Fatwas and Terrorism...

The idea of issuing a fatwa (edict) against terrorism is an appealing one. If for no other reason than it would serve to distance the more moderate adherents to the faith from the more radical. However, the big question is how binding are these fatwas on Muslims and what are the real world punishments for failing to adhere to them?

More importantly, how should Muslims respond to competing fatwas or competing interpretations of what is acceptable with respect to violence perpetrated in the defense of the religion of Allah? There are plenty of Muslim organizations, and Muslims, throughout the world that are seeking to issue fatwas against terrorism as a means of distancing the faith from the criminal acts of a few. The YouTube video below relates to a fatwa issued in India.

This post is not suggesting that terrorism is a Muslim issue alone or that only Muslims perpetrate terror. However, the post is dealing with the issue of fatwas and terrorism, and this is a discussion within the framework of Islam and the interpretation of what is forbidden (haram) and what is permitted / legitimate (halal).

This is an interesting question. I thank Harry over at Multibrand for, in essence, challenging me on the issue, and also Tikno over at Love Ely for pointing me to the Indonesia version of a 2004 Fatwa on terrorism issued by the Indonesian Ulema Council (Majelis Ulama Indonesia / MUI).

In the Indonesian context, a fatwa is not binding in a strict legal sense. The government may consider them and may even adopt them if they are so inclined. However, adoption would require the codification of the fatwa into law. This is something that happens to a certain degree in matters relating to Islamic finance where the MUI plays a role in determining what financial products are legitimate under the rules of Islam. These are then codified in laws and regulations enacted by the state.

Furthermore, Indonesia already has an Anti-Terrorism Law (Interim Law No. 1 of 2002 / Law No. 15 of 2003) so is there a need for a fatwa forbidding conduct which is already prohibited in the criminal legal sense? For an interesting paper on the subject you can read Simon Butt's paper by downloading it from here.

I have taken the time to translate the MUI fatwa and would be happy to send it out if anyone wanted a copy in English. I am reluctant just to post it here because I am hopeless at formatting and "stuff" within the blogspot framework.

The fatwa is interesting because it does not forbid in an absolute sense the killing of oneself in the defense of the religion of Allah. Yet, the fatwa goes to considerable lengths to try and point out that random suicide bombings with undefined targets is absolutely against the teachings of Islam.

The primary difference in the fatwa between terrorism and jihad is that terrorism is used for destructive purposes and to cause chaos and fear whereas jihad is a legitimate struggle to defend the faith. Unfortunately, the violence perpetrated in both cases can be the same, but the intent of the perpetrator is what makes the difference. If the perpetrator is amaliyah al-istisyhad or undertaking the action in search of syahid, then this is acceptable. In contrast, where the perpetrator is one who kills themselves and others because they are a pessimist has therefore sinned in the eyes of God and has committed a crime that can never be permitted by Allah or Islam.

Therefore, the violence is a matter of perception with respect to whether it is legitimate or forbidden. Yet, the fatwa states that the act of suicide bombing is an act of despair and is therefore forbidden under the laws of Islam irrespective of whether it is done in a time of peace or a time of war or in an area dominated by Muslims or in areas dominated by other faiths.

But, in the next point of the fatwa a suicide death where the losses inflicted on the enemies of Islam are greater than those inflicted upon Islam would constitute amaliyah al-istisyhad. However, this is seemingly modified by the phrase dar al-harb which is reasonably translated as regions at war. Yet, it can also be translated to places where Muslims are in the minority and are therefore in constant struggle to practice their faith.

What is interesting about the MUI fatwa was that it was issued in 2004 and even today it is not widely known and has not been widely discussed. It is interesting because wider and more open discussion of the fatwa and terrorism could have made a significant contribution to the understanding of the "problem" of terror and how the Indonesian Muslim community is seeking to deal with it.

There are plenty of sites dedicated to debunking fatwas on terrorism as nothing more than fakes of ways of diverting attention from the real intents and purposes of terrorism. To each their own.

SBY and the Photos -- Are They or Aren't They...

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, or SBY as he is affectionately known, seems to have erred in his speech in the immediate aftermath of the bombings of the JW Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotels last Friday. The president used the opportunity to link the bombings to the recent presidential elections and then to link his political rivals to the bombings and other yet to occur violence at the Headquarters of the General Election Commission (Komisi Pemilihan Umum / KPU).

