5

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

Improve this question
20
  • Your question is probably not answerable because it is unclear what you would accept as an "official" permission. From whom exactly? In which interpretation? As to whether Quran literally permits and actually encourages violence against simply non (muslim) believers, there's plenty of examples, see for instance freethoughtnation.com/…
    – Scrontch
    Nov 4, 2016 at 14:43
  • @Scrontch I would accept verses from the Quran. Basically he is making an unreferenced claim about the book. So relevant passages from the Koran about circumstances (if any) where killing is ok, or relevant prohibitions on killing (if any) would be my first choice as primary evidence. Secondary references about interpretations are less preferable, but would be evidence to a lesser extent.
    – DavePhD
    Nov 4, 2016 at 14:50
  • So if we agree that Americans are seen as infidels in the sense of Quran then any violence against infidels does fit the bill, right? Here is more, with analysis of context: thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
    – Scrontch
    Nov 4, 2016 at 14:57
  • Even if we accept his claims, and follow the words he's using to justify his action, there's a complete non-sequitur. How are the other students at his university responsible for any killings done in the name of the USA?
    – BorderlineBaguette
    Nov 4, 2016 at 15:27
  • 1
    @MohammadSakibArifin I didn't have any particular person in mind to answer. If you answer, that would be great. Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar published his answer as "G. Instructions and guidelines for fighting and killing in the cause of Allah" 72.9.148.189/library/Mohammed_Reza_Taheri-azar , so I suppose it comes down to how you interpret the verses he lists.
    – DavePhD
    Dec 8, 2016 at 20:19

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

Azar according to your source said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .