WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.899 Welcome back to the Deep Dive. We're going to 00:00:01.899 --> 00:00:04.139 get straight into it today, into, I think, one 00:00:04.139 --> 00:00:07.000 of the most intense and difficult global conversations 00:00:07.000 --> 00:00:09.640 happening right now. It really is. The conflict 00:00:09.640 --> 00:00:12.740 that followed the October 7th, 2023 Hamas assault 00:00:12.740 --> 00:00:17.359 on Israel is just agonizingly complex. But for 00:00:17.359 --> 00:00:20.179 so many, the debate really centers on the religious 00:00:20.179 --> 00:00:22.480 justification. Right, because Hamas explicitly 00:00:22.480 --> 00:00:25.519 invoked classical Islamic doctrines. They used 00:00:25.519 --> 00:00:27.899 the term jihad to justify their actions. And 00:00:27.899 --> 00:00:29.949 those actions included the mass Massacre of civilians, 00:00:30.250 --> 00:00:32.869 documented sexual violence, mutilation, and of 00:00:32.869 --> 00:00:34.890 course, mass hostage taking. And when a group 00:00:34.890 --> 00:00:37.289 makes such a profound claim to religious legitimacy 00:00:37.289 --> 00:00:40.189 for acts like that, I mean, it demands a really 00:00:40.189 --> 00:00:43.490 rigorous, impartial, scholarly review. So that's 00:00:43.490 --> 00:00:45.710 our mission for you today. We are not here to 00:00:45.710 --> 00:00:47.890 debate politics or weigh conflicting national 00:00:47.890 --> 00:00:51.070 narratives. No. We're using a very specific framework. 00:00:51.189 --> 00:00:53.829 We're looking at classical Islamic jurisprudence, 00:00:53.829 --> 00:00:56.689 or fiqh, to assess the conduct of the attackers 00:00:56.689 --> 00:00:59.549 against the faith's own established law of war. 00:00:59.710 --> 00:01:02.530 For this deep dive, we've really built our analysis 00:01:02.530 --> 00:01:04.790 on the work of leading academic authorities. 00:01:05.469 --> 00:01:08.790 People like Ahmed Al -Dawoodi, Karima Ben -Nun. 00:01:09.319 --> 00:01:11.560 Nazrin Badawi. And these are scholars who've 00:01:11.560 --> 00:01:14.579 gone directly into the pre -modern legal texts, 00:01:14.680 --> 00:01:17.819 into what's known as Siyar, the Islamist law 00:01:17.819 --> 00:01:20.480 of war, to see if these actions actually meet 00:01:20.480 --> 00:01:23.180 the standards Hamas claims to uphold. We're going 00:01:23.180 --> 00:01:24.819 to look at this from two angles, right? Exactly. 00:01:24.819 --> 00:01:27.340 Two critical legal dimensions. First, you have 00:01:27.340 --> 00:01:29.420 Jassad Bellum. Which is the right to wage war 00:01:29.420 --> 00:01:31.900 in the first place. Right. And second, Justin 00:01:31.900 --> 00:01:34.379 Bellow, which is all about the proper conduct 00:01:34.379 --> 00:01:37.060 within that war. And for any military action 00:01:37.060 --> 00:01:39.780 to be considered permissible under Islamic law, 00:01:39.959 --> 00:01:42.459 both of these have to be satisfied. Both have 00:01:42.459 --> 00:01:44.719 to be met. It's not one or the other. Okay, let's 00:01:44.719 --> 00:01:46.120 unpack this. And I think we should start with 00:01:46.120 --> 00:01:48.200 the foundations. Because what really surprised 00:01:48.200 --> 00:01:50.659 me in the research was how much Islamic law already 00:01:50.659 --> 00:01:54.079 contains principles we think of as, well, modern. 00:01:54.299 --> 00:01:57.060 It's this fascinating idea of convergence. Alda 00:01:57.060 --> 00:01:59.540 Woody's work really shows you that modern international 00:01:59.540 --> 00:02:03.790 humanitarian law, IHL, It's not some external 00:02:03.790 --> 00:02:06.450 concept being forced onto these traditions. So 00:02:06.450 --> 00:02:08.330 what's an example of that? How do they converge? 