Note: The following text is an exact quote:
===
===
http://internet-haganah.us/harchives/000642.html
May 25, 2003
YES to WMD: The first Islamist Fatwah on the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA)
Center THE PROJECT FOR THE RESEARCH OF ISLAMIST MOVEMENTS (PRISM)
PRISM SPECIAL DISPATCHES Volume 1 (2003), Number 1 (May 2003)
Director and Editor: Dr. Reuven Paz.
Abstract: This is a new series of special dispatches that translate and analyze articles, reports, religious decrees, and other documents, written in Arabic by Islamist scholars, clerics, activists, or intellectuals, on major issues of interest.
YES to WMD: The first Islamist Fatwah on the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction
By Reuven Paz*
(PRISM Series of Special Dispatches on Global Jihad, No. 1)
Introduction
The issue of the use of weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) by terrorists in general and Islamists in particular, has become in recent years a major threat and concern for the West. Following the September 11th attacks, and some findings in former training camps of Qa'idat al-Jihad in Afghanistan there was much information, but mainly assessments, as to the possible use of such weapons. Most of this information was about the interest of terrorist groups in acquiring such weapons, and only a small part referred to the actual use of WMD in the near future. Yet, scholars of Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism use to focus on the use of WMD as part of future Terrorism of "Mega-attacks."[1]
In preparation for the war in Iraq by the United States brought this subject headed the list of Western priorities, not only concerning the Iraqi threat, but the possible use of these weapons by terrorist groups as well. The American daily USA Today reported in January 2003, that the word WMD has been voted by the American Dialect Society as "word of the year 2002."[2] Numerous Congress hearings in the past two years dealt with the threats, from various aspects. Yet, so far, over a month after the American and British occupation of Iraq, there is no "smoking gun" for such weapons on Iraqi soil; no real operational cooperation between Iraq and Islamist terrorist groups in general, and in the field of WMD in particular; and no signs of intentions of such use by Qa'idat al-Jihad or affiliated groups.
According to U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, "Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden said in the past that the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by his terrorist gang is a religious duty. U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan found evidence that al Qaeda was aggressively pursuing chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear information and material."[3] This statement became a corner stone of the American policy on the issue.
An analysis of the Center for Contemporary Conflict (CCC) of the U.S. Navy from September 2002, stated the following, which can summarize the American position on the issue[4]:
We can be reasonably confident that al Qaeda is working to develop both nuclear and radiological devices but so far has not succeeded…. In sum, although we can be certain of al Qaeda's objective to develop a nuclear capability, so far there is no evidence that the organization ever acquired enough nuclear material to develop a nuclear weapon, nor does it appear that they were able to acquire whole nuclear weapon assemblies….
We can be equally certain that al Qaeda has aggressively pursued a chemical and biological weapon (CBW) capability. They may have advanced more in these fields than in the nuclear realm. Although it is difficult to point to physical evidence of al Qaeda's CBW capability, several hints suggest the likelihood that al Qaeda has produced small amounts of some type of agent…. Despite al Qaeda's genuine interest in developing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, the organization has probably not been very successful in developing any such devices. If they do have a stockpile of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, investigators have not found it. Nevertheless, al Qaeda appears to be continuing its efforts to build these weapons and therefore the likelihood that they will succeed in the future remains high….
The bottom line is: there is still much to learn about al Qaeda's WMD capability, but from what we do know, there is cause for serious concern.
Qa'idat al-Jihad and WMD
So far, in recent years, there were only a few indirect statements by Qa'idat al- Jihad or affiliated groups of the culture of global Jihad, as to the threat of using WMD. The first direct reference appeared in December 26th 2002. The moderator of the radical Islamist Internet forum al-mojahedoon.net—Abu Shihab al-Kandahari—published a short article titled "The nuclear war is the solution for the destruction of the United States."
The article could be viewed as a mere threat, which exploits numerous rumors from various sources. It might have also been deliberate disinformation regarding al-Qa'idah's possession of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Or it could be propaganda aimed at encouraging Islamists. Yet, this was the first time that such a threat has been made publicly by supporters of al-Qa'idah, at least by a figure who is known as close to the al-Qa'idah propaganda apparatus.
