By First Things
Recently, a
group of more than 120 Islamic law scholars, many of them from very
prominent institutions in the Sunni world like Cairo’s Al Azhar
University, signed an Open Letter
to the leader of the Islamic State (aka IS, or ISIL, or ISIS), Dr.
Ibrahim Awwad Al-Badri (aka Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi). The letter sharply
criticizes IS, arguing that most of its actions violate Islamic law.
Among other things, the letter rejects IS’s declaration of a caliphate;
its conception of jihad; its persecution of non-Muslims, including
Christians and Yazidis; its atrocities against women and children; its
killing of journalists and aid workers; and its destruction of the
shrines of the prophets.
The Open Letter is a welcome development
and its authors and signatories deserve credit. Western observers often
criticize Muslim leaders for their failure to speak out against Islamist
groups like IS, since the silence of Muslim leaders can be taken as
assent. The Open Letter makes clear that IS does not represent the
totality of Islam and that its Salafist interpretations are not the last
word in fiqh. It’s valuable to have a critique of IS from within the Islamic law tradition itself.
And yet, if one reads the Open Letter closely, one sees that it is not all that Western observers might hope. Elsewhere on the First Things site, Ayman Ibrahim explores some of the letter’s ambiguities.
For example, the scholars criticize IS’s attempt to reestablish the
caliphate, not because the idea itself is outmoded, but because IS is
too small to assert worldwide Muslim rule. “There is agreement (ittifaq) among scholars that a caliphate is an obligation upon the Ummah,”
the letter concedes. But a small group like IS cannot declare a
caliphate all on its own. “In truth, the caliphate must emerge from a
consensus of Muslim countries, organizations of Islamic scholars and
Muslims across the globe.”
Well,
what if IS ultimately does ultimately obtain support for its caliphate?
Given the group’s meteoric success so far, perhaps IS feels optimistic
and would like to give it a try. Would consensus make IS’s caliphate
legitimate? And does the letter really mean to suggest that Muslims
across the globe have a religious obligation to seek the restoration of
some sort of caliphate? That’s certainly how it sounds. How about
Muslims in the West?
Or take the treatment of Christians, a matter
Ibrahim does not address. As most people know by now, IS has murdered
or expelled Iraqi and Syrian Christians who refuse to agree to the terms
of the dhimma, the classical Islamic law “agreement” in which Christians accept subordinate status and pay a poll tax called the jizya. The
Open Letter sharply criticizes IS for these actions. “These Christians
are not combatants against Islam or transgressors against it,” the
letter protests, but “friends, neighbors and co-citizens. “
This
defense of Christians from leading Muslim scholars is very helpful. But
then the letter makes clear the Islamic law basis for the scholars’
critique: “From the legal perspective of Shari’ah,” it says, the
Christians of Iraq and Syria “all fall under ancient agreements that are
around 1400 years old, and the rulings of jihad do not apply to them.”
As non-combatants, these Christians are subject to a smaller jizya than
IS has assessed. This smaller jizya is a substitute for the zakat Muslims pay and is to be distributed among the whole population, including Christians on occasion, as a form of charity.
In
other words, the scholars’ objection is not that IS has subjected Iraqi
and Syrian Christians to the dhimma and imposed on them the jizya. The
objection is that these Christians are already subject to the dhimma and
that IS has no authority to impose new terms, and that IS is collecting
the wrong form of jizya. To put it mildly, this reasoning is not likely
to reassure Christians and encourage them to return to their
homes—assuming those homes still exist.
Some readers will think I
am caviling. But I really don’t think so. In law, reasons matter. As I
say, the Open Letter is a welcome contribution to the debate over IS and
the signers, some of whom have no doubt taken personal risk, deserve
credit. But the reasoning of the letter—well, let’s just say it raises
some serious questions.
Muslim Scholars vs. ISIS
Is the Open Letter to the Islamic State Really Enough?
by Ayman S. Ibrahim
Open Letter to the leader of the Islamic Stateرسالة مفتوحة
