the-islamic-ruling-on-the-permissibility-of-self-sacrificial-operations-suicide-or-martyrdom

The Issue of Using Prisoners as a Human Shield
Just as going forth to <strong>the</strong> enemy and plunging into <strong>the</strong>ir ranks without wearing any armor, is
a praiseworthy act which indirectly leads to <strong>the</strong> killing of one’s own self – so is <strong>the</strong> topic of
martyrdom operations, it is just ano<strong>the</strong>r praiseworthy type, if <strong>the</strong> intention is sincere. And
this is because indirectly killing is exactly <strong>the</strong> same as directly killing, according to <strong>the</strong>
opinion of <strong>the</strong> majority of <strong>the</strong> scholars, as we will explain, InShā’Allāh.
The issue of killing Muslim prisoners whom <strong>the</strong> enemy has used as a human shield
resembles <strong>the</strong> issue at hand, although <strong>the</strong>re is also a difference between <strong>the</strong>m.
The similarity is that both involve ending a Muslim life for <strong>the</strong> sake of <strong>the</strong> benefit of <strong>the</strong> Dīn.
The difference between <strong>the</strong> issues is that killing those used as a shield was permitted by
scholars out of necessity, for <strong>the</strong>re does not exist any text permitting <strong>the</strong> killing of someone
else, ra<strong>the</strong>r it derives from <strong>the</strong> public interest overshadowing <strong>the</strong> individual interest. Hence,
killing prisoners used as human shields is based on <strong>the</strong> rule of Fiqh <strong>the</strong> “dire necessities
permit <strong>the</strong> unlawful”, and also of “choosing <strong>the</strong> lesser of two evils when one is inevitable”.
As for martyrdom operations, no such rules need be applied, for we have clear texts
encouraging plunging into <strong>the</strong> enemy ranks in spite of <strong>the</strong> certainty of being killed, and it is
not a case of necessity.
Killing ano<strong>the</strong>r person is an even greater sin than killing oneself; Al-Qurtubī mentions in his
Tafsīr 75 <strong>the</strong> Ijmā’ of scholars that anyone who is coerced to kill someone else may not
comply. Hence whoever allows killing ano<strong>the</strong>r Muslim, where no textual evidence exists, but
for an overwhelming Islāmic benefit, should similarly allow killing oneself for an
overwhelming benefit, for <strong>the</strong> taking of one’s own life is less harmful than taking someone
else’s life. This would be even if we did not have any texts to support martyrdom operations,
although we actually do have specific evidences, as mentioned earlier.
And whosoever permits <strong>the</strong> killing of a Muslim, for <strong>the</strong> sake of <strong>the</strong> benefit of <strong>the</strong> Muslims in
general, <strong>the</strong>n he cannot refrain from permitting <strong>the</strong> killing of one’s own self for <strong>the</strong> sake of
<strong>the</strong> benefit of <strong>the</strong> Muslims in general. And <strong>the</strong> only reason <strong>the</strong> Fuqahā’ of <strong>the</strong> past did not
address this issue, is because <strong>the</strong> methods of warfare and <strong>the</strong> tactics of battles have change
drastically.
The Muslim army is ordinarily prohibited from killing not only Muslims, but also Thimmīs
(kuffār living as protected subjects of <strong>the</strong> Muslim state), as well as old men, women and
children from among <strong>the</strong> kuffār. If Muslim prisoners of war are used by <strong>the</strong> kuffār <strong>the</strong>n it is
not permissible to fire on <strong>the</strong>m except in cases of dire necessity. In <strong>the</strong> case of women and
children of <strong>the</strong> unbelievers, however, <strong>the</strong>y could be fired upon for <strong>the</strong> convenience of war
even if it is not dire necessity, for war may need such action, but <strong>the</strong> intention should not be
75
Refer to his Tafsīr (10/183).
40