same rule as night raids.”<br />
Zawahiri: Page 39, 124, 165, 208, 210<br />
Ibn-Qudamah, may he rest in peace, said: Using catapults is permitted because <strong>the</strong> prophet,<br />
may God’s prayers <strong>and</strong> peace be upon him, used catapults against Al-Ta’if ’s inhabitants <strong>and</strong><br />
Amru Bin-al-As used catapults against <strong>the</strong> people of Alex<strong>and</strong>ria. Ibn-Qasim says in his<br />
commentary: It is permitted to use catapults against <strong>the</strong> infidels even if young boys, women,<br />
old people, <strong>and</strong> monks are killed along with <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs because it is permitted to attack <strong>the</strong>m<br />
collectively. Ibn-Rushud, may he rest in peace, said: c collective attacks against all types of<br />
idolaters are permitted.<br />
Ibn Qudamah <strong>the</strong> Hanbali (may God have mercy on him) said: “Chapter: The ruling is simi-<br />
lar regarding opening <strong>the</strong> floodgates on <strong>the</strong>m to drown <strong>the</strong>m: if <strong>the</strong>y can be overcome in an-<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r way, it is not permissible—if that entails <strong>the</strong> destruction of women <strong>and</strong> children, whose<br />
intentional destruction is <strong>for</strong>bidden. If <strong>the</strong>y can be overcome only in that way, it is permis-<br />
sible, as night attacks entailing <strong>the</strong> same things are permissible, <strong>and</strong> it is permissible to erect a<br />
catapult against <strong>the</strong>m. The plain sense of Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal] is that it is permissible when<br />
need is present <strong>and</strong> when it is absent. This is because <strong>the</strong> prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong><br />
grant him peace) erected a catapult against <strong>the</strong> people of al-Ta’if. Among those who hold this<br />
opinion are al-Thawri, al-Awza’i, al-Shafi’i, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> masters of opinion. Ibn al-Mundhir said<br />
that a tradition from <strong>the</strong> prophet states that he set up a catapult against <strong>the</strong> people of al-Ta’if<br />
<strong>and</strong> one from Amr Ibn al-As states that he set up a catapult against <strong>the</strong> people of Alex<strong>and</strong>ria.<br />
Also: because fighting by such means is customary <strong>and</strong> like shooting arrows.”<br />
Public opinion varied between permitting killing <strong>and</strong> restraining it according to necessity, as<br />
I explained in detail in Chapter Eight.<br />
b. Public opinion did not confine <strong>the</strong> killing of human shields to jihad of defense but permit-<br />
ted it in all operations of jihad, <strong>and</strong> drew upon <strong>the</strong> Sunnah of <strong>the</strong> prophet, prayers <strong>and</strong> peace<br />
be upon him, in his exasperated labor against <strong>the</strong> people of Al-Ta’if <strong>and</strong> his brigades which<br />
raided <strong>the</strong> non-believers, among whom were women <strong>and</strong> children. The prophet, prayers <strong>and</strong><br />
peace of God be upon him, <strong>and</strong> his companions were not, in <strong>the</strong>se cases in jihad of defense,<br />
yet <strong>the</strong> siege of Al-Ta’if was after <strong>the</strong> conquest of Mecca. Ibn Qudamah [Al-Maqdisi - <strong>Islam</strong>ic<br />
scholar of <strong>the</strong> Hanbali madhhab] said in Al-Mughni [a well-known Hanbali book of fiqh]<br />
that Amr Ibn al-’As [Muslim conqueror of Egypt in 641-642 Hijri] had installed <strong>the</strong> catapult<br />
against <strong>the</strong> people of Alex<strong>and</strong>ria [Egypt].266 This was jihad al-talab [jihad of oppression].<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 125
126<br />
The second aspect: Muslim leaders used catapults in fighting <strong>the</strong> non-believers. It is known<br />
that catapults if used, do not differentiate between one fighter <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r. They can strike<br />
those who are called innocent; never<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> Muslim tradition was that it was used in<br />
wars. Ibn Qudamah, may God have mercy upon him, said: Using catapults is permissible<br />
because <strong>the</strong> prophet, prayers <strong>and</strong> peace of God be upon him, used <strong>the</strong>m against <strong>the</strong> people<br />
of Al-Ta’if <strong>and</strong> Amr Ibn al-As used <strong>the</strong>m against <strong>the</strong> people of Alex<strong>and</strong>ria (Al-Mughni <strong>and</strong><br />
Al-Sharh 10/503). Ibn Qassim, may God have mercy upon him, said in Al-Hashiyyah: ‘It<br />
is permissible to use catapults against <strong>the</strong> non-believers even if children, women, old men<br />
<strong>and</strong> monks are killed inadvertently, because crushing <strong>the</strong> enemy is allowed according to <strong>the</strong><br />
consensus of <strong>the</strong> scholars. [Abu al Walid Mohammad] Ibn Rushud [Muslim scholar, philoso-<br />
pher <strong>and</strong> physician of 12th century Al-Andalus], said: “Crushing <strong>the</strong> enemy is permissible<br />
according to <strong>the</strong> consensus of scholars <strong>and</strong> against any type of poly<strong>the</strong>ist” (Al-Hashiyah ala’<br />
Ar-Raudh, vol. 4, p 271).<br />
Referencing Al-Sarakhsi<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 13, 14<br />
“Al-Sarakhsi, citing Muhammad ibn al-Hasan [al-Shaybani] (Sharh al-Siyar al-Kabir, 4:1467):<br />
“He said that <strong>the</strong>re was nothing wrong with <strong>the</strong> Muslims’ burning <strong>the</strong> poly<strong>the</strong>ists strongholds<br />
or flooding <strong>the</strong>m with wáter; setting up catapults against <strong>the</strong>m; cutting off <strong>the</strong>ir water; or put-<br />
ting blood, dung, or poison in <strong>the</strong>ir water to befoul it <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>m. This is because we have been<br />
comm<strong>and</strong>ed to subdue <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> break <strong>the</strong>ir strength. All <strong>the</strong>se things are military tactics<br />
that will cause <strong>the</strong>ir strength to break; <strong>the</strong>y derive from obedience, not disobedience to what<br />
has been comm<strong>and</strong>ed. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, all <strong>the</strong>se things damage <strong>the</strong> enemy, which is a cause<br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> acquisition of reward. God has said, ‘Nor gain <strong>the</strong>y from any enemy, but a righteous<br />
deed is <strong>the</strong>reby written to <strong>the</strong>ir account.’ (Quran 9:120). One abstains from none of this<br />
while <strong>the</strong>re are Muslim prisoners of war or Muslims with a safe-conduct, young or old, men<br />
or women, among <strong>the</strong>m, even if we know about it; <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>re is no way to avoid striking <strong>the</strong>m<br />
while still obeying <strong>the</strong> comm<strong>and</strong>ment to subdue <strong>the</strong> poly<strong>the</strong>ists. What cannot be avoided,<br />
must be pardoned.”<br />
“Al-Sarakhsi (al-Mabsut, 10:65): “There is nothing wrong with releasing water into <strong>the</strong> en-<br />
emy’s city, burning <strong>the</strong>m with fire, or bombarding <strong>the</strong>m with <strong>the</strong> catapult, even if <strong>the</strong>re are<br />
children or Muslim prisoners of war or traders among <strong>the</strong>m.”<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
Zawahiri: Page 149, 161<br />
“The prophet was asked about this” (he transmitted this in al-Nahr from Abu al-Layth) i.e. in<br />
our saying to him, “Shall we shoot or not,” <strong>and</strong> we follow what he says. He did not mention<br />
if it is not possible to ask him. “Any of <strong>the</strong>m who are hit”: i.e., if we aim at <strong>the</strong> non-believers<br />
<strong>and</strong> hit one of <strong>the</strong> Muslims whom <strong>the</strong> non-believers are using as a human shield, we are not<br />
liable <strong>for</strong> him. Al-Sarakhsi says that credence is given to <strong>the</strong> shooter’s oath that he aimed <strong>for</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> nonbeliever, not to <strong>the</strong> slain Muslim’s next-of-kin that killed him intentionally. “Because<br />
duties are not coupled with fines,” it is as if someone subject to <strong>the</strong> prescribed punishment of<br />
scourging or amputation were to die.<br />
Referencing Al-Kasani<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 14<br />
Al-Kasani (Badayi’ al-Sanayi;, 7:101): “There is nothing wrong with burning <strong>the</strong>ir strong-<br />
holds, flooding <strong>the</strong>m with wáter, devasting <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> destroying <strong>the</strong>m on top of <strong>the</strong>m, or<br />
setting up a catapult against <strong>the</strong>m. God has said ‘They destroy <strong>the</strong>ir houses with <strong>the</strong>ir own<br />
h<strong>and</strong>s, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> h<strong>and</strong>s of <strong>the</strong> believers.’ (Quran 59:2). All of this belongs to war, with its<br />
implicit overcoming, subduing, <strong>and</strong> enraging of <strong>the</strong> enemy. The immunity of possessions<br />
derives from <strong>the</strong> immunity of <strong>the</strong>ir possessors, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> latter have no immunity even from<br />
death. How <strong>the</strong>n could <strong>the</strong>ir possessions be immune?”<br />
Zawahiri: Page 106, 168, 170, 171, 186<br />
Imam Al-Kasani said: “If general mobilization is declared after an enemy attacks <strong>the</strong> country,<br />
<strong>the</strong>n it becomes <strong>the</strong> individual duty of every single able-bodied Muslim to join <strong>the</strong> battle,<br />
based on God Almighty’s comm<strong>and</strong>: ‘Go ye <strong>for</strong>th, whe<strong>the</strong>r lightly or heavily equipped’<br />
[Quranic verse; <strong>the</strong> Repentance 9:41]. The Muslims used to say, I joined <strong>the</strong> battle in re-<br />
sponse to <strong>the</strong> general call.”<br />
The Imam al-Kasani (may God have mercy on him) said: “There is nothing wrong with raid-<br />
ing <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> attacking <strong>the</strong>m by night.”<br />
The Imam al-Kasani (may God have mercy on him) said: “There is nothing wrong with<br />
cutting down <strong>the</strong>ir fruit trees <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r trees <strong>and</strong> ruining <strong>the</strong>ir crops, based on <strong>the</strong> Quranic<br />
verse: ‘Whatever palm-tress you cut down, or left st<strong>and</strong>ing upon <strong>the</strong>ir roots, that was by<br />
God’s leave, <strong>and</strong> that He might degrade <strong>the</strong> ungodly’ [Quranic verse; al-Hashr 59:5]. At <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 127
128<br />
beginning of <strong>the</strong> verse, God gives permission to cut down <strong>the</strong> palm trees; at <strong>the</strong> end of it He<br />
indicates that this is to crush <strong>and</strong> demoralize <strong>the</strong> enemy—‘that He might degrade <strong>the</strong> ungodly.’<br />
“There is nothing wrong with burning <strong>the</strong>ir <strong>for</strong>ts with fire or drowning <strong>the</strong>m with water, with<br />
destroying <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> razing <strong>the</strong>m on top of <strong>the</strong>m, or with erecting a catapult against <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
God has said, ‘As <strong>the</strong>y destroyed <strong>the</strong>ir houses with <strong>the</strong>ir own h<strong>and</strong>s, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> h<strong>and</strong>s of <strong>the</strong> be-<br />
lievers’ [Quranic verse; al-Hashr 59:2]. All of this falls under <strong>the</strong> heading of fighting, because<br />
of <strong>the</strong> compulsion, crushing, <strong>and</strong> demoralization in it. The inviolability of property derives<br />
from <strong>the</strong> inviolability of its owners; when <strong>the</strong> owners have no inviolability <strong>and</strong> can be killed,<br />
how much more so <strong>the</strong>ir property! There is nothing wrong with shooting <strong>the</strong>m with arrows,<br />
even if Muslim prisoners <strong>and</strong> merchants are known to be among <strong>the</strong>m, due to necessity; <strong>for</strong><br />
rarely are <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>ts of non-believers devoid of Muslim captives or merchants. Giving consid-<br />
eration to <strong>the</strong>m would lead to closing <strong>the</strong> door of jihad. However, in all this one targets <strong>the</strong><br />
non-believers, not <strong>the</strong> Muslims, because <strong>the</strong>re is no necessity <strong>for</strong> intending to kill Muslims<br />
wrongfully.<br />
“Likewise, if <strong>the</strong>y use Muslim children as human shields, <strong>the</strong>re is nothing wrong with shoot-<br />
ing at <strong>the</strong>m, because of <strong>the</strong> necessity of carrying out one’s religious duty, but one aims at <strong>the</strong><br />
non-believers, ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> children. If <strong>the</strong>y shoot at <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> a Muslim is hit, <strong>the</strong>re is<br />
nei<strong>the</strong>r blood money nor expiation.”<br />
(Same 3 paragraphs above quoted again several pages later)<br />
Referencing Ibn Qudamah<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 16<br />
“Ibn Qudamah (al-Mughni, 9:230): “Al-Khiraqi said, ‘When <strong>the</strong> enemy is fought, <strong>the</strong>y are<br />
not burnt with fire.’ When one has power over <strong>the</strong> enemy, one may not burn him with fire.<br />
We know of no disagreement about this. Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, may God be pleased with him,<br />
used to order that <strong>the</strong> people who apostatized after <strong>the</strong> Prophety’s death should be fought<br />
with fire, <strong>and</strong> Khalid ibn al-Walid did this at his comm<strong>and</strong>. Today, however, I know of no<br />
disagreement among scholars concerning this. As <strong>for</strong> bombarding <strong>the</strong>m with fire be<strong>for</strong>e<br />
taking <strong>the</strong>m: if <strong>the</strong>y can be taken without fire, one may not bombard <strong>the</strong>m with it, because<br />
<strong>the</strong>y fall under <strong>the</strong> category of those over whom one has power. However, if one is power-<br />