It is now being argued whether the speech is to become an ongoing political problem for the incumbent president as he heads into a likely second term (the official election results have not yet been released) or is it nothing more than a storm in a tea cup that will dissipate as quickly as it formed.

It has also recently come to light that the photos that the president used in order to highlight that the terrorists were in fact after him are probably from 2004. So, it seems highly unlikely that the link between the alleged plot targeting the president, the bombings, and the photos can be sustained. Ruhut Sitompul of the Partai Demokrat is unequivocal in stating that the photos were confiscated in May 2009 at a terrorist training facility in East Kalimantan. The president also is adopting this line.

Yet, there are plenty of people coming forward suggesting that these are the same photos that were shown to the House of Representatives (DPR) in 2004 by the National Intelligence Agency (Badan Intelijen Negara / BIN). Permadi and Andreas Pereira of PDI-P have said that they saw these pictures in 2004. Sidney Jones of the International Crisis Group also believes that the photos originated in 2004 and were taken at a facility in West Seram in Maluku.

If it is true that these photos are from 2004 then there are two distinct possibilities; the president has been misled by his closest security advisers or SBY was being a little disingenuous by using these photos to link the attacks to himself and the recent elections.

However, the president is not conceding that he erred in his judgment in making the statements that he made. To the contrary, SBY has gone on the offensive to state that his comments have been misinterpreted as the speech did not link the hotel bombings to the elections and presumably he did not all but name Prabowo as being involved.

I must add here that I am not a fan of Prabowo. The evidence put forward to date that he was involved in the disappearance and presumed murder of activists in 1998 is compelling and deserves to be heard in a court of law. The idea that the let bygones be bygones, and that this is all ancient history and Indonesia is ready to move on, neglects to understand the loss suffered by the family and friends of those who were disappeared. My argument has always been that the timing of SBY in calling out Prabowo, and suggesting that Prabowo's time was near in terms of him being held accountable for his past sins, in this particular speech and at this particular moment was poor. I am all for the heat being turned up on Prabowo.

The president claims that the photos are from 2009 and the intelligence is real, and not some rumour, gossip, or beat-up for the press as being perpetuated by those not in the know.

The debate as it develops is interesting as there are two distinct camps evolving; those that think the president erred in the manner in which he went about this business and those who do not give the proverbial, rat's arse, and who cannot see what the fuss is about. In the former camp is Professor Effendy Ghazali. Ghazali is adamant that SBY has made a "significant mistake". The reality is a little more simple than that, the president might have erred in his judgment on this one but it is far from likely that this error is going to be fatal to his next term in office.

If the photos are definitively proven to be from 2004 and not from May 2009 then this story might get a new set of legs.

Watch this space.

The Faces of Terror...

The sketches are of the reconstructed faces of the alleged bombers. Both their heads were found at the scene of the crime. The sketches have been released in an effort to get members of the public who recognize the two faces to come forward and identify them.

Initially, authorities were leaning towards two men identified as Nur Hasbi and Ibrahim. However, it is being reported that the DNA tests on family members related to Hasbi and Ibrahim do not match the DNA of the alleged bombers.

The additional data accompanying the two sketches state that the Ritz-Carlton bomber was approximately 40-years-old, 165cm tall, with dark skin and black hair. The JW Marriott bomber is approximately 17-years-old (so very young), about 180cm tall, with light skin. The forensic teams must have also found a foot as it is noted that the Marriott bomber wears a size 42 shoe.

Identifying these two individuals is going to be important in determining whether or not the links alleged by SBY in his post-bombing speech that the attacks were coordinated attacks against him in response to his election victory and an attempt to undermine the economy can be made out. It will also be important in determining what the motivation for such wanton violence was. And, finally, it will bring closure to their loved ones.

Although some might not care much for the last point. However, the reality is that they were likely to be someone's husband, father, son, brother, uncle, or whatever, so there is probably someone, somewhere who loves them and misses them.

It seems that the police have allegedly captured and detained the wife of Noordin M. Top. I am not sure that this ups the ante on Top but if the police can get a head start on his next move then they might just be able to catch him. It appears that Malaysian police and their Indonesian counterparts are working closely in trying to break down what is an international operation under the guidance of Noordin M Top.

