The great increase in suicide attacks in the course of this past year sparked a debate in the Arab and Moslem world on the position of Islamic religious law toward the issue of self-sacrifice in a holy war.

Some religious rulers in the Moslem world, particularly the official ones in moderate Arab regimes (Saudi Arabia for example), expressed adamant opposition to suicide attacks in the past.

Experts who follow this debate are of the impression that the voice of the moderates has become weak of late and almost marginal among the flood of those who espouse it.

In the Palestinian arena, in contrast, there is no debate at all, because the most prominent of the religious sages have expressed support for it, says Dr. Motti Keidar of Bar Ilan University, a specialist in radical Islamic rhetoric. While in Palestinian society there is a lively debate on suicide attacks on the moral level and on the image and political usefulness level, there is no theological debate on the legitimacy of suicide attacks. Even the official religious rulers in the Palestinian Authority, headed by the Jerusalem mufti, Akram Sabri, say that suicide attacks are permitted according to Islamic law.

Most of the religious activity on this issue in recent months focuses on the effort to refute the religious opinions of those opposed to such attacks, to develop and make the array of justifications more sophisticated, and to provide them with a theological umbrella that is as wide and as solid as possible.

The Hamas Internet site, a site rich in information devoted largely to praise and glorification of suicide attacks and their perpetrators, provides us with more than just a glimpse into the justifications and arguments in favor. These sites center mainly on two issues: first, why this is not suicide, which is completely forbidden in Islamic religious law, but rather sacrificing the soul in a holy war, a deed of which there is none loftier. Secondly, why it is justified using such violence against civilians, including women and children.

This issue became acute a year ago, when the mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abed el-Aziz Bin Abdullah el-Sheikh said that he is not aware of any religious law that calls for “self killing in the heart of the enemy,” and warned that this “does not constitute part of jihad,” and expressed concern that this was “self killing and nothing more.”

This statement by the official Saudi religious ruler troubled Arab and Palestinian religious rulers. The main contention they raised was that there is a profound difference between suicide and giving one’s soul (istishaad), and that the test is one of intention. “If the person giving up his soul intends to kill himself because he is sick of life, then this is suicide. But if he wants to give up his soul to deal a blow to the enemy and to earn a reward from Allah, then he is considered to be giving his soul,” explained at the time Dr. Abed el-Aziz Rantisi, a Hamas leader. Suicide is described as a defeatist, egoistic act, while giving one’s soul is considered the exact opposite, an act of altruistic heroism that expresses faith in Allah’s mercy, and not a lack of faith in Him and His grace. Therefore it is not only an act of the highest social-community devotion, but also supreme religious faith. Justifications to Strike Civilians

Rantisi and others at the time relied on a reasoned religious ruling (fatwa) of the Egyptian sheikh, Yousef el-Kardawi, considered the chief mufti of the radical Islamic movement, the “Moslem Brothers,” with branches all over the world (Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Moslem Brothers). Kardawi’s fatwa described a person who kills himself as someone who has despaired of life, whereas someone who gives his soul does so in the great hope that Allah will allow him into Paradise.

This being so, the Islamic camp does not share the approach that says that young people who kill their souls along with Jews in the streets of Israeli cities are the victims of despair and depression caused by the Israeli occupation. Rather the reverse, they are people imbued with religious, social and political awareness, who march to their deaths with their heads held high.

Sheikh Kardawi also explained in the exegesis to his ruling, why it is permissible to kill civilians in such attacks. He explained, “Israeli society is a military society. Both men and women serve in the army and can be called to reserves at any time.” If an elderly person or a child is killed in such an attack, Kardawi said, this is involuntary killing, which conforms to “a need that obviates the forbidden,” a basic religious rule.

In contrast to Kardawi’s militant opinion, the more moderate opinion of Sheikh Mohammed Sayad Tantawi, the sheikh of a-Zahar university in Cairo, and considered a leading religious ruler in the international Moslem world, stands out. Tantawi said that such acts are indeed self defense and the giving of one’s soul, however, this is only as long as they are aimed against fighters and not against women and children.

Tantawi’s remarks led to a tremendous wave of counter reactions, led by Sheikh Kardawi, which reached their peak last December, when Tantawi commented on the suicide attacks in Jerusalem and Haifa and again condemned them. This was in effect a second wave of statements and rulings on this issue, after the first wave which was sparked by the remarks of the Saudi sheikh last April.