less against <strong>the</strong>m without fire, one may do so, according to what most scholars hold. So said<br />
al-Thawri, al-Awza’I, <strong>and</strong> al-Shafi’i. The same holds <strong>for</strong> opening <strong>the</strong> floodgates against <strong>the</strong>m<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
to drown <strong>the</strong>m: if <strong>the</strong>y can be overcome without it, it is not permissible, since this involves<br />
annihilating women <strong>and</strong> children, whom it is <strong>for</strong>bidden to annihilate intentionally. However,<br />
if <strong>the</strong>y cannot be overcome o<strong>the</strong>rwise, it is permissible. Night raids that involve this are also<br />
permissible, <strong>and</strong> one may setup a catapult against <strong>the</strong>m. The plain sense of <strong>the</strong> words of Ah-<br />
mad [ibn Hanbal] is that it is permissible both when <strong>the</strong>re is need <strong>and</strong> when <strong>the</strong>re is not.”<br />
Zawahiri: Page 28, 39, 40, 108, 131, 152, 165, 166, 168, 169, 185, 186, 208, 210, 211<br />
Ibn-Qudamah, may he rest in peace, said: Using catapults is permitted because <strong>the</strong> prophet,<br />
may God’s prayers <strong>and</strong> peace be upon him, used catapults against Al-Ta’if ’s inhabitants <strong>and</strong><br />
Amru Bin-al-As used catapults against <strong>the</strong> people of Alex<strong>and</strong>ria. Ibn- Qasim says in his<br />
commentary: It is permitted to use catapults against <strong>the</strong> infidels even if young boys, women,<br />
old people, <strong>and</strong> monks are killed along with <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs because it is permitted to attack <strong>the</strong>m<br />
collectively. Ibn-Rushud, may he rest in peace, said: Collective attacks against all types of<br />
idolaters are permitted.<br />
What do you mean by innocent people? They come in three classes: First class: They might<br />
be those who do not fight alongside <strong>the</strong> countries <strong>the</strong>y live in <strong>and</strong> do not help <strong>the</strong>m with<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir persons, wealth, counsel, or o<strong>the</strong>r types of assistance. These may not be killed but on<br />
condition that <strong>the</strong>y hold <strong>the</strong>mselves separately from <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs. If <strong>the</strong>y are not separated<br />
from <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs, it is permitted to kill <strong>the</strong>m including old people, women, young boys, sick<br />
persons, incapacitated persons, <strong>and</strong> unworldly monks. Ibn-Qudamah said: Women <strong>and</strong> chil-<br />
dren may be killed during a night raid on condition that <strong>the</strong>y are not killed intentionally <strong>and</strong><br />
separately. It is permitted to kill <strong>the</strong>ir riding animals <strong>and</strong> livestock if this helps <strong>the</strong> Muslims<br />
to kill <strong>the</strong>m. There is no disagreement on this point. He added: It is permitted to carry out<br />
a night raid on <strong>the</strong> enemy. Ibn-Hanbal said night raids were permitted especially against <strong>the</strong><br />
Byzantines. We will not discourage anyone from carrying out night raids.<br />
Second class: Some do not go <strong>for</strong>th in <strong>the</strong>ir own persons to fight alongside <strong>the</strong>ir belligerent<br />
countries but <strong>the</strong>y assist <strong>the</strong>m with money or counsel. These are not called innocent persons<br />
because <strong>the</strong>y support <strong>the</strong> troops. Ibn-Abd-al-Birr, may he rest in peace, said: The ulema<br />
never disagreed that <strong>the</strong> Muslims are permitted to kill women <strong>and</strong> children if <strong>the</strong>y fight <strong>and</strong><br />
also young boys able to fight <strong>and</strong> who do so. Ibn-Qudamah reported a consensus among <strong>the</strong><br />
ulema that it is permitted to kill women, young boys, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> old <strong>and</strong> infirm if <strong>the</strong>y help <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
people in battle. Ibn-Abd-al-Birr said: They all recounted that <strong>the</strong> prophet killed Durayd<br />
Bin-al-Sammah in <strong>the</strong> Battle of Hunayn because he gave clever counsel to his people in war.<br />
All ulema agree that an old man of this type should be killed in war. Al-Nawawi, citing <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 129
130<br />
book “Consensus on Matters of Jihad,” said that old men among <strong>the</strong> infidels should be killed<br />
if <strong>the</strong>y are men of counsel. Ibn-Qasim, may he rest in peace, wrote in his commentary: The<br />
unanimous opinion is that those who support <strong>the</strong> troops should be killed. Ibn-Taymiyyah<br />
cited this unanimous opinion. He also said that those who give any kind of aid to <strong>the</strong> sect<br />
that refuses to accept <strong>Islam</strong> should suffer <strong>the</strong> same fate.<br />
Ibn Qudamah <strong>the</strong> Hanbali (may God have mercy on him) said: “Chapter: The ruling is simi-<br />
lar regarding opening <strong>the</strong> floodgates on <strong>the</strong>m to drown <strong>the</strong>m: if <strong>the</strong>y can be overcome in an-<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r way, it is not permissible—if that entails <strong>the</strong> destruction of women <strong>and</strong> children, whose<br />
intentional destruction is <strong>for</strong>bidden. If <strong>the</strong>y can be overcome only in that way, it is permis-<br />
sible, as night attacks entailing <strong>the</strong> same things are permissible, <strong>and</strong> it is permissible to erect a<br />
catapult against <strong>the</strong>m. The plain sense of Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal] is that it is permissible when<br />
need is present <strong>and</strong> when it is absent. This is because <strong>the</strong> prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong><br />
grant him peace) erected a catapult against <strong>the</strong> people of al-Ta’if. Among those who hold this<br />
opinion are al-Thawri, al-Awza’i, al-Shafi’i, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> masters of opinion. Ibn al-Mundhir said<br />
that a tradition from <strong>the</strong> prophet states that he set up a catapult against <strong>the</strong> people of al-Ta’if<br />
<strong>and</strong> one from Amr Ibn al-As states that he set up a catapult against <strong>the</strong> people of Alex<strong>and</strong>ria.<br />
Also: because fighting by such means is customary <strong>and</strong> like shooting arrows.”<br />
Ibn Qudamah also said (may God have mercy on him): “(7577) Chapter: If in war <strong>the</strong>y use<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir women <strong>and</strong> children as shields, it is permissible to shoot at <strong>the</strong>m, but one aims at <strong>the</strong><br />
fighters. This is because <strong>the</strong> prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) shot at <strong>the</strong>m<br />
with <strong>the</strong> catapult when <strong>the</strong>re were women <strong>and</strong> children with <strong>the</strong>m. It is also because <strong>the</strong><br />
Muslim’s abstaining from <strong>the</strong>m would lead to <strong>the</strong> halting of jihad; <strong>for</strong> when <strong>the</strong> enemy found<br />
out, <strong>the</strong>y would take <strong>the</strong>m as shields whenever <strong>the</strong>y were afraid, <strong>and</strong> so jihad would halt.<br />
“It is <strong>the</strong> same regardless of whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> fighting is at close quarters or not, because <strong>the</strong><br />
prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) did not delay shooting when <strong>the</strong> fighting<br />
was at close quarters.”<br />
Ibn Qudamah also said: “Chapter: If <strong>the</strong>y take a Muslim as a shield <strong>and</strong> necessity does not<br />
call <strong>for</strong> shooting at <strong>the</strong>m due to <strong>the</strong> war’s not being ongoing, or because <strong>the</strong>y can be over-<br />
come without it, or because one feels safe from <strong>the</strong>ir evil, it is not permissible to shoot at<br />
<strong>the</strong>m; <strong>and</strong> so if he shoots at <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> hits a Muslim, he bears liability <strong>for</strong> him. However,<br />
if necessity calls <strong>for</strong> shooting at <strong>the</strong>m because of fear <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims, shooting at <strong>the</strong>m is<br />
permissible because it is a case of necessity <strong>and</strong> so <strong>the</strong> non-believers are targeted. If <strong>the</strong>re is<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
no fear <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims, but <strong>the</strong> enemy can be overcome only by shooting, al-Awza’i <strong>and</strong> al-<br />
Layth say that shooting at <strong>the</strong>m is not permissible, on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong> Quranic verse: ‘If it had<br />
not been <strong>for</strong> certain men believers <strong>and</strong> certain women believers whom you knew not, lest<br />
you should trample <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re befall you guilt unwittingly on <strong>the</strong>ir account…’ [Quranic<br />
verse; Al-Fath 48:25]. Al-Layth said that abstaining from <strong>the</strong> conquest of a <strong>for</strong>t that could be<br />
conquered was better than wrongly killing a Muslim. Al-Awza’i said: ‘How are <strong>the</strong>y to shoot<br />
when <strong>the</strong>y do not see? They would only be shooting at <strong>the</strong> children of Muslims.’ Al-Qadi <strong>and</strong><br />
al-Shafi’i said that <strong>the</strong>y may be shot at when <strong>the</strong> war is ongoing, because not doing so would<br />
lead to halting jihad. Two texts are offered in support of this view, that if he kills a Muslim,<br />
he is liable to expiation <strong>and</strong> blood money.<br />
“One of <strong>the</strong>m is that it is obligatory because he killed a believer in error, so it falls under <strong>the</strong><br />
provisions of <strong>the</strong> verse: ‘If any slays a believer by error, <strong>the</strong>n let him set free a believing slave,<br />
<strong>and</strong> bloodwit is to be paid to his family’ [Quranic verse; al-Nisa’ 4:92].<br />
“The second is that <strong>the</strong>re is no blood money because he was killed in enemy territory (dar<br />
al-harb) by permissible shooting, so he falls under <strong>the</strong> provisions of <strong>the</strong> verse: ‘If he belong to<br />
a people at enmity with you <strong>and</strong> is a believer, let <strong>the</strong> slayer set free a believing slave’ [Quranic<br />
verse; al-Nisa’ 4:92], which mentions no blood money.<br />
“Abu Hanifah said he is liable nei<strong>the</strong>r to blood money nor to expiation because <strong>the</strong> shoot-<br />
ing was permitted although <strong>the</strong> situation was known; <strong>and</strong> so it rendered nothing incumbent,<br />
even as <strong>the</strong> shooting of someone whose life may be taken. “Our view is based on <strong>the</strong> cited<br />
verse, on <strong>the</strong> fact that he has killed someone protected by faith, <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> slayer is a person<br />
who bears liability; so it is similar to if he had not been taken as a human shield.”<br />
Ibn Qudamah al-Maqdisi (may God have mercy on him) said: “Section: There is nothing<br />
wrong with attacking <strong>the</strong> non-believers by night, i.e., raiding <strong>the</strong>m by night <strong>and</strong> killing <strong>the</strong>m<br />
when <strong>the</strong>y are unprepared.<br />
Ibn Qudamah (may God have mercy on him) said: “(7577) Chapter: If in war <strong>the</strong>y use <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
women <strong>and</strong> children as shields, it is permissible to shoot at <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>and</strong> he should aim at <strong>the</strong><br />
fighters. This is because <strong>the</strong> prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) shot at <strong>the</strong>m<br />
with <strong>the</strong> catapult when <strong>the</strong>re were women <strong>and</strong> children with <strong>the</strong>m. It is also because <strong>the</strong><br />
Muslim’s abstaining from <strong>the</strong>m would lead to <strong>the</strong> halting of jihad; <strong>for</strong> when <strong>the</strong> enemy found<br />
out, <strong>the</strong>y would take <strong>the</strong>m as shields whenever <strong>the</strong>y were afraid, <strong>and</strong> so jihad would halt.”<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 131
132<br />
Ibn Qudamah also said: “Chapter: If <strong>the</strong>y take a Muslim as a shield <strong>and</strong> necessity does not<br />
call <strong>for</strong> shooting at <strong>the</strong>m due to <strong>the</strong> war’s not being ongoing, or because <strong>the</strong>y can be over-<br />
come without it, or because one feels safe from <strong>the</strong>ir evil, it is not permissible to shoot at<br />
<strong>the</strong>m; <strong>and</strong> so if he shoots at <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> hits a Muslim, he bears liability <strong>for</strong> him. However,<br />
if necessity calls <strong>for</strong> shooting at <strong>the</strong>m because of fear <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims, shooting at <strong>the</strong>m is<br />
permissible because it is a case of necessity <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> non-believers are targeted. If <strong>the</strong>re is no<br />
fear <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims, but <strong>the</strong> enemy can be overcome only by shooting, al-Awza’i <strong>and</strong> al-<br />
Layth say that shooting at <strong>the</strong>m is not permissible, on <strong>the</strong> basis of <strong>the</strong> Quranic verse: ‘If it had<br />
not been <strong>for</strong> certain men believers <strong>and</strong> certain women believers whom you knew not, lest<br />
you should trample <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re befall you guilt unwittingly on <strong>the</strong>ir account’ [Quranic<br />
verse; Al-Fath 48:25]. Al-Layth said that abstaining from <strong>the</strong> conquest of a <strong>for</strong>t that could be<br />
conquered was better than wrongly killing a Muslim. Al-Awza’i said: ‘How are <strong>the</strong>y to shoot<br />
