Suicide terrorism is a relatively new phenomenon. Although most commonly associated with Muslims, it has been well documented that many non-Muslim terrorist groups have utilized the tactic of the suicide attack. Still, it is hard for most people - including the author - to understand how someone could resolve to strap a bomb on his chest and detonate it among innocent people in order to commit mass murder. For the terrorists of the Muslim flavor, they justify such action by claiming that being a suicide bomber is an act of "holy war," and in traditional Muslim theology, the one who dies in "holy war" will become a martyr that instantly goes to Heaven.

I have thought long and hard over their religious justifications. They make absolutely no sense. First of all, murder is strictly forbidden in Islam:

"And do not take a life that God has made sacred, except for just cause." (17:33)

By no stretch of the imagination is killing innocent people a "just cause." Second, suicide is equally forbidden by the Qur'an:

"And spend for the sake of God, and do not invest in ruin by your own hands. And do good, for God loves those who do good." (2:195)

The Qur'an also says:

"And do not kill yourselves, for God has been merciful to you." (4:29)

The strict prohibition against suicide is also mirrored in the prophetic literature. During one of the battles at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), there was one Muslim who fought very bravely, and the Companions (r) praised him to the Prophet (pbuh). He said, "He is of the companions of the Fire." One of the Companions was astonished to hear the Prophet (pbuh) say this, and so he followed that brave Muslim fighter in the battle. When that fighter became injured, he killed himself.

Thus, the suicide bomber doubly betrays the principles of Islam by killing both himself and others in one fell swoop.

But, more than this, it seems there is another layer to the religious motivation of the suicide bomber: the "instant ticket" to Paradise with the press of a button. This is a distortion of centuries of Islamic tradition. The purpose of life on earth is to do one's best to live a good life, in accordance with the commandments of God. Although Islam actively encourages worldly success, it should never distract the person from fulfilling what God has commanded:

"But seek the abode of the hereafter with what God has bestowed on you, and do not forget your part in this world. And be good, as God has been good to you. And do not seek corruption on earth, for God does not love the corrupt." (28:77)

That process of "seeking the abode of the hereafter" is not without hardship. The path to salvation is - and always has been - a difficult one. This is the essence of jihad - often mistranslated as "holy war" - which literally means "struggle." Jihad is the struggle to rise above human temptation and do good on earth. The Prophet Muhammad even said that the battle against one's own temptations is the "greater jihad."

Being a devout believer is hard: you can't do many of the things other people get to do; you can't eat all the things other people eat; you can't drink all the things other people drink; you can't indulge in some of the pleasures in which other people indulge. It can be lonely at times, and it is a definite struggle. This struggle, this jihad, takes patience and perseverance. You have to be patient on the path of God.

But the reward for this patience is Heaven, as illustrated by this Qur'anic verse:

"...and the angels enter their presence from every gateway [saying]: 'Peace be upon you, for you were patient; and how excellent the reward of paradise!'" (13:23-24)

To think that one can bypass the struggle to live a good life on earth - essentially "cut in line" - and go straight to heaven by becoming a suicide bomber would be laughable if it was not such a tragic line of thought that has led to the pain and suffering of scores of innocent human beings.

Perhaps some suicide bombers in some areas of the world do not subscribe to this line of thinking; there are some, I am sure, who truly have lost all hope for a meaningful life, who are in profound despair from the oppression they have suffered. Dying as a suicide bomber may be their way to free themselves from a terrible life. It is still not right. It does not justify their actions in the least; it does not make killing innocent people right. Killing innocent people - be they Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, or Muslim - is never, ever right.

But, if someone walks into a mosque full of worshippers on Friday and blows himself up: it is not out of despair. It is not out of desperation. It is so that he can - in his twisted mind - speed up his journey to Heaven where his "72 virgins" are waiting for him. What a satanic mindset! His action is not "jihad in the path of God": his action is not "holy war." He is not a martyr, but a vile and vicious murderer. Last I checked, murderers are punished severely by God.

Getting to heaven is tough work, and it requires a lifetime of struggle against human weakness and temptation (along with God's grace), not the press of a button on a suicide belt. That is a cowardly cop-out. If one struggles to do what is right, it gives meaning to the salutation of the angels in Paradise: "Peace be upon you, for you were patient." That is how it has always been, and that is how it will always be.