The rulings and the counter opinions of the Islamic clerics and commentators raised various justifications for killing civilians, old people and children. The main one was the principle of measure for measure: the Israeli occupation indiscriminately hurts children, women and old people, and should therefore be responded to in kind. Another argument is that all of Israeli society is not only a military society, but it is also an occupying and exploitative society. All Israeli citizens rob, not just Moslem land, but the very air they breathe, say the Islamic commentators. And therefore, the term “innocent civilians” does not apply to Israeli society.

Another justification is that any constriction to unreserved support that must be given to such attacks “is liable to cause confusion, doubt and hesitation among the young heroes who sacrifice themselves for the homeland,” as Fahmi Haweidi, a columnist considered close to the Moslem Brothers, and who writes for the official Egyptian Al Ahram newspaper, explained.

These religious justifications, like all rulings and Islamic opinions, rely mainly on exegesis to the Koran and on oral tradition (the hadith) attributed to Prophet Mohammed, that deal in precedents for sacrificing the soul. Since in the period of the great wars of Islam, in the time of the Prophet Mohammed and others, the technological and military means now used by the suicide terrorists did not exist (such as explosives and automatic weapons), it is hard to find such precedents. Therefore, most of the traditions that the sages use, touch on the issue of the difference between suicide and giving one’s soul in battle. An Existing Jihad Fact

One such story in Islamic tradition, presented by Sheikh Sabri, the Jerusalem mufti appointed by the PA, is the story of the fighter known in Islamic tradition as “the flying Jaafar.” This was Jaafar Bin Abi-Talab, the cousin of the Prophet, who was one of the commanders of the force Mohammed sent from Mecca to the Fertile Crescent in the year 629. His troops encountered the Byzantine army in the area of the muata (today southern Jordan) and a battle ensued. In the course of the battle, Commander Jaafar broke through the Byzantine lines holding the Moslems’ flag in his right hand. The Byzantine cut off his right arm. He picked up the flag in his left hand. The Byzantine then cut off this arm too. Jaafar held the flag in his stumps, and marched forward with it until he died. When the Moslems found his body, it had been stabbed fifty times with a sword, all in the upper part of his body, and none in his back. In other words: Jaafar did not try to flee. At his funeral, Mohammed said that Allah had given Jaafar wings in Paradise instead of the hands that were cut off, and that is why his name is now “the flying Jaafar.” What Jaafar did, Sheikh Sabri explained in a sermon in the el-Aksa mosque last May, is not considered suicide, but rather “a martyr’s death for the sake of Allah.”

Another story is that of Abdullah Bin Jahash, who on the eve of the Uhoud battle (in 625, in the Arabian peninsula against the Kureish tribe), told Allah that during the battle, he intends to fight with such devotion, that if any of the enemy gains over him, that Abdullah will let him cut off his nose and ear. When Allah asks him the next day why his nose and ear have been cut off, Abdullah said, he will answer his Creator: for Allah and His prophet. The next day, one of the Moslem commanders related that he found Abdullah dead, with his nose and ear cut off and hanging by a thread. The commentator Ismail el-Radwan of the Sheikh Ajalin mosque in Gaza, who related this story in a sermon broadcast on PA television last August, used the example of Abdullah, among other reasons, to explain that even when the body parts of a shahid are scattered, he rises to Paradise and meets there with Allah and with the Prophet Mohammed.

In the rhetoric of the Islamic sermonizers, religious interpretation is mixed up with popular traditions and political analyses. In Ismail el-Radwan’s sermon, for example, immediately after he told the story of the nose and ear of Abdullah, he detailed for his audience all the other benefits a shahid earns when he sacrifices himself — total absolution for all his sins from Allah; relief from all the torments of the grave; entry into Paradise; exemption from the fear of Judgement Day; 72 virgins; the right to sponsor another 70 members of his family; an honorary crown for his head, with the jewel in the front more precious than any other gem in the world.

Sheikh el-Radwan’s sermon, along with an enormous amount of translated material on the matter of suicide attacks, can be found in the Internet site of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which monitors the Arab world media.

A month ago, the sages of all the Islamic movements in the Arab and Moslem world convened, Sunnis and Shiites, to discuss the ramifications of the confrontation between the United States and the radical Islamic movements, as well as the escalating fighting between Israel and the Palestinians. Their concluding announcement, which is prominently displayed on the Hamas Internet site, includes a message to the US and to Israel, a message to the Palestinian Authority and a message to the Arab regimes. At the end, there is also a message to the Moslem sages. As for the matter of “the act of giving one’s soul,” i.e. suicide attacks, the letter to the sages reads: “The community of sages has already ruled in this matter, and they (the attacks) have become an existing and useful fact of Jihad. What is needed from you today is not to allow a confused minority or a skeptic to raise any questions and doubts over these acts.” This article appeared in Ha’aretz on February 21st, 2002