So, maybe in light of the differences Indonesia and Malaysia share over issues such as Ambalat and Manohara it is worth noting that Indonesia and Malaysia also share some common ground in the fight to unravel and eliminate terrorist organizations in their respective countries and the region.

Violence is not the answer. And, for this reason, the terrorists will never win!

Manohara Odelia Pinot -- Part XVI -- The Jakarta Bombings

Some have called my fascination with this case an obsession. I would rather call it just a fascination, the fascination about the making of a celebrity, especially where there are interesting legal issues and points of law arising from what are allegedly a tragic set of circumstances relating to domestic violence.

It seems that Manohara's handlers, and presumably chief among these is her mother, will go to any lengths to ensure that the girl does not miss out on a media and photo opportunity. Most of these appearances seem to be geared to exploiting any nationalist sentiment that Indonesians have with respect to being anti-Malaysian. The carefully managed media opportunities are also designed to take the focus off of Daisy Fajarina and her own serious legal problems including the one where she is allegedly on the run from France for the abuse of a domestic servant. Brett over at Spruiked has his own take on the media coveting matter here.

Mano, as she is known to her friends, decided that Monday was a good day to get over to the MMC hospital in South Jakarta and visit some of the victims of the JW Marriott and Ritz-Carlton hotel bombings. Mano did not only make these visits by herself, but she went along with her mother and 50 members of her entourage all clad in red and white camouflage gear. Red and white just happens to be the colours of the Indonesian flag. I am all for a little patriotism and being proud in one's country, but is this really the moment for this expression?

The fact that the prime suspect for planning and coordinating the most recent bombings is Malaysian is not enough reason for this kind of circus to occur, particularly when it seems that the trigger men, or suicide bombers if you prefer, are most likely to be Indonesian. In any event, if Mano was really concerned about the health and welfare of the victims she would not have made them participants in the Mano horse and pony show. This hospital appearance was all about self-promotion and promoting the new soap opera she is to star in, Manohara.

The hospital visit followed a visit to the site of the actual bombings and her signing of the memorial canvas.

It is times like these that people look for sincerity in the actions of their celebrities. Unfortunately, Mano's actions here seem to be self-serving and exploiting the grief of others in order to keep her own name in the press (and by posting this blog entry perhaps I am complicit in this vicious cycle). As serious and severe as the alleged physical and sexual assaults were against Manohara, a double bombing is certainly going to bump you from the front couple of pages of the tabloids and out of the main story slot on all the gossip shows.

Cynical, maybe! But, based on what is available it is a reasonable thing to be.

The case will soon return to the substantive issues that first brought Mano to the attention of the masses. The prince has announced that he is pursuing a defamation action against Manohara and her mother for the lies they have spread about him. The prince went on to say that he is also seeking to terminate the marriage and is hopeful of a divorce in the near future.

Some people will do anything to be famous, and once they are famous they seem willing to do whatever it takes to remain so.

SBY -- Flustered?

My previous post on the recent bombings in Jakarta and the speech by SBY in the aftermath dealt with the idea that he used his position as president to take advantage of the tragic events to score a few political points and to finger the opposition of being involved. Now, it may well turn out after the investigation that the president's accusations are borne out and Prabowo was the man.

However, all early indications are suggesting that this was a JI, or remnants of JI, operation with a man by the name of Nur Hasbi (or Nur Aziz) allegedly being at least one of the suicide bombers. It seems that Nur Hasbi has links to JI and to Abu Bakar Ba'asyir through Al-Mukmin Ngruki Islamic Boarding School (Pesantren).

The Sydney Morning Herald and their correspondent on the ground in Jakarta, Tom Allard, is running a story with the headline that the speech indicates that Dr. Yudhoyono is flustered and that the speech in which he links his rivals (primarily Prabowo) to the bombing violence as being extraordinary. The sense of extraordinary being that the speech and the linking of his rivals runs counter to what most people would have expected considering the nature of the events. The story goes on to suggest that this is raising serious concerns about the president's judgment in a crisis situation.

When you are like me, to suggest that the president might have a few judgment issues and that he took advantage of a tragic situation to score political points is likely to get you labeled as a foreigner (or as Indonesians prefer to call their white foreign folk, bule) trying to read too much into a situation, or simply not understanding the Indonesian dynamic or "way" because you are white (there are plenty of examples of this -- See Indonesia Matters for a sampling of these types of comments). This is always an easy way out of having to debate the real issues of substance. It always reminds me of the kid who brings the ball for the footy match and when he gets picked last, decides he would rather take the ball and go home than play.