First, although suicide terrorism is relatively new as Shriaz points out, its definitely not an original concept. The Tamil Tigers, a militant organization in Sri Lanka, in the 1970s conducted many suicide terrorist attacks on the government. The Japanese and their kamikaze philosophy during WWII would arguably be considered suicidal terrorists. Yet, none of them really gained the notoriety compared to suicide attacks by Muslims. Blame it on technology and the new facets of telecommunications. But in reality, it has been greatly sensationalized.

To disagree with Bob, Muslim suicide bombers ARE a rarity. They just so happen to catch the attention of media and the American public a lot more frequently, constanty bombarding websites and televisions with new segments and angles on the attack. If you're going to sit there and assume that the 1 billion Muslims are represented fairly by a proportionate number of suicide attackers, you must be smoking crack.

Second, although we all know (with the exception of Bob) on this posting that suicide attacks are against Muslim principles, you can't help wonder why they are conducted. Foolkiller brought up an excellent point that the plight of many of these Muslims is rather horrid. Imagine living in the worst of conditions based on economic sanctions that another country imposes. In some cases, it may be the country that live you in which threatens your existence. You feel oppressed, tired, angry at the bleak future. Along come various secular, unorthodox organizations, who coax you into giving your life for something better in the Hereafter. All you need to do is attack a military barack, blow up a bus, a hotel, etc. Its reprehensible and just about every single Muslim would not condone it. But it is there--and at times its hard to understand because of the psychological impact that many of these people face.

Soundgarden—Regarding your post, I don’t really have an issue with your statements about the Japanese Kamikazes, but I’d like to comment on the subject. Without going into moral or religious issues about them vs. suicide bombers, I think there were differences in their objectives. Kamikazes were soldiers in a declared war and killed themselves trying to kill other soldiers, not civilians. Though they achieved similar notoriety at the time (in spite of your implication that they were somehow overlooked in the world press), it’s true they were not labeled as terrorists, probably because their intent was to gain a military advantage, e.g., to sink ships, kill soldiers, hold their conquered territories, defend the homeland, etc., not primarily to instill “fear” or make a political statement. They were just viewed by the allies as fanatical soldiers of the “god-emperor” of Japan.

The word terrorism has been used so many ways lately, it’s hard to know what does and doesn’t fall under the term, but an etymology of the word by Daniel D. Novotny (http://www.cla.purdue.edu/academic/engl/conferences/covar/Program/novotny.pdf) suggests the following conditions: (1) actions by private individuals as opposed to actions by a recognized state; (2) directed indiscriminately at civilians or others “who are defenseless or in a position where they should not be attacked”; (3) political, not military goal; and (4) the aim is violence which provokes fear. I think it’s a pretty good definition, and therefore I don’t consider attacks on the US military (e.g., USS Cole) to be terrorism under that definition, just a suicide attack by a enemies not representing a recognized state. Nor do I classify any actions of the US as terrorist. I do concede, however, that “terrorism” is just a word, and nuances of meaning don’t alter the suffering of the injured and killed and their families.

By this type of definition, kamikazes weren’t suicidal terrorists, though they were suicidal soldiers. They were soldiers of a state, attacked military targets, and they at least occasionally advanced their military objectives. In comparison, today, I ask “how are suicide attacks (with bombs or airplanes) of this era advancing their cause?”

You also said “But in reality, it [suicide attacks] has been greatly sensationalized.” Well, yes—such worldwide attention is generally believed to be one of the subsidiary objectives of such attacks, though to what purpose I’ve yet to see. I’d have to say it’s pretty hard to avoid extensive press when 3,000 (primarily civilian) people are killed, the World Trade Center destroyed, and many hundreds of billions dollars of value were erased from the world economy, along with jobs. Continuing suicide bombings are a daily occurrence, and receive a lot of press as well, mainly because even if it happens every day, it’s hard for the average person to become completely desensitized to this type of senseless violence against civilians.

Your statement “To disagree with Bob, Muslim suicide bombers ARE a rarity” seems to say I implied most Muslims have something to do with or support these acts. I didn’t. I spoke only of the ones who are directly involved in proselytizing bombers or carrying out these attacks (which attacks, by the way, are not a rarity). I was simply pointing out the reality that the current slew of suicide killings carried out by Muslims causes many people, rightly or wrongly, to some degree, to think less of Muslims. That’s not necessarily “fair”, but it damages Islam’s reputation to some extent. It doesn’t make everyone hate Muslims, but you know it puts a chink in the wall of respect for Islam for a lot of people. Likewise, the respect for every American is damaged in the eyes of many people who perceive the American government’s actions as wrong. It’s just an obvious fact of human nature.