The article was short and the usual "philosophical" elements typical of the writings of Islamist scholars against the United States or the West were missing. Yet, even though this could be a false alarm, it seemed to reflect another stage in the escalation in the tone of al-Qa'idah propaganda, and as such, could raise the expectations of Islamists for a "mega operation" by WMD against the United States or Russia.[5]
The main theme of the Modus operandi used by Qa'idat al-Jihad so far were operations based on suicide attacks. It is not only in the operational field of terrorism, but was very much emphasized in the field of indoctrination. Throughout the past two years the propaganda of Qa'idat al-Jihad kept asking what one of their adherents wrote in an article titled "Has the Global Crusader Alliance learned the lessons of the Mujahidin?"—"We are really puzzled to see the Americans and their followers in the Western world think that they are able to confront people who wish to die more than they [the Americans] want to live". The issue of self-sacrifice has been reinforced as more operations were carried out through suicide bombing, not to mention the worldwide support of Muslim publics for the suicide attacks against civilians in Israel.
Furthermore, it is significant to note that this method, which was controversial among Islamic clerics and scholars, enjoys a growing support of both Islamic clerics and publics. It seems that the focus of Qa'idat al-Jihad so far, was not just on mass-killings, but primarily on self-sacrifice and the distribution of their attacks in different regions and places all over the world.
The focus of the groups that belong to the culture of Global Jihad, either Qa'idat al-Jihad or groups with more local and national aspirations, such as the Chechen Islamists, Kashmiri groups, the Kurdish Ansar al-Islam, or the Palestinian Hamas, on personal martyrdom and suicide attacks, might explain the low profile engagement in WMD. We should also note that clerics, scholars, or Islamist intellectuals, who supply the ideological and doctrinal support for the culture of global Jihad, very rarely mentioned the issue. Since we are dealing with religious zealots they need this support and its absence so far might be significant.
Sheikh Naser al-Fahd: Fatwah on the use of WMD
In May 21st 2003, the Saudi Sheikh Naser bin Hamad al-Fahd published the first Islamist ruling about the use of WMD.[6] The author is 36 years old, and one of the young leading clerics of the Saudi Islamist opposition that supports the culture of global Jihad, Qa'idat al-Jihad, and the militant fight against the West. He was teaching Islamic law in Imam University in Riyadh until his imprisonment by the authorities in the years 1995-1998, following the bombings of the American barracks in Riyadh by an extremist Islamist group linked to Qa'idat al-Jihad in November 1995. Sheikh Fahd has published so far dozens of very militant books and articles; some of them are regarded by the followers of global Jihad as rulings for the legitimacy of the fight against the United States. He was also one of the leading Saudi supporters of the Taliban, and published a long ruling in support for the destruction of the Buddhist sculptures in Afghanistan by them. In the past year he published two long and very detailed rulings against the Arab cooperation with the United States in the war against Afghanistan and Iraq.[7] Sheikh Fahd, like most of his colleagues in the Saudi Islamic opposition, has his own web site: www.al-fhd.com.
In September 21st 2002, he published an article titled: "The divine verses about the September attack," in which he praised the attack and mainly the way it was operated by civil planes, and wished the best for Osamah bin Laden.[8] One of his arguments was that the September attack was a kind of air-air battle. "If the American are using F-15 or Tornados they are allowed, and if the Mujahidin used Boeing or Air Bus they are not?" This equation is repeated in other writings of his.
The ruling is as usual in Islam, an answer to a question, which says as follows:
It is no longer a secret according to the Media, that al-Qa'idah is planning to attack the United States by weapons of mass destruction. We have not found any reference to the issue by [scholars] of our time. What is then, the ruling of the use of it by the Mujahidin? And, if the answer is positive, is it allowed with totally no limits? Or is it dependent upon the circumstances, only if there is no other choice to defeat the enemy; or he might use it unless the Mujahidin do it first against him? Do these weapons in contradict the human mission of building the earth or not?
Are these weapons stand in accordance with the saying of Allah: "His aim everywhere is to spread mischief through the earth and destroy crops and cattle"? Or this verse is conditioned by the wrong doing, like the verses about the censure of killing?
The answer of Sheikh Fahd was clear-cut, yes, it is allowed:
The question you raised dear brother, derives a comprehensive research, to include all the evidence and sayings of scholars. It concerns issues such as The House of War (Dar al-Harb); ways of defeating the aggressor; Jihad of self- defense; the meaning of the destruction of crops and cattle; etc. I shall conclude whatever I find, with Allah's help.
Dear brother, you should know that the term Weapons of Mass Destruction is not defined. They mean by that only nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. If anyone uses these weapons and kill thousand people, they would accuse him and launch against him a propaganda campaign since he was using weapons that are internationally prohibited. Yet, if he uses huge bombs of seven tons each, thereby killing 3000 people or more, he would use weapons that are internationally accepted.
It is obvious that the effect of several kilograms of T.N.T. is regarded mass destructive, if you compare it to the stones of the ballista in the past; An R.P.G. shell is regarded mass destructive if you compare it to the arrow in the past. It is known that the infidels of our times have made these weapons called WMD as a means of retaliation to frighten the others. We have just recently witnessed the American threat against Iraq to use these weapons if it attacks Israel. Why should it be allowed for the United States and the infidels and prohibited upon the Muslims?