when <strong>the</strong>y do not see? They would only be shooting at <strong>the</strong> children of Muslims.’ Al-Qadi <strong>and</strong><br />
al-Shafi’i said that <strong>the</strong>y may be shot at when <strong>the</strong> war is ongoing, because not doing so would<br />
lead to halting jihad.”<br />
Public opinion did not confine <strong>the</strong> killing of human shields to jihad of defense but permit-<br />
ted it in all operations of jihad, <strong>and</strong> drew upon <strong>the</strong> Sunnah of <strong>the</strong> prophet, prayers <strong>and</strong> peace<br />
be upon him, in his exasperated labor against <strong>the</strong> people of Al-Ta’if <strong>and</strong> his brigades which<br />
raided <strong>the</strong> non-believers, among whom were women <strong>and</strong> children. The prophet, prayers <strong>and</strong><br />
peace of God be upon him, <strong>and</strong> his companions were not, in <strong>the</strong>se cases in jihad of defense,<br />
yet <strong>the</strong> siege of Al-Ta’if was after <strong>the</strong> conquest of Mecca. Ibn Qudamah [Al-Maqdisi - <strong>Islam</strong>ic<br />
scholar of <strong>the</strong> Hanbali madhhab] said in Al-Mughni [a well-known Hanbali book of fiqh]<br />
that Amr Ibn al-’As [Muslim conqueror of Egypt in 641-642 Hijri] had installed <strong>the</strong> catapult<br />
against <strong>the</strong> people of Alex<strong>and</strong>ria [Egypt].266 This was jihad al-talab [jihad of oppression].<br />
The second aspect: Muslim leaders used catapults in fighting <strong>the</strong> non-believers. It is known<br />
that catapults if used, do not differentiate between one fighter <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r. They can strike<br />
those who are called innocent; never<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> Muslim tradition was that it was used in<br />
wars. Ibn Qudamah, may God have mercy upon him, said: Using catapults is permissible<br />
because <strong>the</strong> prophet, prayers <strong>and</strong> peace of God be upon him, used <strong>the</strong>m against <strong>the</strong> people<br />
of Al-Ta’if <strong>and</strong> Amr Ibn al-As used <strong>the</strong>m against <strong>the</strong> people of Alex<strong>and</strong>ria (Al-Mughni <strong>and</strong><br />
Al-Sharh 10/503). Ibn Qassim, may God have mercy upon him, said in Al-Hashiyyah: ‘It<br />
is permissible to use catapults against <strong>the</strong> non-believers even if children, women, old men<br />
<strong>and</strong> monks are killed inadvertently, because crushing <strong>the</strong> enemy is allowed according to <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
consensus of <strong>the</strong> scholars. [Abu al Walid Mohammad] Ibn Rushud [Muslim scholar, philoso-<br />
pher <strong>and</strong> physician of 12th century Al-Andalus], said: “Crushing <strong>the</strong> enemy is permissible<br />
according to <strong>the</strong> consensus of scholars <strong>and</strong> against any type of poly<strong>the</strong>ist” (Al-Hashiyah ala’<br />
Ar-Raudh, vol. 4, p 271).<br />
That <strong>the</strong>y would not be of those who fought with <strong>the</strong>ir countries nor had been hired by <strong>the</strong>m<br />
physically, financially, by opinion, consultation nor o<strong>the</strong>rwise, <strong>for</strong> it is not permissible to at-<br />
tack this type on condition that <strong>the</strong>y be outst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>and</strong> not having mixed with o<strong>the</strong>rs. But if<br />
<strong>the</strong>y mixed with o<strong>the</strong>rs <strong>and</strong> were not distinguishable <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>ir killing would be permissible<br />
in con<strong>for</strong>mity <strong>and</strong> subject to those such as <strong>the</strong> aged, women, children, sick people, <strong>the</strong> h<strong>and</strong>i-<br />
capped, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> dedicated monks. Ibn Qudamah [al- Maqdisi] narrated: <strong>and</strong> it is possible to<br />
unintentionally kill women <strong>and</strong> children in night attacks <strong>and</strong> burial places, if not intention-<br />
ally individually killed. It is permissible to kill <strong>the</strong>ir cattle leading to <strong>the</strong>ir killing <strong>and</strong> defeat,<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re is no dispute about that (meaning <strong>and</strong> elaboration 10/503). And he said: it is per-<br />
missible to attack <strong>the</strong> enemy by night. Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said <strong>the</strong>re is no harm in attacking<br />
by night, <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> conquest of <strong>the</strong> West is but by night, <strong>and</strong> he said <strong>and</strong> we know not anyone<br />
who disliked <strong>the</strong> attacks by night.<br />
Or <strong>the</strong>y are of those who have not embarked upon fighting with <strong>the</strong>ir countries which are<br />
in war, but are hired by <strong>the</strong>m <strong>for</strong> money or opinion. Those are not considered innocent, but<br />
are fighters <strong>and</strong> apostates (that is <strong>the</strong> hired <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> supporter). Ibn Abd al-Bir [al Maliki],<br />
may God have mercy upon him, said in Al-Istithkar: Scholars have not disagreed about those<br />
women <strong>and</strong> old people who have fought <strong>for</strong> it is permissible to kill <strong>the</strong>m. It is permissible to<br />
kill children who were capable of fighting <strong>and</strong> did fight (Al-Istithkar, 14/74). The consensus<br />
also cited Ibn Qudamah, may God have mercy upon him, that he permitted <strong>the</strong> killing of<br />
women, children <strong>and</strong> old people if <strong>the</strong>y helped <strong>the</strong>ir countries.<br />
Ibn Abd al-Bir, may God have mercy upon him, said: consensus was that <strong>the</strong> prophet of<br />
God, may prayers <strong>and</strong> peace of God be upon him, killed Durid Ibn al-Samma on Hanin day<br />
because he had attitude <strong>and</strong> intrigue in warfare. So, he of <strong>the</strong> shaykhs who was like that was<br />
to be killed in <strong>the</strong> opinion of all (Al-Tamhid (16/142)). Al-Nawawi, may God have mercy<br />
upon him, cited in Sharh Muslim in Book of Al-Jihad <strong>the</strong> consensus that if any of <strong>the</strong> shaykhs<br />
of non-believers had an attitude <strong>the</strong>y would be killed. Ibn Qasim, may God have mercy upon<br />
him, cited in Al-Hashiyah, that consensus was that <strong>the</strong> rule concerning him who supports or<br />
assists [in war] is a straight<strong>for</strong>ward rule in jihad. Ibn Taymiyyah, may God have mercy upon<br />
him, was quoted that this was a consensus, <strong>and</strong> he [Ibn Taymiyyah] was also quoted as saying<br />
that supporters of inactive factions <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir supporters are from <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> like <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 133
134<br />
Referencing Muhammad Ibn Isma’il al-Amir al-San’ani<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 17<br />
Al-San’ani (Subl al-Salam, 4:51): From Ibn ‘Umar, a Companion of <strong>the</strong> Prophet: “’The Mes-<br />
senger of God, may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace, burned <strong>and</strong> cut <strong>the</strong> d ate-palms of<br />
<strong>the</strong> Banu al-Nadir.’ The hadith is generally accepted. It proves thatit is permitted to spoil<br />
<strong>the</strong> possessions of belligerents by burning <strong>and</strong> cutting <strong>for</strong> a benefit. The following Quranic<br />
verse was revealed regarding this: “Whatever palm-trees you cut down…’ (Quran 59:5). The<br />
poly<strong>the</strong>ists said, ‘You prohibit corruption in <strong>the</strong> earth. What about cutting down <strong>and</strong> burn-<br />
ing trees?’ The majority have held that it is permitted to burn <strong>and</strong> despoil in enemy territory.<br />
Al-Awza’I <strong>and</strong> Abu Thawr considered it reprehensible, arguing that Abu Bakr, <strong>the</strong> Prophet’s<br />
companion, ordered his armies not to do it. The response is that he saw benefit in <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
remaining because he knew that <strong>the</strong>y would become <strong>the</strong> Muslims’, so he wanted <strong>the</strong>m to<br />
remain <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>m, thus it depends on <strong>the</strong> perception of benefit.<br />
Zawahiri: Page 155, 158, 169, 170<br />
(One of <strong>the</strong> citations <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> following quote): “Sometimes it is permitted to kill a human<br />
shield. About this <strong>the</strong>re will be no disagreement, God willing. This happens when <strong>the</strong> ben-<br />
efit to be gained is necessary, universal, <strong>and</strong> definite. Its being necessary means that <strong>the</strong> non-<br />
believers can be reached only by killing <strong>the</strong> human shield. Its being universal means that it<br />
extends to <strong>the</strong> entire nation, with all Muslims receiving benefit from <strong>the</strong> killing of <strong>the</strong> human<br />
shield, <strong>and</strong> with <strong>the</strong> non-believers killing <strong>the</strong> human shield <strong>and</strong> taking control of <strong>the</strong> entire<br />
nation if it is not done. Its being definite means that <strong>the</strong> benefit in question will definitely<br />
come about from <strong>the</strong> killing of <strong>the</strong> human shield. Our scholars have said: There should be no<br />
disagreement about taking account of this benefit with <strong>the</strong>se restrictions. The assumption is<br />
that <strong>the</strong> human shield will definitely be killed, ei<strong>the</strong>r by <strong>the</strong> enemy, whereupon <strong>the</strong> great evil<br />
of <strong>the</strong> enemy’s taking control of all Muslims will occur, or by <strong>the</strong> Muslims, whereupon <strong>the</strong><br />
enemy will perish <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims all be saved. No reasonable man would think of saying<br />
that <strong>the</strong> human shield should in no wise be killed under <strong>the</strong>se circumstances, <strong>for</strong> that would<br />
entail <strong>the</strong> destruction of <strong>the</strong> human shield, <strong>Islam</strong>, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims. However, since this<br />
benefit is not devoid of attendant evil, <strong>the</strong> mind of anyone who has not considered <strong>the</strong> matter<br />
very carefully is repelled. However, <strong>the</strong> evil, compared to what results from it, is nothing or<br />
as nothing. And God is most knowledgeable.”<br />
Al-Amir al-San’ani (may God have mercy on him) said: “From Makhul (may God be pleased<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
with him): ‘The prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) erected a catapult against<br />
<strong>the</strong> people of Al-Ta’if.’ “Abu Dawud included it among traditions with an incomplete chain<br />
of transmission not going all <strong>the</strong> way back to <strong>the</strong> prophet, though its links were trustworthy.<br />
Al-Uqayli traced it back to <strong>the</strong> prophet, though with a weak chain of transmission, from Ali<br />
(may God be pleased with him) “The Hadith contains evidence that it is permitted to kill<br />
<strong>for</strong>tified non-believers with a catapult <strong>and</strong>, by analogy, o<strong>the</strong>r kinds of artillery <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> like.”<br />
Referencing Al-Shawkani<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 18<br />
Al-Shawkani (Nayl al-Awtar, 8:78): Having cited a series of hadiths, including <strong>the</strong> a<strong>for</strong>emen-<br />
tioned hadith of Ibn ‘Umar, he says: “In <strong>the</strong>se hadiths <strong>the</strong>re is proof that burning is permitted<br />
in enemy territory, as al-Hafiz [Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani] said in Fath al-Bari.” He cites approv-<br />
ingly <strong>the</strong> passage mentioned above, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>n says, “It is obvious that what was done by Abu<br />
Bakr is not sufficient to invalidate what <strong>the</strong> Prophet is known to have done, since by agree-<br />
ment <strong>the</strong> words of a companion are not a conclusive argument [against <strong>the</strong> Prophet].”<br />
He also said (al-Sayl al-Jarrar, 4:534): “God has comm<strong>and</strong>ed that <strong>the</strong> poly<strong>the</strong>ists should be<br />
killed. He did not specify <strong>the</strong> manner in which it should be done, nor did he obligate us to<br />
do it in a certain manner. There<strong>for</strong>e <strong>the</strong>re is nothing to prevent <strong>the</strong>ir being killed by every<br />
cause of death: shooting, piercing, drowning, razing, casting from a cliff, <strong>and</strong> so <strong>for</strong>th.”<br />
Zawahiri: Page 15, 101, 130, 132, 142<br />
(One of <strong>the</strong> citations <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> following quote): “<strong>Islam</strong>ic law assumes that <strong>the</strong> lives <strong>and</strong> prop-<br />
erty of non-believers are legitimate targets, except by virtue of a peace treaty (sulh), a safe-<br />
conduct (aman), or a covenant of protection (dhimmah); <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong> of <strong>the</strong> enemy is a l<strong>and</strong><br />
of fighting, plunder, <strong>and</strong> legitimate targets.”<br />
Referencing Buraydah ibn al-Husayb<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 19<br />
In <strong>the</strong> Sahih of Muslim <strong>the</strong>re is an au<strong>the</strong>ntic tradition from Buraydah ibn al-Husayb, a<br />
companion of <strong>the</strong> Prophet, who said: “Whenever <strong>the</strong> Messenger of God, may God bless him<br />
<strong>and</strong> grant him peace, appointed a comm<strong>and</strong>er overa n army or expedition, he urged him to<br />
fear God <strong>and</strong> take good care of <strong>the</strong> Muslims who were with him. Then he would say: ‘Attack<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 135
136<br />
in <strong>the</strong> Name of God <strong>and</strong> in God’s Path. Fight anyone who denies God. Attack, but do not<br />
exceed <strong>the</strong> bounds. Do not act treacherously, do not mutilate, <strong>and</strong> do not kill a child.’” There<br />
are o<strong>the</strong>r texts also <strong>and</strong> all indicate that killing women <strong>and</strong> children is prohibited. The use of<br />
