No doubt we’ve all seen media images of the bodies of the Bali bombers being greeted as martyrs, whether they are accurate depictions or media exaggerations is a different matter. The real question for me is, should they have been executed for the bombings?
On balance, I think it was right they paid for their crimes in this way. Firstly, Indonesia has a functioning government. As such, any actions by non-state actors is at best vigilantism or simply criminal actions. The extent of the morally depraved, hedonism of the foreign party-goers in question does not justify bombing them and killing them.
As far as the foreigners are concerned, they are not doing anything wrong. The problem lies with the government which licenses the clubs and bars in Bali. Indonesia is a functioning democracy, if people don’t like the government’s policies they can always vote them out. And if there isn’t enough support to change the government in Muslim Indonesia, perhaps that’s a case for educating the people on Islam first. There aren’t any short cuts.
Sanctioning the taking of the law into one’s own hands is a recipe for anarchy. Imam Malik was said to have stated that ‘60 years of oppression under an unjust ruler is better than an hour of anarchy’. The Iraq war proves how true that is. The tyranny of Saddam Hussain was surely better than the anarchy which led to the loss of more than a million innocent Iraqi lives. If we recall, the Iraq war was a case of vigilantism – it was never sanctioned by the UN Security Council, and thus illegal.
There is a lesson in this for us in the West. A ‘Fatwa’, is merely the opinion of a Mufti and is not the same as the ‘Qada’ (judgment) of a Qadi (judge). The police won’t go around arresting people based on the opinion of a barrister - no matter how eminent, but they will if a judge calls for it. In the same way, Muslims cannot act upon ‘fatawa’ to commit acts of violence.
This is a basic Islamic principle, which incidentally explains why the Khomeini ‘fatwa’ to kill Salman Rushdie was wrong. Imam Khomeini was not passing a judgment in a court of law, plus there is the added problem of Iranian courts not having jurisdiction over crimes committed in the UK. In any case, I doubt whether Sir Salman is really a ‘Murtad’ (apostate) – was he ever a Muslim in the first place? Being born to a nominally Muslim father does not automatically mean one is a Muslim, the case of Barack Hussain Obama proves that one.
I disagree. When Islam talks about tyrant rulers, it refers to rulers who implement shariah but they are oppressive towards the people. Threfore you can NOT disobey such a ruler.
But here, the indonesian government is ruling over a muslim land (this is different to UK) and does not implement shariah. So.. No! the government of Indonesia is not right to execute the muslims regardless of the muslims being wrong. There is no legitimacy in the ruling so what right do they have to take away anyone’s life?
A defintion of Muslim land: muslim land refers to land where shariah of Islam was implemented at any point in time.
As a muslim, I tell you that no one has a right to take away any life, except where Allah (SWT) permits or commands. We can not think that any life taken by laws that are unislamic to ever be right.
I think brother Amin, you must stick to refering to Islam! ;-)