If a Muslim group attacks people and can be defeated only by killing all of its members, it is allowed to kill them as accepted by [Islamic] scholars in dealing with defeating the aggressor. How about then, with the infidels who attack religion, soul, honor, mind, and homeland?
If the Muslims could defeat the infidels only by using these kinds of weapons, it is allowed to use them even if they kill them all, and destroy their corps and cattle.
All this has foundations in the biography of the Prophet, the stories of Jihad, and the writings of the scholars.
Following the answer Sheikh Fahd wrote a long and detailed research of the relevant Islamic sources that he used as the basis of his ruling.
First he disqualifies any terms of international law that are used by the West, since they are not part of the Islamic divine law. Secondly, he claims that those countries that head the campaign against the use of WMD—the United States and the United Kingdom—have already used it in the past against their enemies, not to mention that they, in addition to "the Jews" possess these weapons.
Thirdly, he bases his arguments on the saying of the Prophet in the Hadith: "Allah has ordered you to do everything perfectly. Hence, if you kill do it perfectly, and if you slaughter, do it perfectly. Everyone should sharpen his blade and ease his slaughter."
Another principle he uses is based upon the saying of the Prophet: "If you are ordered to do something—do it according to your best ability." Past Islamic scholars concluded one of the major principles of Islam from this saying: fulfill your duties only according to your ability; there is no prohibition on your obligatory duties. In al-Fahd's view, this principle is essential in the case of Jihad: the Muslims should act upon their possibilities. If there is no other way the Mujahidin can defeat the enemy—they should kill them, all of them, by every means possible. This principle is valid even if they have to kill women and children, or even Muslims.
The principles of using WMD are divided into two categories: general acceptance of using them in the case of Jihad, and the use of WMD in a certain period against a certain enemy. The second category fits in al-Fahd's eyes primarily the United States:
This is the case of the United States in our times. The attack against it by WMD is accepted, since Allah said: "If you are attacked you should attack your aggressor by identical force." Whoever looks at the American aggression against the Muslims and their lands in recent decades concludes that it is permissible… They have killed about ten millions Muslims, and destroyed countless lands… If they would be bombed in a way that would kill ten millions of them and destroy their lands—it is obviously permitted, with no need for evidence.
An important issue, which is controversial among Saudi scholars following the suicide attacks in Riyadh in May 12th 2003, is the case of innocent Muslims who are killed in attacks against the "infidels." The case is controversial also in the case of suicide operations. His answer, based upon Islamic scholars, such as Ibn Taymiyyah of the 14th Century, is clear-cut: if necessary and there is no other choice—it is permissible.[9] Therefore, there are no limits in using WMD against the Western "infidels."
Conclusion The ruling of Sheikh Naser al-Fahd is a precedent in the case of the use of WMD. Since this was an answer to a question by an anonymous person we cannot know if the question was a real one or invited by the Sheikh or any element linked to Qa'idat al-Jihad. Yet, the clear acceptance of the use of WMD in the Western sense—nuclear, biological, and chemical—is very significant.
The results of the war in Iraq shocked the Arab world in general, and the supporters of Qa'idat al-Jihad in particular. In addition to the rapid Iraqi collapse, there was the absence of massive terrorist operations in Iraq and elsewhere, and the silence of al-Qa'idah leadership, until mid-May. The turning point was in the suicide operation in Riyadh in May 12th. If we add the attack that followed it in May 17th in Casablanca, the major suicide attacks in Chechnya, and the audio tape of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, which was circulated by al-Jazirah TV in May 21st, it seems that Qa'idat al-Jihad, either directly or through its proxies, has woken up. Even if the operations in Casablanca and mainly in Chechnya, are not directly linked to Qa'idat al-Jihad, they are viewed by the supporters of global Jihad as a whole.
The timing of the ruling by Sheikh Naser al-Fahd with the threats of Dr. Zawahiri might be a campaign of threats or disinformation. But, it might not be coincidental. It does not necessarily mean that Qa'idat al-Jihad is already planning such an attack by using WMD, or has already acquired such weapons. Yet, if and when they or any other affiliated Islamist group is going to use it—they already have in their pocket the necessary legitimacy from an Islamic point of view.
I only stepped away for a little while! Consider this a catch-up bump.
That e-prism has been an excellent source.
Internet Haganah is always a great source.
Bookmark, and I hope you forgive me, Cindy, for my stoopid question! (the one the other day.) I'm just a babe in the woods (metaphorically speaking).