such weapons will kill <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
(Followed by a rebuttal of this argument justifying <strong>the</strong> killing of women <strong>and</strong> children)<br />
Zawahiri: Page 175<br />
We read in <strong>the</strong> Sahih of Muslim, on <strong>the</strong> authority of Buraydah Ibn al-Husayb, that whenever<br />
<strong>the</strong> prophet sent out a comm<strong>and</strong>er over a detachment or an army or on some mission of his,<br />
he would especially exhort him to fear God <strong>and</strong> to be good to <strong>the</strong> Muslims who were with<br />
him. He would say: ‘Fight in <strong>the</strong> name of God <strong>and</strong> in <strong>the</strong> way of God. Fight against those<br />
who disbelieve in God. Do not exceed <strong>the</strong> bounds, do not act treacherously, do not mutilate,<br />
<strong>and</strong> do not kill children’.’<br />
(Followed by a justification of like-<strong>for</strong>-like mutilation <strong>and</strong> vengeance)<br />
Referencing Ibn Taymiyah / Ibn Taymiyyah<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 20, 23<br />
The Shaykh al-<strong>Islam</strong> Ibn Taymiyah said (al-Fatawi al-Kubra, 4:520): “Fighting to repel<br />
<strong>the</strong> enemy is <strong>the</strong> strongest means of keeping <strong>the</strong> attacker away from family <strong>and</strong> faith. It<br />
is universally considered an obligation. Nothing is a greater duty, after faith itself, than<br />
repelling an enemy attacker who sows corruption to religion <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> world. No condi-<br />
tions limit this: one repels <strong>the</strong> enemy however one can. Our fellow scholars <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
have said so explicitly.<br />
The Shaykh al-<strong>Islam</strong> Ibn Taymiyah (al-Fatawi, 28:546 said: “Scholars have agreed that if<br />
<strong>the</strong> infidel army uses <strong>the</strong>ir Muslim prisoners as human shields <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims st<strong>and</strong> to<br />
be harm if <strong>the</strong>y do not fight, <strong>the</strong>y fight, even if it leads to <strong>the</strong> killing of Muslims whom <strong>the</strong>y<br />
used as shields.”<br />
Here ends <strong>the</strong> treatise.<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
Zawahiri: Page 27, 32, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 59, 74, 75, 76, 86, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 109,<br />
135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 144, 145, 164, 165, 174, 175, 177, 187, 189, 190, 197, 210, 211, 212,<br />
215, 245<br />
Ibn-Taymiyyah said: “After <strong>the</strong> initial obligation to believe, <strong>the</strong>re is no greater duty than to<br />
repulse a marauding enemy.”<br />
In his collection of major fatwas, Ibn-Taymiyyah said: “In matters of jihad one should rely<br />
on <strong>the</strong> opinion of those who have a sound knowledge of religion <strong>and</strong> also experience of <strong>the</strong><br />
world. Those ulema who do not delve deep into matters of religion <strong>and</strong> examine only <strong>the</strong><br />
surface <strong>and</strong> those who have no experience of <strong>the</strong> world should not be consulted.”<br />
Ibn-Taymiyyah, may he rest in peace, said: The ulema have agreed that if <strong>the</strong> infidel army<br />
uses captive Muslims as human shields <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re is fear <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims lives if <strong>the</strong>y do not<br />
fight, <strong>the</strong>y should attack even if this leads to killing <strong>the</strong> human shields.<br />
Al-Nawawi, citing <strong>the</strong> book “Consensus on Matters of Jihad,” said that old men among <strong>the</strong><br />
infidels should be killed if <strong>the</strong>y are men of counsel. Ibn-Qasim, may he rest in peace, wrote<br />
in his commentary: The unanimous opinion is that those who support <strong>the</strong> troops should be<br />
killed. Ibn-Taymiyyah cited this unanimous opinion. He also said that those who give any<br />
kind of aid to <strong>the</strong> sect that refuses to accept <strong>Islam</strong> should suffer <strong>the</strong> same fate.<br />
Ibn-Taymiyyah said: They have <strong>the</strong> right to mutilate <strong>the</strong>ir enemies’ bodies to avenge similar<br />
mutilation done to <strong>the</strong> Muslims. They can, if <strong>the</strong>y want, ab<strong>and</strong>on this custom <strong>and</strong> endure<br />
especially when mutilation is not a necessary part of <strong>the</strong>ir jihad <strong>and</strong> not carried out in ven-<br />
geance <strong>for</strong> similar mutilation. If, however, mutilation is used to call <strong>the</strong> enemies to <strong>the</strong> Mus-<br />
lim faith or deter <strong>the</strong>m from fur<strong>the</strong>r aggression, it comes under <strong>the</strong> heading of meting out<br />
Shari’ah punishment <strong>and</strong> legitimate jihad. Ibn-Miflih cited this opinion by Ibn-Taymiyyah.<br />
On this issue Shaykh al-<strong>Islam</strong> Ibn-Taymiyyah says: “Religion’s foundations are a book that<br />
guides <strong>and</strong> a sword that brings victory <strong>and</strong> God is a sufficient guide <strong>and</strong> bringer of victory.”<br />
On matters of jihad we should accept <strong>the</strong> opinion of sound followers of <strong>the</strong> faith who also<br />
have experience of <strong>the</strong> world just as Ibn-Taymiyyah said: “On issues of jihad it is necessary to<br />
take <strong>the</strong> opinion of <strong>the</strong> followers of <strong>the</strong> true faith who also have experience of <strong>the</strong> world. The<br />
opinion of worldly people who underst<strong>and</strong> religion only superficially should not be heeded<br />
nor <strong>the</strong> opinion of religious people who have no experience of <strong>the</strong> world.”<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 137
138<br />
Ibn Taymiyyah (may God have mercy on him) says: “The scholars agree that if <strong>the</strong> infidel<br />
army uses its Muslim captives as human shields, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims are in danger if <strong>the</strong>y do not<br />
fight, <strong>the</strong>y fight even if that leads to <strong>the</strong> killing of <strong>the</strong> Muslims being used as shields. If <strong>the</strong>re<br />
is no danger <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims, <strong>the</strong>re are two well-known positions taken by scholars on <strong>the</strong><br />
permissibility of fighting that leads to <strong>the</strong> killing of <strong>the</strong>se Muslims.<br />
When such Muslims are killed, <strong>the</strong>y are martyrs; <strong>and</strong> one does not desist from duty of jihad<br />
on account of those who are killed as martyrs. When Muslims fight non-believers, any<br />
Muslim who is killed is a martyr. Anyone undeserving of death killed while in <strong>the</strong> womb<br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> sake of <strong>the</strong> welfare of <strong>Islam</strong> is a martyr. It is established in <strong>the</strong> two Sahih books that<br />
<strong>the</strong> prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) said: ‘An army of men will attack this<br />
house, <strong>and</strong> lo, while <strong>the</strong>y are in <strong>the</strong> desert, <strong>the</strong> ground will swallow <strong>the</strong>m up.’ Someone asked,<br />
‘Messenger of God, <strong>the</strong>re might be <strong>for</strong>ced conscripts among <strong>the</strong>m!’ He replied, ‘They will<br />
be resurrected according to <strong>the</strong>ir intentions.’ If God causes <strong>the</strong> chastisement that He inflicts<br />
on <strong>the</strong> army attacking <strong>the</strong> Muslims to fall on <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>ced conscript, how much more so with<br />
regard to <strong>the</strong> chastisement whereby God chastises <strong>the</strong>m at <strong>the</strong> h<strong>and</strong>s of <strong>the</strong> believers! As God<br />
has said: ‘Say: ‘Are you awaiting <strong>for</strong> aught to come to us but one of <strong>the</strong> two rewards most fair?<br />
We are awaiting in your case too, <strong>for</strong> God to visit you with chastisement from Him, or at our<br />
h<strong>and</strong>s’’ [Quranic verse; Al-Tawbah 9:52].”<br />
Ibn Taymiyyah (may God have mercy on him) says: “As <strong>for</strong> cruel <strong>and</strong> exemplary punish-<br />
ments or mutilation, it is not permissible except as retribution. Imran Ibn Husayn (may God<br />
be pleased with him <strong>and</strong> his fa<strong>the</strong>r) said: ‘Never did <strong>the</strong> messenger of God (may God bless<br />
him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) preach a sermon to us but that he comm<strong>and</strong>ed us to charity <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>for</strong>bade us to mutilate. Even when we killed non-believers, we did not mutilate <strong>the</strong>m after<br />
killing <strong>the</strong>m. We did not cut off <strong>the</strong>ir ears <strong>and</strong> noses or rip open <strong>the</strong>ir bellies, unless <strong>the</strong>y<br />
had done that to us; <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>n we would do to <strong>the</strong>m as <strong>the</strong>y had done. However, abstaining<br />
from such things is better, as God has said: ‘And if you chastise, chastise even as you have<br />
been chastised; <strong>and</strong> yet assuredly if you are patient, better it is <strong>for</strong> those patient’ [Quranic<br />
verse; Al-Nahl 16:126]. And: ‘And be patient; yet is thy patience only with <strong>the</strong> help of God’<br />
[Quranic verse; Al-Nahl 16:127].<br />
Some say that <strong>the</strong> verse was revealed only because <strong>the</strong> poly<strong>the</strong>ists mutilated Hamzah <strong>and</strong><br />
o<strong>the</strong>r martyrs of <strong>the</strong> Battle of Uhud (may God be pleased with <strong>the</strong>m); whereupon <strong>the</strong> proph-<br />
et said, ‘If God gives me victory over <strong>the</strong>m, I will mutilate <strong>the</strong>m twice as much as <strong>the</strong>y mu-<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
tilated us.’ God <strong>the</strong>n revealed this verse, although verses like <strong>the</strong> following had already been<br />
revealed in Mecca: ‘They will question <strong>the</strong>e concerning <strong>the</strong> Spirit. Say: ‘The Spirit is of <strong>the</strong><br />
bidding of my Lord’’ [Quranic verse; Al-Isra’ 17:85]. And: ‘And per<strong>for</strong>m <strong>the</strong> prayer at <strong>the</strong> two<br />
ends of <strong>the</strong> day <strong>and</strong> nigh of <strong>the</strong> night; surely <strong>the</strong> good deeds will drive away <strong>the</strong> evil deeds’<br />
[Quranic verse; Hud 11:114]. These <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r verses were revealed in Mecca; <strong>the</strong>n some<br />
occasion requiring addressing <strong>the</strong>m arose in Medina, <strong>and</strong> so <strong>the</strong>y were revealed a second<br />
time. So <strong>the</strong> prophet said, ‘Ra<strong>the</strong>r, let us be patient.’ We read in <strong>the</strong> Sahih of Muslim, on <strong>the</strong><br />
authority of Buraydah Ibn al-Husayb, that whenever <strong>the</strong> prophet sent out a comm<strong>and</strong>er over<br />
a detachment or an army or on some mission of his, he would especially exhort him to fear<br />
God <strong>and</strong> to be good to <strong>the</strong> Muslims who were with him. He would say: ‘Fight in <strong>the</strong> name of<br />
God <strong>and</strong> in <strong>the</strong> way of God. Fight against those who disbelieve in God. Do not exceed <strong>the</strong><br />
bounds, do not act treacherously, do not mutilate, <strong>and</strong> do not kill children’.’”<br />
Ibn Taymiyyah (may God have mercy on him) also said: “If <strong>the</strong> non-believers mutilate<br />
Muslims, mutilation is <strong>the</strong> right of <strong>the</strong> latter: <strong>the</strong>y have <strong>the</strong> right to do it to exact vengeance,<br />
but <strong>the</strong>y may <strong>for</strong>ego it; <strong>and</strong> patience is better. This is because <strong>the</strong> mutilation allowed to <strong>the</strong>m<br />
involves nothing that would summon to faith <strong>and</strong> preserve <strong>the</strong>m from aggression. In this<br />
case it belongs to <strong>the</strong> imposition of <strong>the</strong> prescribed hadd punishments <strong>and</strong> jihad. The case<br />
at Uhud was not like that, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e patience was better. When exemplary punishment<br />
is <strong>the</strong> right of God, patience is a duty, as it is when aiding oneself is not possible, <strong>and</strong> impa-<br />
tience is unlawful.”<br />
Ibn Taymiyyah (may God have mercy on him) has said: “For this reason, scholars have<br />
agreed on <strong>the</strong> permissibility of destroying trees <strong>and</strong> crops belonging to <strong>the</strong> non-believers if<br />
<strong>the</strong>y have done <strong>the</strong> same to us or if <strong>the</strong>y can be overcome only by <strong>the</strong>se means. About its<br />
permissibility short of such circumstances <strong>the</strong>re is a well-known controversy. There are two<br />
accounts related on <strong>the</strong> authority of Ahmad [Ibn Hanbal]. Permitting it is <strong>the</strong> doctrine of<br />
al-Shafi’i <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>rs.”<br />
Ibn Taymiyyah (may God have mercy on him) says: “The scholars agree that if <strong>the</strong> infidel<br />
army uses its Muslim captives as human shields, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims are in danger if <strong>the</strong>y do<br />
not fight, <strong>the</strong>y fight even if that leads to <strong>the</strong> killing of <strong>the</strong> Muslims being used as shields. If<br />
<strong>the</strong>re is no danger <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslims, <strong>the</strong>re are two well-known positions taken by scholars on<br />
<strong>the</strong> permissibility of fighting that leads to <strong>the</strong> killing of <strong>the</strong>se Muslims. When such Muslims<br />
are killed, <strong>the</strong>y are martyrs; <strong>and</strong> one does not desist from duty of jihad on account of those<br />
who are killed as martyrs. When Muslims fight non-believers, any Muslim who is killed is<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 139
140<br />
a martyr. Anyone undeserving of death killed while in <strong>the</strong> womb <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> sake of <strong>the</strong> welfare<br />