You then said, “we all know (with the exception of Bob) on this posting that suicide attacks are against Muslim principles.” Pardon, but I do know that both suicide and killing the innocent are against the principles of Islam, Christianity, and most other religions. Even most atheists view killing innocent people as ethically wrong. I don’t see why you drew that conclusion from what I wrote.

I agree with your point about conditions in these countries, and the perceptions they have of the reasons for their plight creates a breeding ground which makes such proselytizing successful. I disagree that there is anything “hard” about seeing their side of things and understanding the psychology underlying it (without necessarily excusing it). I simply pointed out that regardless of the causes, I can’t see what the bombings accomplish for them; on the contrary, it only seems to create more misery for the countries involved.

Regarding the objectives of suicide bombings in my original post:

My point was to suggest that these terrible acts can’t be justified even as a means to and end, prior to even discussing their moral or religious right or wrong aspects. For example, if the object of 9/11 was to drive the US influence out of the Middle East, it obviously had the reverse effect, at least so far. If it was to satisfy a need for revenge, to strike back, that’s an intangible benefit to the perpetrators (perhaps), but only caused greater suffering for their cultural kin. Exactly what the goals are, and how effective these actions are, rarely gets discussed. I presume everyone thinks it’s obvious, but I don’t.

Let’s just consider the Iraq suicide bombings for a moment. As I mentioned in my previous post, one thing which has kept the US in Iraq this long is the continued violence. If the goal was to get the US to leave and create a Taliban-style government in Iraq, or for one Iraqi sect to dominate the government, the better tactic would be to cease actions, let peace reign for a while and prepare until the US withdraws, then commence actions again. The US is publicly and irreversibly committed to withdrawal as soon as stability permits, and it would be hard for the US to justify a return unless the US was directly threatened by the conflict. I have to assume that the goal of the terrorists is not primarily for the US to withdraw.

One response I would expect many to raise is that the terrorists hope that these actions would change the behavior of the US government, probably to take a hands-off approach to the Middle East. So far as I can see, starting with 9/11, suicide terrorists have only angered people and justified (and extended) American and allied military excursions by supporting the (if one is objective) plausible excuses of self defense, especially when considering the near-to-mid-term possibility of nuclear and other devastating weapons in the hands of fanatics. It’s possible, of course, that the US may be “worn down” by the Iraqi conflict in time (especially since most of the objectives of the invasion have been achieved), but it’s also obvious that another major attack on US civilians would, even under a new administration with more isolationist views, result in the repeat of US military action overseas.

If I were forced to pick a goal, I can choose one, but it still doesn’t stand up to all situations. I’d guess that it must be a kind of organic goal, just a desire to create a growing wave of violence and spread instability throughout the Middle East into which the terrorist organizations hope to move and allow their leaders to become the new dictators (nothing new in the history of the world). That could succeed if the West just became isolationists, and watched it transpire, but that’s not going to happen as long as the world economy depends on stability in Middle Eastern oil production and as long as there is a chance that fanatics could obtain weapons that could devastate major cities (and, of course, destroy Israel). Only fanatics could delude themselves enough to think the West (even France) would just sit on its hands and do nothing. One could even see China getting involved to avoid economic catastrophe. If that’s the goal, it’s a hopeless one. It will only create more devastation. Unfortunately, 9/11 was obviously not an action that would further that goal. It just painted a clear picture to Americans of what will happen if more powerful weapons get in the wrong hands, even if the US isn’t in a military action in the Middle East. So, I have to discredit my own pick and admit can’t answer the question I’m posing.

There may be other possible “goals”, and I’d be interested to hear from someone who believes they can describe them succinctly and whether anyone thinks they are likely to be attained. If there’s no probable beneficial result, then there’s real need to continue discussing the moral issues of suicide bombings—these acts can then be condemned simply as being de facto stupid, violent, useless murders.

You can not pick and choose which part of any major religion in existance and ask why???

Religion is like a gun. Depending on who's hands you put it in, will be the results you will get.

