Writing in the London-based, Saudi-backed newspaper, Asharq al-Awsat, Amir Taheri makes a strong case against the phenomenon of Islamic suicide bombings. The author testifies himself to the rarity of the condemnation of such bombings in the Moslem world when he identifies three current Islamic approaches to the phenomenon, none of which is an absolutely negative one. The three approaches mentioned by the columnist include: 1) Absolute support, “because we regard Israel as evil, we not only have a right but also a duty to fight it, if necessary, in ways that are otherwise evil;” 2) Support for the “legitimate form of action,” but not against the Moslem regimes, as decided by the foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Malaysia; 3) A “no-but” approach, as put forth by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Muhammad, according to the newspaper. Muhammad argued that “since suicide is forbidden in Islam we cannot sanction such acts. At the same time we cannot condemn people who, driven to desperation, use such methods.” In the view of Mr. Taheri, “All three answers are problematic.”
The a-Sharq al-Awsat article makes explicit an obvious fact often overlooked by the English-language media: “It is disingenuous to claim that suicide bombers are ordinary youths who suddenly decide to sacrifice their lives to kill some of the ‘enemy.’ Organizing and implementing a suicide attack is a complex operation that requires recruitment, training, finance, logistics, surveillance and post-operation publicity…” Taheri concludes from that fact, “Suicide bombing must, therefore, be regarded as a deliberate act, decided, organized and promoted by politicians as part of a strategy. This is clear from statements by Palestinian leaders who say they had ordered a halt to such attacks to encourage positive evolutions in Israeli behavior. When that did not happen, suicide-bombings resumed.” The decision to conduct a suicide bombing campaign or not “must come from the Palestinian National Authority, their embryonic organ of state,” wrote the Saudi columnist, noting that “Yasser Arafat, has condemned such acts on several occasions, at least when speaking in English.”
The central issue, in Taheri’s view is that “Islam forbids suicide without any ‘ifs’ and ‘buts.’ Life belongs to He who grants it, not to mortal men who are its trustee. To violate that rule amounts to a claim of divine authority for mortal man.” For that reason, according to the article, “it is not up to mortal man to decide to become a martyr. A martyr is either one who suffers at the hands of the enemies of Islam, often to the point of death, because of his or her faith, not politics, or someone who falls in a battle against aggressors. The martyr does not want to become one. He knows that the highest value is the preservation of life; he is put to death not by his own hands but by his oppressors.”
Taheri went on to note “the difference between Islam as faith and Islam as existential reality. Islam, as faith, celebrates life and promotes its enjoyment…” Either deliberately or boorishly ignorant of the many Islamic clerics, including Egypt’s leading Sunni religious leader, Sheikh Tantawi, who have given religious sanction to suicide bombings against Israelis, the writer claimed that he “does not know of anything in the Qur’an, or from any prominent Muslim theologian, dead or alive that would qualify that position [against suicide].”
The columnist readily admitted, however, that “there are politicians who glorify suicide bombing.” On the other hand, he questions to what extent the people that such politicians purport to represent agree with them about suicide bombings against Jewish targets. “We will never know,” Taheri wrote, revealing another obvious, but glossed over, fact of life in the Arab world, “until there is an atmosphere in which opinions are aired without fear and, more importantly, without taqiyyah (dissimulation).”
“Suicide bombing also is problematic on ethical grounds,” the writer pointed out. The problem, he wrote, lies in “who decides which suicide bombing is good and which bad? Can anyone decide to become a martyr by killing himself and others? If not, who distributes martyrdom certificates? The key question in any society is: who decides about life and death?” As an example, Taheri asked his readers, “And what about suicide bombings conducted by opposition groups in Iran and Iraq, among other Muslim countries?” The article squarely and bravely put its author in the anti-terrorism camp, as Taheri made it clear that “[e]thics can explain, even understand, evil; but can never justify it, let alone confuse it with good.”
On another level, chastising those Arab leaders who promote the suicide bombings against Jews, Taheri wrote, “It is easy to make heroic statements about Palestinians from a distance, as long as only the Palestinians and the Israelis pay with blood.” He asked a sharp question of the reader, the potential supporter of suicide bombings, “Are you prepared to practice what you preach? In this case: can you become a suicide bomber? Are you prepared to urge your offspring to become human bombs?”