of <strong>Islam</strong> is a martyr. It is established in <strong>the</strong> two Sahih books that <strong>the</strong> prophet (may God bless<br />
him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) said: ‘An army of men will attack this house, <strong>and</strong> lo, while <strong>the</strong>y are<br />
in <strong>the</strong> desert, <strong>the</strong> ground will swallow <strong>the</strong>m up.’ Someone asked, ‘Messenger of God, <strong>the</strong>re<br />
might be <strong>for</strong>ced conscripts among <strong>the</strong>m!’ He replied, ‘They will be resurrected according to<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir intentions.’ If God causes <strong>the</strong> chastisement that He inflicts on <strong>the</strong> army attacking <strong>the</strong><br />
Muslims to fall on <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>ced conscript, how much more so with regard to <strong>the</strong> chastisement<br />
whereby God chastises <strong>the</strong>m at <strong>the</strong> h<strong>and</strong>s of <strong>the</strong> believers! As God has said: ‘Say: ‘Are you<br />
awaiting <strong>for</strong> aught to come to us but one of <strong>the</strong> two rewards most fair? We are awaiting in<br />
your case too, <strong>for</strong> God to visit you with chastisement from Him, or at our h<strong>and</strong>s’’ [Quranic<br />
verse; Al-Tawbah 9:52].”<br />
The third aspect: Muslim religious scholars allowed <strong>the</strong> killing of Muslim (human shields) if<br />
<strong>the</strong>y were captives in <strong>the</strong> h<strong>and</strong>s of non-believers who were going to use <strong>the</strong>m as human shields<br />
to protect <strong>the</strong>mselves from <strong>the</strong> darts of Muslims even though <strong>the</strong>y have done nothing wrong,<br />
were innocent <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir killing was not permissible. Ibn Taymiyyah, may God have mercy<br />
upon him, said: scholars agreed that if <strong>the</strong> army of non-believers took Muslim captives as hu-<br />
man shields <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re was fear that harm will befall <strong>the</strong> Muslims if <strong>the</strong>y did not fight, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>y<br />
should fight even if this led to <strong>the</strong> killing of Muslims who were used as human shields (Fatwas<br />
28/537-546, section 20/52). Ibn Qasim [eighth Idrisi ruler <strong>and</strong> sultan of Morocco], may God<br />
have mercy upon him, said in Al-Hashiyyah: If <strong>the</strong>y use a Muslim as a human shield <strong>the</strong>n it is<br />
not permissible to attack <strong>the</strong>m except that we fear <strong>for</strong> Muslims, so <strong>the</strong>y attack <strong>the</strong>m, meaning<br />
<strong>the</strong> nonbelievers, <strong>and</strong> this is without dispute (Al-Hashiyah ‘ala Ar-Raudh 4/271)<br />
Of <strong>the</strong> scholars sayings concerning <strong>the</strong> permissibility of revenge in <strong>the</strong> same way: Ibn Taymi-<br />
yyah said: Treating <strong>the</strong>m in <strong>the</strong> same way is <strong>the</strong>ir right, <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>y can do this to exact revenge.<br />
They can leave it, <strong>for</strong> patience is better. This is when torturing <strong>the</strong>m does not add to jihad,<br />
nor is <strong>the</strong>ir exact punishment <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> like. If punishment is a call <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>m to believe or is a<br />
restraint from aggression, <strong>the</strong>n here it is <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> establishment of limits <strong>and</strong> legitimate jihad,<br />
Ibn Miflih quoted Ibn Taymiyyah in <strong>the</strong> segments 6/218.<br />
Referencing Abu Bakr Ahmad al-Razi al-Jassas<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 21, 22<br />
Al-Jassas said (Ahkam al-Qur’an, 3:389): “As <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> argument of those who cite <strong>the</strong> verse, ‘If<br />
it had not been <strong>for</strong> certain men believers <strong>and</strong> certain women believers…’ (Quran 48:25), as<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
ground <strong>for</strong> prohibiting bombarding <strong>the</strong> infidels because of <strong>the</strong> Muslims in <strong>the</strong>ir midst, <strong>the</strong><br />
verse cannot be used to prove of contention. That is because <strong>the</strong> most <strong>the</strong> verse says is that<br />
God turned <strong>the</strong> Muslims away from <strong>the</strong>m because among <strong>the</strong>m were some Muslims that<br />
<strong>the</strong> Prophet’s companions were in danger of harming if <strong>the</strong>y entered Mecca with <strong>the</strong> sword.<br />
This only proves that it is permitted to eschew bombarding <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> advancing on <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
It does not prove that it is <strong>for</strong>bidden to advance against <strong>the</strong>m with <strong>the</strong> knowledge that<br />
<strong>the</strong>re are Muslims among <strong>the</strong>m. It might permit desisting from <strong>the</strong>m <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> sake of <strong>the</strong><br />
Muslims, <strong>and</strong> it also might permit advancing as an option. Thus it contains no proof that<br />
advancing is <strong>for</strong>bidden. Someone might say that eh import of <strong>the</strong> verse implies prohibi-<br />
tion, because it says, ‘Whom you knew not, lest you should trample <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re befall<br />
you guilt unwittingly on <strong>the</strong>ir account,’ <strong>and</strong>, but <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> prohibition, no guilt of murdering<br />
<strong>the</strong>m by striking <strong>the</strong>m would have befallen <strong>the</strong>m. The reply is that interpreters have dif-<br />
fered over <strong>the</strong> meaning of ‘guilt (ma’arrah)’ here. Ibn Ishaq interpreted it as meaning <strong>the</strong><br />
fine of blood-money (diyah); o<strong>the</strong>rs interpreted it as meaning expiation (kaffarah); o<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
interpreted it as grief (ghamm) at having occasioned a Muslim’s death, because a believer<br />
would be grieved at this even if he had not done it intentionally. O<strong>the</strong>rs interpreted it as<br />
meaning disgrace (‘ayb). One interpreter is reported to have said that ma’arrah meant sin<br />
(ithm), but this is false, because God said that had it happened, it would have happened<br />
without our knowledge: ‘Whom you knew not, lest you should trample <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>re<br />
befall you ma’arrah unwittingly on <strong>the</strong>ir account,’ <strong>and</strong> one incurs no sin <strong>for</strong> what one does<br />
not know <strong>and</strong> of which God has given no indication. For God says: ‘There is no fault in<br />
you if you make mistakes, but only in what your hearts premeditate.’ (Quran 33:5). Thus<br />
we know that ma’arrah does not mean sin…It being established, as we have mentioned,<br />
that it is permitted to advance against <strong>the</strong> infidels with <strong>the</strong> knowledge that <strong>the</strong>re are Mus-<br />
lims among <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>the</strong> like must be permitted if <strong>the</strong>y use Muslims as human shields. In<br />
both cases, <strong>the</strong> intent is to strike <strong>the</strong> infidels, not <strong>the</strong> Muslims. Nei<strong>the</strong>r blood-money nor<br />
expiation are required <strong>for</strong> any who are struck. Similarly, no blood-money or expiation are<br />
necessary <strong>for</strong> any Muslim in an infidel stronghold who are hit by <strong>the</strong> bombardment. We<br />
have been given permission to shoot although we know that Muslims are in that direc-<br />
tion; <strong>and</strong> so <strong>the</strong>ir legal status is of those whom it is allowed to kill. Nothing is required in<br />
return. The ma’arrah mentioned in <strong>the</strong> verse is nei<strong>the</strong>r blood-money nor expiation; nei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
<strong>the</strong> word itself nor anything else imply as much. The Likeliest interpretation is <strong>the</strong> grief<br />
<strong>and</strong> distress one would feel at having occasioned <strong>the</strong> death of a believer, as usually happens<br />
to someone at whose h<strong>and</strong> this happens. The interpretation that it means disgrace is also<br />
possible, because a person usually is disgraced if someone is mistakenly killed at his h<strong>and</strong>s,<br />
even if <strong>the</strong> disgrace does not take <strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>m of legal punishment.”<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 141
142<br />
Zawahiri: Page 35, 80, 82, 83, 87, 88, 92, 98, 158, 160, 168, 184<br />
According to Abu Bakr al-Jassas: “Scholars of <strong>the</strong> prophet’s biography have transmitted that<br />
<strong>the</strong> prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) besieged <strong>the</strong> people of Al-Ta’if <strong>and</strong><br />
bombarded <strong>the</strong>m by catapult, although he had prohibited <strong>the</strong> killing of women <strong>and</strong> children.<br />
He knew that he might hit <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> that it was not permissible to kill <strong>the</strong>m intentionally.<br />
This shows that <strong>the</strong> presence of Muslims among <strong>the</strong> belligerents does not prevent <strong>the</strong>ir being<br />
bombarded, since <strong>the</strong> intention was to hit <strong>the</strong> non-believers to <strong>the</strong> exclusion of <strong>the</strong> Muslims.<br />
The Imam al-Jassas (may God have mercy on him) said: “The prophet (may God bless him<br />
<strong>and</strong> grant him peace) once sent Usama bin Zayd <strong>and</strong> said to him, ‘Attack Ubna212 in <strong>the</strong><br />
morning <strong>and</strong> burn it.’ He used to order <strong>the</strong> expeditions to wait <strong>for</strong> those <strong>the</strong>y were attacking<br />
<strong>and</strong> to refrain from <strong>the</strong>m if <strong>the</strong>y gave <strong>the</strong> call to prayer; if <strong>the</strong>y heard no call, <strong>the</strong>y were to at-<br />
tack. The well guided caliphs continued this policy.”<br />
“It is common knowledge that anyone who attacks such people cannot avoid hitting <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
children <strong>and</strong> women who are <strong>for</strong>bidden to be killed; similarly, if <strong>the</strong>re are Muslims among<br />
<strong>the</strong>m. This must not prevent <strong>the</strong> launching of <strong>the</strong> raid against <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> shooting at <strong>the</strong>m<br />
with arrows <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r things, even if <strong>the</strong>re is danger of hitting <strong>the</strong> Muslim.”<br />
Abu Bakr al-Jassas (may God have mercy on him) said: “Scholars of <strong>the</strong> prophet’s biography<br />
have transmitted that <strong>the</strong> prophet (may God bless him <strong>and</strong> grant him peace) besieged <strong>the</strong><br />
people of al-Ta’if <strong>and</strong> bombarded <strong>the</strong>m by catapult, although he had prohibited <strong>the</strong> killing of<br />
women <strong>and</strong> children. He knew that he might hit <strong>the</strong>m, although it was not permissible to kill<br />
<strong>the</strong>m intentionally. This shows that <strong>the</strong> presence of Muslims among <strong>the</strong> belligerents does not<br />
prevent <strong>the</strong>ir being bombarded, since <strong>the</strong> intention was to hit <strong>the</strong> non-believers to <strong>the</strong> exclu-<br />
sion of <strong>the</strong> Muslims.<br />
Referencing Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani<br />
Al-Fahd: Page 22<br />
Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani (Sharh al-Siyar al-Kabir, 4:1467): “One abstains from<br />
none of this while <strong>the</strong>re are Muslim prisoners, Muslims with safe-conduct, Young or old,<br />
men or women among <strong>the</strong>m, even if we know this; <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>re is no way to guard against harm-<br />
ing <strong>the</strong>m while obeying <strong>the</strong> comm<strong>and</strong> to subdue <strong>the</strong> poly<strong>the</strong>ists. What cannot be avoided,<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
must be pardoned.”<br />
Zawahiri: Page 128, 129, 130, 132, 143, 151, 152, 153<br />
Imam Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani (may God have mercy on him) says <strong>the</strong> follow-<br />
ing about prisoners of war to whom <strong>the</strong> non-believers grant a safe-conduct but whom <strong>the</strong>y<br />
<strong>the</strong>n treat perfidiously:<br />
“784. If some people from among <strong>the</strong>m meet <strong>the</strong> captives <strong>and</strong> ask <strong>the</strong>m, ‘Who are you?’ <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>y reply, ‘We are merchants who entered with a safe-conduct from your comrades’; or, ‘We<br />
are emissaries of <strong>the</strong> caliph’; it does not behoove <strong>the</strong>m afterward to kill any of <strong>the</strong>m; <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>y<br />
have manifested what is an indication of seeking safe-conduct. It is to be deemed a seeking<br />
of safe-conduct by <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>and</strong> so <strong>the</strong>y may not treat <strong>the</strong>m perfidiously afterward, so long as<br />
<strong>the</strong> inhabitants of <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong> of war do not harass <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
“785. If <strong>the</strong> inhabitants of <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong> of war find out that <strong>the</strong>y are captives <strong>and</strong> so take <strong>the</strong>m,<br />
but <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>y escape from <strong>the</strong>m, it is permissible <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>m to fight <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> take <strong>the</strong>ir prop-<br />
erty, because <strong>the</strong> status of having sought safe-conduct is lifted from <strong>the</strong>m by virtue of what<br />