The substantive issues in the speech are critical and must be addressed. It is time for the president to ante-up if he is intending to stand by the statements that he has made. Specifically, the idea that the attack was really an attack by the political elites of Indonesia against him personally. The president talks in his speech about Indonesia being a country where the rule of law applies and a place where evidence is required to gain a conviction. Now would see like an appropriate time to put forward a little more convincing proof than a few photos and a video of some balaclava clad supposed terrorists shooting at a mugshot of the president.

Furthermore, that there is or was a plan to take over the General Election Commission headquarters on the announcement of his presumed victory in the recent presidential elections. If there is enough intelligence floating around that this "attack" was a real possibility then there is enough intelligence obviously that the attack would have been thwarted. How about some evidence being released and the arrest of some of the would-have-been perpetrators of this brazen attack on Indonesian democracy and the headquarters of the KPU.

Finally, the president has indirectly linked Prabowo as being an instigator of the bombings and presumably the impending violent response to the announcement of the presidential election results on 27 July 2009. This really does require a little bit of support in terms of evidence. It will be interesting to see whether Prabowo and his legal team thinks there is enough in the statement to start some defamation proceedings. Anyone who knows anything about Prabowo's questionable human rights history knows that the references in SBY's speech can only be about Prabowo.

The speech was extraordinary. It was extraordinary because the speech was prepared prior to it being given. This was a planned and calculated attempt to use a tragic set of circumstances for personal political gain. Even if at some point in the future the president's assertions are proven to be true, specifically that his political rivals are involved, it still does not condone the method or the timing of the speech to launch a personal attack of his own. It cannot be forgotten that this is a case where innocent Indonesians and foreigners lost their lives in attack that was anything but a personal attack on the president.

Acceptable Collateral Damage?

It is always easy to watch hostilities from afar and make one's judgments based on some ethical or moral code that is removed from the daily threat of violence and death. However, as I sit back and watch another round of Israeli and Palestinian violence, I wonder what is acceptable collateral damage in this time of sophisticated weapons and "surgical strikes".

I find myself wondering how Israel justifies killing women and children in order to kill a self-proclaimed terrorist. Is this as simple as killing them before they kill you. Is it a case of these children would have grown up to be terrorists and they would have been encouraged by their mothers to be so, therefore the best solution is to wipe them out before such a reality can eventuate?

I also find myself questioning the wisdom of firing rockets, homemade or otherwise, by Hamas into Israel.

The issue here is not one of whether Israel has a right to protect itself, it is not even a question in my mind of proportionality. Ask yourself this question, when are wars ever about proportionality? Your answer should highlight the silliness of the idea of proportional responses. To the victors go the spoils, and the victors are those that are left standing. Simply, the idea of proportional response will lead only to a series of ceasefires and temporary truces that never address the fundamental problems that lead to the hostilities in the first place.

The issue for me is what constitutes acceptable collateral damage. The recent Israeli attack that killed Nizar Rayan is an example of why this is a question that must be answered. There is little doubt that Nizar Rayan is a senior leader of Hamas. There is also little doubt that he advocates violence. It has been reported that he even sent one of his own sons on a suicide mission to kill Israelis. There is also little doubt that Israel classifies Hamas as a terrorist organization.

However, in order to kill Rayan, the Israelis decided the best method was to drop a rather large bomb on his house. This bomb was obviously large as it destroyed 12 surrounding house as well as the targeted house. The collateral damage issue here that I want to look at is not the property but the 18 people killed in addition to Rayan. Among the dead were his four wives, two daughters, and a son. This is what I wonder when I am wondering how to answer the question of acceptable collateral damage.

I wonder whether Israel could have put together covert Mossad teams and assassinate Rayan. This would have averted any unnecessary collateral damage. Perhaps questionable in international law however I would assert that killing innocent men, women, and children is also questionable under international law.

I am neither pro-Israel not pro-Hamas or Palestine. I am pro-peace and I am pro-humanity. I am against the killing of innocent men, women, and children in the furtherance of any cause.

So, I pose this question, "what is acceptable collateral damage in a time of conflict?"