Because no messengers book was compiled, put together, and there to see the final product, they are all flawed. Why do ya think we are so many splinters coming from the same tree with regards to any religion??? After the messenger the real conflicting issues and intereptations began. Why do ya suppose that??? Because it was man sinful and flawed that was putting the final touch on all the major religions.

To read the Koran and not understand why these individuals do what they do is not to have read it at all. And I do mean all of it, lol, not part of it.

One countries terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. Just depends on which side of the fense your on???

The God of all the messengers says dont kill, yet more die in his name then for any other reason in history. It will also be the reason for the end of the world as we know it. See you on judgement day!!! Thank God it will be him who is judging me and not a Hunam.

Assalam Alaikum,

This is directed to Hesham Hassaballa and those who support him in opinion. We say to you:

1. If you wish to tackle the issue of the Shari' stance of Martyrdom Operations, then please, first refer to the books of the Scholars who support such operations with evidences, and then give your opinion with stronger evidences to defend that it is haraam.

We say this because it is deception to say, "I have thought long and hard over their religious justifications. They make absolutely no sense" when the article doesn't bring up any of the arguments & evidences that the opposing side uses.

Thus, the opposing side will be able to capitalize on this and will always win the debate since the challengers never really challenged the evidences that were used by the opposing party.

As for those who say Martyrdom Operations are permissible in Shari'ah, there are many. The best book we have come across written by a Scholar, which is in the English language, is the one entitled, "The Islamic Ruling on the Permissibility of Self-Sacrificial Operations: Is it suicide or martyrdom?" by the Shaykh Yusuf bin Saalih al-'Uyayree (rahimahullah).

2. As for the saying, "We have returned from the lesser Jihaad to the great Jihaad," then know that this hadeeth is Da'eef as has been declared by Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) and many other Muhaditheen. For those who are interested in knowing more about this, then ask and we'll give references inshaa'Allaah.

Therefore, there is no such concept in Islaam as "lesser Jihaad" where the fighting with the sword is defined by it. In fact, Shaykh al-Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) uses the following aayaat of Qur'aan to prove this statement of "lesser Jihaad" wrong:

Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,- Ranks specially bestowed by Him, and Forgiveness and Mercy. For Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (4: 95-96)

So Allah prefers the Mujaahideen over the Qaa'ideen (those who sit back). And according to the Tafseer of Ibn Katheer (rahimahullah), this aayah is referring to Jihaad when it's fard kifaayah (communal obligation); so what to say when Jihaad becomes fard 'ayn?

The position of those who reject this statement of "lesser Jihaad" are of the opinion - and this is the most balanced opinion we have come across - that Jihaad against the nafs (self) should never, ever be seperated from Jihaad of the sword since it takes a great amount of Jihaad against the nafs to reach Jihaad with the sword. And vice versa. Therefore, to say that the lesser Jihaad is of the sword and the greater is of staying away from fighting for the sake of Allah, this is a great misconception as it brings confusion (especially in light of the aayaat we quoted above from an-Nisaa'). For instance, the Mujaahid who is trying to reach a battlefield in some part of the earth to fight for Allah's sake, does he not go through a great deal of trials and tribulations just to reach that place? And when he's there, does he not go through the harshness and roughness of life where comforts and luxuries are no longer a part of his dictionary? Does he not face death - literally speaking - at every corner of his fighting life with the bullets, and bombs flying over him [to target him]? And all at the same time, he struggles to increase his Imaan and stay firm on the path of righteousness and to never waiver in front of his enemies. Is not all of this Jihaad against the nafs (self)? It would be most appropriate to say that this is the peak of Jihaad an-Nafs.

Anyone who wants this further clarified can ask us inshaa'Allaah.

3. Now who has - from amongst the Sunni Mujaahid Muslims - walked into a Masjid and blew himself up? I have a feeling that this is coming from the propaganda of CNN, BBC and all the Kuffaar and Faasiq media. So we simply ask: bring your evidence that a Sunni Mujaahid walked into a Masjid and blew himself up. What's his name? What movement did he belong to? What was his reason and motivation? If you can't answer one of those, then please retract these greatly evil ideas that Muslims do such things.

And since "Dowlatul 'Iraaq al-Islaamiyyah" is the main resistance group in 'Iraaq, please cite an incident where one of their members did this act.

Jazakullah Khair