<strong>the</strong>y have done.<br />
“Do you not see that if <strong>the</strong> king of <strong>the</strong> inhabitants of <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong> of war acts perfidiously toward<br />
those who have sought safe-conduct, takes <strong>the</strong>ir property, <strong>and</strong> imprisons <strong>the</strong>m, but <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>y<br />
escape, <strong>the</strong>y may kill <strong>the</strong> inhabitants of <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong> of war <strong>and</strong> take <strong>the</strong>ir property? They may do<br />
so on <strong>the</strong> ground that that was a breaking of <strong>the</strong> treaty by <strong>the</strong>ir king.<br />
“786. Likewise, if a man should do so at <strong>the</strong> comm<strong>and</strong> of <strong>the</strong>ir king or with his knowledge,<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> king did not prevent him from doing so, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> maxim is: A fool not prohibited has<br />
been, as it were, comm<strong>and</strong>ed. However, if <strong>the</strong>y acted without <strong>the</strong> prince’s knowledge or <strong>the</strong><br />
knowledge of his party, <strong>the</strong> seekers of safe-conduct may not regard <strong>the</strong> foe’s women as fair<br />
game because of what he did to <strong>the</strong>m.”<br />
(Cited <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> below quote):<br />
“<strong>Islam</strong>ic law assumes that <strong>the</strong> lives <strong>and</strong> property of non-believers are legitimate targets,<br />
except by virtue of a peace treaty (sulh), a safe-conduct (aman), or a covenant of protection<br />
(dhimmah); <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong> of <strong>the</strong> enemy is a l<strong>and</strong> of fighting, plunder, <strong>and</strong> legitimate targets.”<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 143
144<br />
Similar to this is what Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani (may God have mercy on him)<br />
says in [Kitab] al-Siyar al-Kabir about a Muslim captive in <strong>the</strong> h<strong>and</strong>s of nonbelievers, who<br />
tricks <strong>the</strong>m <strong>and</strong> kills <strong>the</strong>m when <strong>the</strong>y feel safe from him: “If <strong>the</strong> captive says to <strong>the</strong>m, ‘I know<br />
medicine,’ <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>y ask him to give <strong>the</strong>m a dose of medicine <strong>and</strong> he gives <strong>the</strong>m poison <strong>and</strong> it<br />
kills <strong>the</strong>m: if he gives it to <strong>the</strong>ir men, he is not to be blamed, as it was a way of harming <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
However, I disapprove of his giving it to children <strong>and</strong> women, just as I disapprove of his kill-<br />
ing <strong>the</strong>m—unless one of <strong>the</strong>ir women has done him harm, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>re is nothing wrong<br />
with his giving her a dose of it, just as <strong>the</strong>re is nothing wrong with his killing her if can.”<br />
In <strong>the</strong> same chapter, Al-Shaybani discusses o<strong>the</strong>rs <strong>for</strong> whom it is permissible to kill <strong>and</strong> take<br />
<strong>the</strong> property of people of war by o<strong>the</strong>r tricks based on custom. Al-Shaybani (may God have<br />
mercy on him) says: “Suppose a group of Muslims comes to <strong>the</strong> frontier of <strong>the</strong> enemy <strong>and</strong><br />
says, ‘We are emissaries of <strong>the</strong> caliph,’ <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>y produce a letter that resembles a letter of <strong>the</strong><br />
caliph, or <strong>the</strong>y do not produce one, this being a trick <strong>the</strong>y are using against <strong>the</strong> poly<strong>the</strong>ists.<br />
Suppose, fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, that <strong>the</strong> poly<strong>the</strong>ists say to <strong>the</strong>m, ‘Enter,’ <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>y enter <strong>the</strong> abode of<br />
war. It is not permissible <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong>m to kill any of <strong>the</strong> people of war or take any of <strong>the</strong>ir prop-<br />
erty so long as <strong>the</strong>y are in <strong>the</strong>ir territory.”<br />
Then al-Shaybani (may God have mercy on him) says: “It is similar if <strong>the</strong>y say, ‘We have<br />
come desiring to trade,’ <strong>the</strong>ir intention being to murder <strong>the</strong>m unaware. Inasmuch as <strong>the</strong>y,<br />
if <strong>the</strong>y were really merchants as <strong>the</strong>y claimed, would not be permitted to act treacherously<br />
against <strong>the</strong> people of war, <strong>the</strong>y are similarly <strong>for</strong>bidden even if <strong>the</strong>y only pretend to <strong>the</strong>m that<br />
<strong>the</strong>y are.”<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 145
146<br />
ENDNOTES<br />
1. Tzu, Sun. The Art of War.<br />
2. “Countdown to Zero.” Documentary movie directed by Lucy Walker, <strong>and</strong> produced by Lawrence Bender.<br />
3. Sharma, Arvind. The World’s Religions After September 11 th . Westport, CT: Praeger, 2008. pg. 187.<br />
4. “The Presidency: The World of Harry Truman.” Time. 8 January 1973. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910501-4,00.html<br />
5. Obama, Barack. Obama Prague Speech On Nuclear Weapons. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/05/obamaprague-speech-on-nu_n_183219.html<br />
6. Author’s Note: There are 31 states that have nuclear energy today; over 50 countries are in varying stages of exploring<br />
<strong>the</strong> development of nuclear energy in <strong>the</strong> future<br />
7. “TRANSCRIPT: The Solution.” A Video Speech from Usama bin Laden Addressing <strong>the</strong> American People. September<br />
2007. http://counterterrorismblog.org/site-resources/images/SITE-OBL-transcript.pdf<br />
8. Norris, Robert S. <strong>and</strong> Hans M. Kristensen, “Nuclear Notebook: Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2009,”<br />
Bulletin of <strong>the</strong> Atomic Scientists. November/December 2009.<br />
9. “Global Fissile Materials Report 2009.” <strong>International</strong> Panel on Fissile Materials. October 2009. pg. 4.<br />
10. Ibid.<br />
11. Ibid. pg. 127.<br />
12. Baute, Jacques. <strong>International</strong> Atomic Energy Agency. “Streng<strong>the</strong>ning Nuclear Security Globally: The Role of <strong>the</strong> IAEA,”<br />
online supplement to Korea Institute of Nuclear Nonproliferation <strong>and</strong> Control, “2009 <strong>International</strong> Nuclear Non-proliferation<br />
Symposium.” 22 October 2009.<br />
13. <strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> “Nuclear Terrorism Threat Assessment”, The <strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs (April 12,<br />
2010) slide 6.<br />
14. Scarborough, Rowan. “Obama at Odds with Petraeus doctrine on <strong>Islam</strong>,” The Washington Times. 11 July 2010.<br />
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/11/obama-at-odds-with-petraeus-doctrine-on-islam/<br />
15. “Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi Condemns Attacks Against Civilians.” <strong>Islam</strong> Online. 13 September 2001. http://www.cair.<br />
com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism/SheikhYusufAlQaradawiCondemnsAttacks.aspx<br />
16. Berman, Paul. “The Philosopher of <strong>Islam</strong>ic Terror.” The New York Times. 23 March 2003. http://www.nytimes.<br />
com/2003/03/23/magazine/23GURU.html<br />
17. Qutb, Seyyid. “Milestones,” USA: SIME journal (http://majalla.org), 2005. Pg. 33. http://majalla.org/<br />
books/2005/qutb-nilestone.pdf<br />
18. “Combating Nuclear Terrorism: Lessons from Aum Shinrikyo, Al-Qaeda <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Kinshasa Reactor” RAND Research<br />
Brief. 2005. http://www.r<strong>and</strong>.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB165/RAND_RB165.pdf<br />
19. Rauf, Feisal Abdul. What’s Right With <strong>Islam</strong>: a new vision <strong>for</strong> Muslims <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> West. New York: Harper Collins, May<br />
2004. pg. 135.<br />
20. “TRANSCRIPT: The Solution.” A Video Speech from Usama bin Laden Addressing <strong>the</strong> American People. September<br />
2007. http://counterterrorismblog.org/site-resources/images/SITE-OBL-transcript.pdf<br />
21. Plebani, Andrea. “Attractiveness of WMD <strong>for</strong> Radical <strong>Islam</strong>ist Movements: Ideological Constraints, Black-Spots, <strong>and</strong><br />
Failed-Weak States.” Strategic Insights. Vol VI, Issue 5, August 2007.<br />
22. Zawahiri, Ayman. The Exoneration. March 2008. pg. 116. http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/osc/exoneration.pdf<br />
23. Tenet, George. At <strong>the</strong> <strong>Center</strong> of <strong>the</strong> Storm. New York: HarperCollins, 2007. pgs. 273-274.<br />
24. Olson, Kyle B. “Aum Shinrikyo: Once <strong>and</strong> Future Threat,” CDC (1999) http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol5no4/olson.<br />
htm<br />
25. “Don’t underestimate your enemy. You may dislike <strong>the</strong>m but <strong>the</strong>y don’t lie.”<br />
Mauro, Ryan. “Al-Qaeda’s Hidden Arsenal <strong>and</strong> Sponsors: Interview with Hamid Mir.” Canada Free Press. 25 May 2006.<br />
http://canadafreepress.com/2006/mauro052506.htm<br />
26. Ibid.<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
27. Beehner, Lionel. “Al-Qaeda in Iraq: Resurging or Splintering,” Council on Foreign Relations Backgrounder. 16 July<br />
2007. http://rebecca.cfr.org/publication/13007/alqaeda_in_iraq.html#p5<br />
28. Wright, Lawrence. Looming Towers. New York: Knopf, 2006. pg. 257–8<br />
29. Khalil, Lydia. “Al-Qaeda <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Muslim Bro<strong>the</strong>rhood,” Terrorism Monitor. Volume 4: Issue 6. 23 March 2006. http://<br />
www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=714&tx_ttnews[backPid]=181&no_cache=1<br />
30. The Quran<br />
31. Satha-An<strong>and</strong>, Chaiwat. “Nonviolent Crescent: Eight Theses on Muslim Nonviolent Actions,” in Glenn D. Paige, Chaiwat<br />
Satha-An<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Sarah Gilliatt (eds), <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> Nonviolence. Honolulu: University of Hawaii 1993. pg.10.<br />
32. Kelsay, John. <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> War: A Study of Comparative Ethics. Louisville, KY:Westminster/John Knox Press 1993. pg.36.<br />
33. Ibid.<br />
34. Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani, as translated by Majid Khadduri, The <strong>Islam</strong>ic Law of Nations. Baltimore, MD:<br />
Johns Hopkins University Press 1966. Sections 28, 29, 30 <strong>and</strong> 47. pgs. 59–60.<br />
35. Ahmad, Razi. “<strong>Islam</strong>, Nonviolence, <strong>and</strong> Global Trans<strong>for</strong>mation,” in Paige et al. pg. 39. Cited in Chaiwat Satha-An<strong>and</strong>,<br />
“Nonviolent Crescent: Eight Theses on Muslim Nonviolent Actions,” in Glenn D. Paige, Chaiwat Satha-An<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
Sarah Gilliatt (eds), <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> Nonviolence. Honolulu: University of Hawaii 1993.<br />
36. Ibn Rushd (Averroes), Bidayat al-Mujtahid, in Peters, Jihad in Medieval <strong>and</strong> Modern <strong>Islam</strong>, cited in John Kelsay, <strong>Islam</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> War: A Study of Comparative Ethics. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press 1993. pg. 62.<br />
37. Kelsay, John. “Osama bin Laden <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Just Conduct of War.” America. 8 October 2001.<br />
38. Author’s Note: a compilation of <strong>the</strong> conditions that must be satisfied <strong>for</strong> issuance of a fatwa, from open sources.<br />
39. “The Solid Base” (Al-Qaeda), Al-Jihad (journal), April 1988. n. 41.<br />
40. Wright, Lawrence. Looming Towers. New York: Knopf, 2006. pg. 46.<br />
41. Ibid.<br />
42. Wright, Lawrence. “The Man Behind Bin Laden.” The New Yorker. 16 September 2002. http://www.newyorker.com/<br />
archive/2002/09/16/020916fa_fact2<br />
Author’s Note: The substance of Mr Wright’s text was confirmed <strong>and</strong> amplified in my discussions with <strong>for</strong>eign intelligence<br />
officials. Ayman Zawahiri himself has stated that al-Qaeda operatives sought <strong>and</strong> obtained nuclear weapons from<br />
<strong>the</strong> FSU; no specific in<strong>for</strong>mation has surfaced, to my knowledge, that substantiates his public assertion. It would seem<br />
highly unlikely that al-Qaeda would make an off h<strong>and</strong>, public assertion of this sort if <strong>the</strong>y actually obtained bona fide<br />
nuclear weapons usable materials. However, his presumed failure to procure CBRN-related capabilities does not detract<br />
from his evident personal interest in <strong>the</strong>m.<br />
43. 9/11 Commission Report. pg. 191; amplified in my discussions with government officials.<br />
44. “The Terrorist Threat to <strong>the</strong> U.S. Homel<strong>and</strong>.” National Intelligence Estimate. July 2007.<br />
45. Bin Laden, Osama. “Al-Qaeda’s Fatwa.” 23 February 1998. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/<br />
fatwa_1998.html<br />
46. Youtube Video. “Zawahiri on 9/11 <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> 19 martyrs” Ayman Zawahiri <strong>and</strong> Osama bin Laden. http://www.youtube.<br />
com/watch?v=1kqpZGBOKZQ<br />
47. Tenet, George. At <strong>the</strong> <strong>Center</strong> of <strong>the</strong> Storm. New York: HarperCollins, 2007. pgs. 275–276.<br />
48. Ibid. pg. 275.<br />
49. “Most Wanted Terrorist: Saif Al-Adel.” FBI. http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/teraladel.htm<br />
50. http://dogbro<strong>the</strong>rs.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1202.150<br />
http://www.nctc.gov/docs/ct_calendar_2010.pdf<br />
51. Mowatt-Larssen, Rolf. “Al-Qaeda’s Pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Foreign Policy. 25 January 2010. http://<br />
www.<strong>for</strong>eignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/25/al_qaedas_pursuit_of_weapons_of_mass_destruction?page=0,2<br />
52. Fighel, Yoni <strong>and</strong> Moshe Marzouk. “Saudi cleric Issues Fatwah on <strong>the</strong> Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction” <strong>International</strong><br />
Institute <strong>for</strong> Counter Terrorism. 7 May 2003. http://www.ict.org.il/Articles/tabid/66/Articlsid/580/currentpage/19/<br />
Default.aspx<br />
53. al-Fahd, Nasir. “A Treatise on <strong>the</strong> Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels.” May 2003.<br />
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/static/npp/fatwa.pdf<br />
54. Bodansky, Yossef. The Secret History of <strong>the</strong> Iraq War. New York: Harper 2004. pgs. 306–307.<br />
55. Ibid. pg. 306.<br />
56. MacFarquhar, Neil. “Threats <strong>and</strong> Responses: Investigation; Saudis Arrest 8 in Deadly Riyadh <strong>Bomb</strong>ing.” The New York<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 147
148<br />
Times. 29 May 2003. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/29/world/threats-<strong>and</strong>-responses-investigation-saudis-arrest-8in-deadly-riyadh-bombing.html?ref=nayef<br />
57. Cordesman, Anthony H. <strong>and</strong> Nawaf Obaid. “Al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia .” <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> Strategic <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Studies.<br />
26 January 2005. http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/050106_al-qaedainsaudi.pdf<br />
58. U.S. Dept of State. Office of <strong>the</strong> Coordinator <strong>for</strong> Counterterrorism. “Middle East Overview.” 29 April 2004.<br />
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2003/31638.htm<br />
http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/articles/2004/ioi/040223-<br />
http://www.saudinf.com/display_news.php?id=1243<br />
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/nov/23/20031123-111636-4783r/<br />
59. http://<strong>for</strong>ums.islamicawakening.com/f18/letter-imprisoned-shaykh-nasir-al-fahd-518/<br />
http://www.olympic.org/en/content/The-IOC/Members/Sheikh-Ahmad-Al-Fahad-AL-SABAH/<br />
60. Wright, Lawrence. “The Rebellion Within” The New Yorker. 2 June 2008. http://www.newyorker.com/<br />
reporting/2008/06/02/080602fa_fact_wright?currentPage=all<br />
61. Ibid.<br />
62. Ibid.<br />
63. Zawahiri. pg. 39.<br />
64. Ibid. pg. 164.<br />
65. Ibid. pg. 195.<br />
66. Ibid. pg. 58.<br />
67. Ibid. pg. 72; 92; 94.<br />
68. Zawahiri. pg. 39.<br />
69. Ibid. pg. 174.<br />
70. Qutb, Seyyid. “Milestones,” USA: SIME journal (http://majalla.org), 2005. Pg. 33. http://majalla.org/books/2005/qutbnilestone.pdf<br />
71. Ibid. pg. 66.<br />
72. Ummah Forum. “Sheikh Abdullah Azzam - <strong>the</strong> 20th century Mujahid Imam.” 12 September 2004. http://www.ummah.<br />
net/<strong>for</strong>um/printthread.php?t=43451<br />
73. Ibid. pg. 64.<br />
74. Zawahiri. pg. 224.<br />
75. Helfont, Samuel. “<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ism Today: The Case of Yusuf al-Qaradawi,” Foreign Policy Research Institute. January<br />
2010. http://www.fpri.org/enotes/201001.helfonts.islammodernityqaradawi.html<br />
76. “<strong>Islam</strong>ic Awakening Between Rejection <strong>and</strong> extremism.” book chapter. http://www.witness-pioneer.org<br />
77. Wright, Lawrence. “The Rebellion Within.” The New Yorker. 2 June 2008. http://www.newyorker.com/<br />
reporting/2008/06/02/080602fa_fact_wright?currentPage=all<br />
78. Timothy Garton Ash, “We are Making a fatal mistake by ignoring <strong>the</strong> dissidents within <strong>Islam</strong>.” The Guardian. 15 March<br />
2007. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/15/religion.comment<br />
79. The Quran. al-Baqara, The Cow, II, 256.<br />
80. Romano, Carlin. “Vetting Tariq Ramadan.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. 23 May 2010. http://chronicle.com/article/Vetting-Tariq-Ramadan/65620/<br />
81. Ramadan, Tariq. “Why I’m Banned In <strong>the</strong> US.” The Washington Post. 1 October 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/<br />
wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901334.html<br />
82. “Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi Condemns Attacks Against Civilians.” <strong>Islam</strong> Online. 13 September 2001. http://www.cair.<br />
com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism/SheikhYusufAlQaradawiCondemnsAttacks.aspx<br />
83. Ibid.<br />
84. “Muslim clerics endorse anti-terror fatwa.” UPI. 8 November 2010. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/08/Muslim-clerics-endorse-anti-terror-fatwa/UPI-38241226199440/<br />
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/08/6000-muslim-clerics-endor_n_142415.html<br />
85. “Saudi Cleric Salman Al-Odeh Slams ‘Bro<strong>the</strong>r’ Osama bin Laden.” Memri. 14 September 2007. http://www.memri.org/<br />
report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2378.htm<br />
86. “6,000 Muslim Clerics Endorse Anti-Terrorism Fatwa.” Huffington Post. 8 November 2008. http://www.huffingtonpost.<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
com/2008/11/08/6000-muslim-clerics-endor_n_142415.html<br />
87. “Saudi Cleric Bans Muslims from Joining al-Qaeda.” Al Arabiya. 12 January 2010. http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/01/12/97095.html<br />
88. Radsch, Courtney C. <strong>and</strong> Marwa Awad. “Egypt’s Gr<strong>and</strong> Mufti Bans Muslim Use of WMD.” Al Arabiya. 1 June 1 2009.<br />
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/06/01/74509.html<br />
89. Ibid.<br />
90. Ibid.<br />
91. “Senior Saudi Cleric calls <strong>for</strong> Moderation, Criticizes Al-Qaeda <strong>and</strong> Terrorism.” Free Muslims Coalition. 20 April 2010.<br />
http://www.islamtoday.net/albasheer/services/printart-12-124519.htm<br />
92. Ibid.<br />
93. Power, Carla. “Can a Fatwa Against Terrorism Stop Extremists.” Time. 12 March 2010. http://www.time.com/time/<br />
world/article/0,8599,1969662,00.html<br />
94. Ibid.<br />
95. Ibid.<br />
96. Ibid.<br />
97. Ibid.<br />
98. Iranian News Agency (IRNA) issued a statement on Aug 12 2005 referring to Ayatollah Khameini’s anti-nuclear weapons<br />
fatwa “The leader of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic Republic of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khameini has issued <strong>the</strong> Fatwa that <strong>the</strong> production,<br />
stockpiling <strong>and</strong> use of nuclear weapons are <strong>for</strong>bidden under <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic Republic of Iran shall never<br />
acquire <strong>the</strong>se weapons.”<br />
99. “Sayyed Nasrallah: Hezbollah Has <strong>the</strong> Right to Possess Any Weapon.” Al-ManarTV. 1 May 2010. http://www.almanar.<br />
com.lb/newssite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=135786&language=en<br />
100. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2001/011214-text.html<br />
101. Ibid. In March of 1997, Rafsanjani did an interview with Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes <strong>and</strong> was asked specifically about<br />
<strong>the</strong> development of nuclear weapons—he categorically denied Iran’s current or future pursuit: <strong>the</strong> video can be found at<br />
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=137SJ8qILp0<br />
102. Mercer, Phil. “Khatami calls nuclear row “a satanic conspiracy’.” The National. 27 March 2009. http://www.<strong>the</strong>national.<br />
ae/article/20090327/FOREIGN/837851678/1002<br />
103. “Moral Case Against Nuclear Weapons.” Zero Nukes. 2009. http://www.zero-nukes.org/Disarmament_Scenarios_Case_<br />
Against_Nukes_Moral.html<br />
104. Collier, Robert. “Nuclear weapons unholy, Iran says/Iran <strong>for</strong>bids use, clerics proclaim.” SFGate.com. 31 October 2003<br />
http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-10-31/news/17515120_1_nuclear-program-nuclear-weapons-supreme-leader<br />
105. “Moral Case Against Nuclear Weapons.” Zero Nukes. 2009. http://www.zero-nukes.org/Disarmament_Scenarios_Case_<br />
Against_Nukes_Moral.html<br />
106. Collier, Robert. “Nuclear weapons unholy, Iran says/Iran <strong>for</strong>bids use, clerics proclaim.” SFGate.com. 31 October 2003<br />
http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-10-31/news/17515120_1_nuclear-program-nuclear-weapons-supreme-leader<br />
107. Ibid.<br />
108. Zakaria, Fareed. “They May Not Want <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>.” Newsweek. 23 May 2009. http://www.newsweek.com/2009/05/22/<br />
<strong>the</strong>y-may-not-want-<strong>the</strong>-bomb.html<br />
109. “D.C. Now.” LA Times. 5 November 2004. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/iran/<br />
110. “Iran’s Missing Anti-Nuclear Fatwa.” The FAS. 11 August 2005. http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2005/08/081105.<br />
html (also see “Dr. Strangelove in Iran.” RFE/RL Iran Report. 23 November 2004. http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1342709.html)<br />
111. Ibid.<br />
112. “Background Report: Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.” Compiled by Chris Han <strong>for</strong> <strong>the</strong> Online NewsHour. 16 June 2005.<br />
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/middle_east/iran/leader_rafsanjani.html<br />
113. “Top Cleric: Iran Has Right to ‘Special Weapons.’” CBS News. 14 June 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/14/world/main6581622.shtml<br />
114. Intelligence <strong>and</strong> Terrorism In<strong>for</strong>mation <strong>Center</strong>. 4 March 2010.<br />
Yazdi, Mesbah. “The <strong>Islam</strong>ic Revolution—Surges in Political Changes in History.” 2005. pg. 337. http://www.terrorisminfo.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/iran_e055.htm<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 149
150<br />
115. Intelligence <strong>and</strong> Terrorism In<strong>for</strong>mation <strong>Center</strong>. 4 March 2010.<br />
Yazdi, Mesbah. “The <strong>Islam</strong>ic Revolution—Surges in Political Changes in History.” 2005. pg. 337. http://www.terrorisminfo.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/iran_e055.htm<br />
116. “Iran’s Statement at IAEA Emergency Metting.” Mehr News Agency. 10 August 2005. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/<br />
iran/nuke/mehr080905.html<br />
117. “Egypt’s Gr<strong>and</strong> Mufti bans Muslim Use of WMDs.” Al Arabiya News Channel. 1 June 2010. http://www.alarabiya.net/<br />
articles/2009/06/01/74509.html<br />
118. Freeman, Colin, <strong>and</strong> Philip Sherwell. “Iranian fatwa approves use of nuclear weapons.” The Telegraph. 19 February<br />
2006. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1510900/Iranian-fatwa-approves-use-of-nuclearweapons.html<br />
119. Ibid.<br />
120. Ibid.<br />
121. Vick, Karl. “Iran’s Gray Area on Nuclear Arms.” The Washington Post. 21 June 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/<br />
wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001584_pf.html<br />
122. Ibid.<br />
123. Ibid.<br />
124. Ibid.<br />
125. Altman, Alex. “Ayatullah Ali Khemenei: Iran’s Supreme Leader.” Time. 17 July 2009. http://www.time.com/time/world/<br />
article/0,8599,1905079,00.html#ixzz0u407ck4N<br />
126. “Iran’s Supreme Leader: Nuclear Program Will Go On.” CBS. 3 June 2008. http://cbs5.com/national/iran.nuclear.program.2.739126.html<br />
127. Mercer, Phil. “Khatami calls nuclear row “a satanic conspiracy’.” The National. 27 March 2009. http://www.<strong>the</strong>national.<br />
ae/article/20090327/FOREIGN/837851678/1002<br />
128. Deshmukh, Jay. “Ahmadinejad heads <strong>for</strong> UN, slammed at home <strong>and</strong> scorned abroad.” Google. 20 September 2009.<br />
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iKr-XH2nRJPog5WtHUgrWi-uHWjA<br />
129. Milani, Abbas. “Exclusive: A Green Ayatollah’s Fatwa Against Nukes.” The New Republic. 20 October 2009. http://www.<br />
tnr.com/blog/<strong>the</strong>-plank/exclusive-green-ayatollah%E2%80%99s-fatwa-against-nukes<br />
130. “Iran’ Supreme Leader: Nuclear Weapons are Against <strong>the</strong> Teachings of <strong>Islam</strong>” <strong>Islam</strong> Today. 20 February 2010. http://<br />
en.islamtoday.net/artshow-234-3519.htm<br />
131. Ibid.<br />
132. Ibid.<br />
133. “Supreme Leader: Iran has no belief in atom bombs.” The Star. 20 February 2010. http://<strong>the</strong>star.com.my/news/story.<br />
asp?file=/2010/2/20/nation/20100220112117&sec=nation<br />
134. “Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei Says <strong>Islam</strong> Opposes Nuclear Weapons.” Voice of America News. 19 February 2010.<br />
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Supreme-Leader-Khamenei-Says-<strong>Islam</strong>-Opposes-Nuclear-<br />
Weapons-84771247.html<br />
135. “Statement by H.E. Mr. Mohammad Khazaee, Ambassador <strong>and</strong> Permanent Representative of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic Republic<br />
of Iran to <strong>the</strong> United Nations be<strong>for</strong>e The United Nations Security Council” (New York, 9 June 2010) http://www.<br />
iran-un.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=866:statement-by-he-mr-mohammad-khazaee-ambassador-<strong>and</strong>-permanent-representative-of-<strong>the</strong>-islamic-republic-of-iran-to-<strong>the</strong>-united-nations-be<strong>for</strong>e-<strong>the</strong>-unitednations-security-council-after-adoption-of-resolution-1929-new-york-9-june-2010&catid=35:security-council-<br />
&Itemid=53<br />
136. “Sayyed Nasrallah: Hezbollah Has <strong>the</strong> Right to Possess Any Weapon.” Al-ManarTV. 1 May 2010. http://www.almanar.<br />
com.lb/newssite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=135786&language=en<br />
137. “N-bombs are haram in <strong>Islam</strong>: Iranian Envoy.” Daily Times. 20 June 2010. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.<br />
asp?page=2010\06\20\story_20-6-2010_pg7_2<br />
138. “Iran Ready to Continue nuclear talks.” TREND. 21 July 2010. http://en.trend.az/regions/iran/1724141.html<br />
139. “Quran.” In The Ox<strong>for</strong>d Dictionary of <strong>Islam</strong>. Ed. John L. Esposito. Ox<strong>for</strong>d <strong>Islam</strong>ic Studies Online. 7 August 2010. http://<br />
www.ox<strong>for</strong>dislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e1945<br />
140. “Hadith.” In The Ox<strong>for</strong>d Dictionary of <strong>Islam</strong>. Ed. John L. Esposito. Ox<strong>for</strong>d <strong>Islam</strong>ic Studies Online. 7 August 2010. http://<br />
www.ox<strong>for</strong>dislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e758<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
141. “Sunnah.” In The Ox<strong>for</strong>d Dictionary of <strong>Islam</strong>. Ed. John L. Esposito. Ox<strong>for</strong>d <strong>Islam</strong>ic Studies Online. 7 August 2010.<br />
http://www.ox<strong>for</strong>dislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e2279>.<br />
142. “Sunni <strong>Islam</strong>.” In The Ox<strong>for</strong>d Dictionary of <strong>Islam</strong>. Ed. John L. Esposito. Ox<strong>for</strong>d <strong>Islam</strong>ic Studies Online. 7 August 2010.<br />
http://www.ox<strong>for</strong>dislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e2280<br />
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/subdivisions/sunnishia_1.shtml<br />
143. “Shii <strong>Islam</strong>.” In The Ox<strong>for</strong>d Dictionary of <strong>Islam</strong>. Ed. John L. Esposito. Ox<strong>for</strong>d <strong>Islam</strong>ic Studies Online. 7 August 2010.<br />
http://www.ox<strong>for</strong>dislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e2189<br />
144. “Takfir.” In The Ox<strong>for</strong>d Dictionary of <strong>Islam</strong>. Ed. John L. Esposito. Ox<strong>for</strong>d <strong>Islam</strong>ic Studies Online. 7 August 2010. http://<br />
www.ox<strong>for</strong>dislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e2319<br />
145. “Fatwa.” In The Ox<strong>for</strong>d Dictionary of <strong>Islam</strong>. Ed. John L. Esposito. Ox<strong>for</strong>d <strong>Islam</strong>ic Studies Online. 7 August 2010. http://<br />
www.ox<strong>for</strong>dislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e646<br />
146. Warrick, Joby. “How a Detainee Became an Asset.” Washington Post. 29 August 2009.<br />
147. Bergen, Peter. ‘‘Reading al-Qaeda.’’ Washington Post. 11 September 2005.<br />
148. Paz, Reuven. Global Jihad <strong>and</strong> WMD: Between Martyrdom <strong>and</strong> Mass Destruction. Washington, D.C.: Hudson Institute,<br />
2005. pg. 83.<br />
Haqqani <strong>and</strong> Eric Brown, eds. Current Trends in <strong>Islam</strong>ist Ideology. Washington D.C.: Hudson Institute, 2005. pg. 82.<br />
149. Sitmaryam, Mustapha. ‘‘The <strong>International</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic Resistance Call”<br />
150. Ibid.<br />
151. Harman, Jane <strong>and</strong> Susan Collins. “Al-Qaeda Still Wants a Dirty <strong>Bomb</strong>.” The Wall Street Journal. 3 July 2010. http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748704201604575373270385490484.html<br />
152. Roggio, Bill. “Al-Qaeda confirms WMD expert Abu Khabab killed in South Waziristan strike.” The Long War Journal. 3<br />
August 2008. http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/08/al_qaeda_confirms_wm.php146<br />
153. Mansfield, Laura. “Zawahiri Answers Questions: “Open Meeting”.” LiveLeaks. http://www.liveleak.com/<br />
view?i=a60_1207256093<br />
154. Mahmood, Bashiruddin. “Interview on Pakistan’s Nuclear Program.” PakistanTalk. 23 July 2009. http://www.pakistantalk.com/<strong>for</strong>ums/nuclear-missiles/3102-sultan-bashiruddin-mahmood-interview-pakistans-nuclear-program.html<br />
155. Mahmood, Bashiruddin. “Cosmology <strong>and</strong> Human Destiny,” Dar-ul-Hikmat. 2006. pg 46. http://www.darulhikmat.com/<br />
cosmology%20book.pdf<br />
156. Ibid. Pg. 21.<br />
157. Al-Zawahiri, Ayman. “l-Sahab Releases Ayman Al-Zawahiri Audio Statement on US Presidential Visit.” 2 June 2009.<br />
http://<strong>the</strong>sis.haver<strong>for</strong>d.edu/dspace/bitstream/10066/4686/1/ZAW20090602.pdf<br />
Author’s Note: Zawahiri was clearly appealing to “insiders” working in <strong>the</strong> Pakistan nuclear establishment to consider<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir lyalties carefully; his intent was to get <strong>the</strong>m to question whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y wanted <strong>the</strong> US or <strong>the</strong> <strong>Islam</strong>ic “ummah”<br />
(community) should possess <strong>the</strong>se weapons. In <strong>the</strong> case of <strong>the</strong> latter, he implies that <strong>the</strong>y should assist al-Qaeda gain<br />
access to <strong>the</strong>se weapons.<br />
http://www.google.com/search?q=Zawahiri+interview+2009&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=v&source=univ&t<br />
bs=vid:1&tbo=u&ei=jg5PTPfLJsHSnAe2op3BBw&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQq<br />
wQwAw<br />
http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/zawahiri_renews_threats_against_jews.htm<br />
158. “Transcript: Ashcroft, Mueller News Conference.” CNN. 26 May 2004. http://articles.cnn.com/2004-05-26/us/terror.<br />
threat.transcript_1_al-qaeda-large-scale-attack-terrorist-threats<br />
Author’s Note: Jaffar al-Tayyar (“<strong>the</strong> pilot”), aka Adnan Shukrijumah, was one of <strong>the</strong> first core al-Qaeda operatives with<br />
confirmed CBRN interests that preceded <strong>the</strong> 9/11 attack. Press reports indicate he is now al-Qaeda’s external operations<br />
chief; as such, he is responsible <strong>for</strong> planning attacks in <strong>the</strong> US.<br />
159. Fishman, Shammai. “Fiqh al-Aqalliyyat: A Legal Theory <strong>for</strong> Muslim Minorities.” Hudson Institute. 24 August 2010.<br />
http://www.currenttrends.org/docLib/20061018_MonographFishman2.pdf<br />
160. Timothy Garton Ash, “We are Making a fatal mistake by ignoring <strong>the</strong> dissidents within <strong>Islam</strong>.” The Guardian. 15 March<br />
2007. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/15/religion.comment<br />
161. Al-Banna’s book al-barnamadj al-islami. “The <strong>Islam</strong>ic Program.” pgs. 6–8.<br />
162. Gomaa, Ali. “Biography.” Ali Gomaa: Gr<strong>and</strong> Mufti of Egypt. accessed 24 August 2010. http://www.aligomaa.net/bio.<br />
html<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 151
152<br />
163. Gomaa, Ali. “Biography.” Ali Gomaa: Gr<strong>and</strong> Mufti of Egypt. accessed 24 August 2010. http://www.aligomaa.net/bio.<br />
html<br />
164. Sardar, Ziauddin. “Fatwa Against Terrorism.” NewStatesman. 19 June 2008. http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2008/06/terrorism-fatwa-india-islam<br />
165. “Faisal Mawlawi Seriously Ill; Replaced As Leader of Lebanese Muslim Bro<strong>the</strong>rhood.” The Global Muslim Bro<strong>the</strong>rhood<br />
Daily Report. 24 August 2010. http://globalmbreport.com/?p=1750<br />
166. “<strong>Islam</strong>ic Learning Foundation” site. Scholars. accessed 24 August 2010. http://www.islamiclearningfoundation.com/<br />
site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=136&Itemid=34<br />
167. Bardin, Jeff. “Without Historical Precedent - Without Religious Support.” CSO. 24 August 2010. http://blogs.csoonline.<br />
com/without_historical_precedent_without_religious_support<br />
168. “Reactions <strong>and</strong> Counter-Reactions to <strong>the</strong> Saudi Clerics’ Communiqué Calling <strong>for</strong> Jihad in Iraq .” MEMRI. 21 April<br />
2005. http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1361.htm<br />
169. Esposito, John. “Influential Pakistani cleric issues fatwa against terrorism.” The Washington Post. 5 March 2010. http://<br />
newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/john_esposito/2010/03/influential_pakistani_cleric_issues_fatwa_<br />
against_terrorism.html<br />
170. Kurzman, Charles. “Pro-U.S. Fatwas.” UNC. http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/cv/Kurzman_Pro_US_Fatwas.pdf.<br />
171. “Stop Terror SHeikhs, Muslim Academics Dem<strong>and</strong>.” Arab News. 30 October 2004. http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=<br />
4§ion=0&article=53683&d=30&m=10&y=2004<br />
172. Ramadan, Tariq. What I Believe. New York: Ox<strong>for</strong>d University Press. 2010.<br />
173. Romano, Carlin. “Vetting Tariq Ramadan.” The Chronicle. 23 May 2010. http://chronicle.com/article/Vetting-Tariq-<br />
Ramadan/65620/<br />
174. Ibid.<br />
175. Keating, Joshua. “Dr. Fadl’s new book,” Foreign Policy. 29 January 2010. http://blog.<strong>for</strong>eignpolicy.com/<br />
posts/2010/01/29/dr_fadls_new_book<br />
176. Vick, Karl. “Iran’s Gray Area on Nuclear Arms.” Washington Post. 21 June 2006. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001584.html<br />
177. Freeman, Colin, <strong>and</strong> Philip Sherwell. “Iranian fatwa approves use of nuclear weapons.” The Telegraph. 19 February<br />
2006. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1510900/Iranian-fatwa-approves-use-of-nuclearweapons.html<br />
178. Macleod, Scott. <strong>and</strong> Nahid Siamdoust/Tehran. “The Critical Cleric: Reclaiming <strong>Islam</strong> <strong>for</strong> a new world.” Time Online<br />
Edition. 5 May 2004. http://www.time.com/time/2004/innovators/200405/kadivar.html<br />
179. Ganji, Akbar. “The Latter-Day Sultan: Power <strong>and</strong> Politics in Iran.” Foreign Affairs. December 2008. http://www.<strong>for</strong>eignaffairs.com/articles/64606/akbar-ganji/<strong>the</strong>-latter-day-sultan<br />
180. Erlich, Reese. “Iran <strong>and</strong> Leftist Confusion.” Common Dreams. 29 June 2009. http://www.commondreams.org/<br />
view/2009/06/28-10<br />
181. “New Permanent Representative of Iran Presents Credentials.” United Nations. 25 July 2007. http://www.un.org/News/<br />
Press/docs/2007/bio3895.doc.htm<br />
182. Nasr, Vali. The Shia Revival. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 2006.<br />
183. Fathi, Nazila <strong>and</strong> Michael Slackman. “Iran’s Nuclear Envoy Quits; Talks in Doubt.” New York Times. 21 October 2007.<br />
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/world/middleeast/21iran.html<br />
184. Collier, Robert. “Stifled by clerics, Iranians escape online / Uneasy youth ab<strong>and</strong>on politics <strong>for</strong> chat rooms <strong>and</strong> porn<br />
sites.” SFGate. 16 November 2003. http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-11-16/news/17516888_1_zay<strong>and</strong>eh-river-iraniansyazd<br />
185. Slackman, Michael. “Cleric Wields Religion to Challenge Iran’s Theocracy.” New York Times. 21 November 2009. http://<br />
www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/world/middleeast/22ayatollah.html?_r=2&hp<br />
186. Fathi, Nazila <strong>and</strong> Michael Slackman. “Iran’s Nuclear Envoy Quits; Talks in Doubt.” New York Times. 21 October 2007.<br />
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/world/middleeast/21iran.html<br />
187. Athanasiadis, Iason. “Iran Unrest Could Boil Over Jan. 16.” CBS. 5 January 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/05/world/main6057839.shtml<br />
188. Khan, Sumera. “Iran’s Lack of Cooperation Irks Pakistan.” The Express Tribune. 10 June 2010. http://tribune.com.pk/<br />
story/20165/iran’s-lack-of-cooperation-irks-pakistan/<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
189. Rafizadeh, Shahram. “Rection to Assassination Threat Against Khatami.” Rooz 1241. 16 February 2009. http://www.<br />
roozonline.com/english/news3/newsitem/article/reaction-to-assassination-threat-against-khatami.html<br />
190. “Ayatollah Taheri: Enterprise this president is illegitimate <strong>and</strong> Ghasbanh.” BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/<br />
iran/2009/06/090630_mg_brief_election_taheri.shtml<br />
191. Javedanfar, Meir. “Ahmadinejad’s messianic connections.” The Guardian. 6 May 2009. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/06/iran-ahmadinejad-mahdi<br />
192. “Dr. Javad Zarif.” Biography on The UN site. http://www.un.org/Dialogue/Zarif.html<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 153
154<br />
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<br />
This report would not have been possible without <strong>the</strong> important contributions of some<br />
associates at Harvard University whose assistance I would like to acknowledge.<br />
Rahim B. Kanani is a master’s student in religion, ethics, <strong>and</strong> politics at Harvard Divinity<br />
School where he focuses on <strong>Islam</strong>ic studies <strong>and</strong> international security policy. Rahim spent<br />
a great many hours assisting me with <strong>the</strong> research that went into this report. He also made a<br />
major contribution in writing portions of <strong>the</strong> report, including an exhaustive, in-depth com-<br />
parative text analysis.<br />
Mary Crowley is an administrative assistant at <strong>the</strong> <strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong><br />
Affairs. Mary assisted in research <strong>and</strong> preparation of this report.<br />
Natasha Lawrence is an undergraduate student who worked as a summer intern (2010) at <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs. Natasha helped research this report.<br />
And finally, I would like to pay a special note of gratitude to <strong>the</strong> Director of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong><br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs, Dr. Graham Allison. Dr. Allison’s passion <strong>for</strong> solving<br />
<strong>the</strong> seemingly intractable problems of our time, has served as a boundless source of inspira-<br />
tion <strong>for</strong> my work.<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
ABOUT THE AUTHOR<br />
Prior to his appointment as a senior fellow at <strong>the</strong> <strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong>, Mr. Rolf Mowatt-Larssen<br />
served over three years as <strong>the</strong> Director of Intelligence <strong>and</strong> Counterintelligence at <strong>the</strong> U.S.<br />
Department of Energy. Prior to this, he served <strong>for</strong> 23 years as a CIA intelligence officer in<br />
various domestic <strong>and</strong> international posts, to include Chief of <strong>the</strong> Europe Division in <strong>the</strong><br />
Directorate of Operations, Chief of <strong>the</strong> Weapons of Mass Destruction Department, Counter-<br />
terrorist <strong>Center</strong>, <strong>and</strong> Deputy Associate Director of Central Intelligence <strong>for</strong> Military Support.<br />
His overseas assignments include Stockholm (1984-1987), Moscow (1988-1990, 1992-1994),<br />
A<strong>the</strong>ns (1990-1992), Yerevan (1992), Zurich (1994-1996) <strong>and</strong> Oslo (1998-2000). Prior to his<br />
career in intelligence, Mr. Mowatt-Larssen served as an officer in <strong>the</strong> U.S. Army. He is a grad-<br />
uate of <strong>the</strong> United States Military Academy, West Point, NY. He is married to Roswitha <strong>and</strong><br />
has three children. He is a recipient of <strong>the</strong> CIA Director’s Award, <strong>the</strong> George W. Bush Award<br />
<strong>for</strong> Excellence in Counterterrorism, <strong>the</strong> Secretary of Energy’s Exceptional Service Medal, <strong>the</strong><br />
Distinguished Career Intelligence Medal, Secretary of Defense Civilian Distinguished Service<br />
Medal, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> National Intelligence Superior Per<strong>for</strong>mance Medal, among o<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs | Harvard Kennedy School 155
156<br />
<strong>Islam</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Bomb</strong>: Religious Justification For <strong>and</strong> Against Nuclear Weapons
<strong>Belfer</strong> <strong>Center</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>Science</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>International</strong> Affairs<br />
Harvard Kennedy School<br />
79 JFK Street<br />
Cambridge, MA 02138<br />
Fax: (617) 495-8963<br />
Email: belfer_center@harvard.edu<br />
Website: http://belfercenter.org<br />
Copyright 2010 President <strong>and</strong> Fellows of Harvard College