00:02:09.030 --> 00:02:11.330 Well, take the core principles we rely on today 00:02:11.330 --> 00:02:14.210 in IHL. Things like distinction, proportionality, 00:02:14.330 --> 00:02:17.349 taking precautions. Right. These ideas are echoed, 00:02:17.349 --> 00:02:19.930 I mean, deeply in the debates of pre -modern 00:02:19.930 --> 00:02:24.250 Muslim jurists. Distinction, the absolute need 00:02:24.250 --> 00:02:26.689 to distinguish between combatants and non -combatants. 00:02:26.770 --> 00:02:30.159 That was a central concern. The timeline here 00:02:30.159 --> 00:02:33.300 is just it's staggering. Banoon scholarship shows 00:02:33.300 --> 00:02:36.039 that Islamic law established these robust civilian 00:02:36.039 --> 00:02:39.060 protections more than a millennium before the 00:02:39.060 --> 00:02:41.439 Geneva Conventions were even thought of. A thousand 00:02:41.439 --> 00:02:43.879 years. Think about that. A thousand years of 00:02:43.879 --> 00:02:46.960 legal tradition already carving out noncombatants. 00:02:46.960 --> 00:02:51.069 Women. children the elderly clergy as a separate 00:02:51.069 --> 00:02:53.389 category that is entitled to immunity from attack 00:02:53.389 --> 00:02:55.810 so that's basically the foundation for our modern 00:02:55.810 --> 00:02:57.930 concept of the civilians right there in the tradition 00:02:57.930 --> 00:03:00.150 okay so that historical grounding is crucial 00:03:00.150 --> 00:03:02.830 but it brings up a huge question about interpretation 00:03:02.830 --> 00:03:06.150 if the tradition is so clear on protecting civilians 00:03:06.150 --> 00:03:09.370 how on earth do groups like hamas use the exact 00:03:09.370 --> 00:03:11.669 same sources to justify mass violence against 00:03:11.669 --> 00:03:14.740 them And this is where we, and you, the listener, 00:03:14.879 --> 00:03:19.199 have to apply what Badawi calls critical comparativism. 00:03:19.259 --> 00:03:22.139 Meaning? Meaning you have to remember that both 00:03:22.139 --> 00:03:24.740 the militant groups and the mainstream Muslim 00:03:24.740 --> 00:03:27.659 scholars who denounce them are all claiming to 00:03:27.659 --> 00:03:30.099 base their arguments on the original Islamic 00:03:30.099 --> 00:03:32.439 sources. So you can't just take their claim of 00:03:32.439 --> 00:03:34.659 being... authentic at face value. You have to 00:03:34.659 --> 00:03:37.340 look at what they're actually arguing. Precisely. 00:03:37.340 --> 00:03:39.439 You have to look at the substance. And Bennu 00:03:39.439 --> 00:03:42.719 helps frame this. She defines this kind of fundamentalism, 00:03:42.759 --> 00:03:45.860 not just as a religious movement, but as an extreme 00:03:45.860 --> 00:03:48.840 right movement that achieves political aims by 00:03:48.840 --> 00:03:51.139 manipulating religion. A political manipulation. 00:03:51.259 --> 00:03:53.840 Yes. And it often requires what she calls double 00:03:53.840 --> 00:03:56.319 discourse. You invoke the authority of religion. 00:03:56.439 --> 00:03:59.280 You cherry pick a verse here or there while you're 00:03:59.280 --> 00:04:01.419 actually pursuing intensely political secular 00:04:01.419 --> 00:04:04.180 goals. That sets the stage perfectly. So let's 00:04:04.180 --> 00:04:06.620 apply that critical framework to the first major 00:04:06.620 --> 00:04:09.419 test. Just ad bellum. The right to wage war, 00:04:09.580 --> 00:04:12.560 to put it plainly. Was jihad even permissible 00:04:12.560 --> 00:04:14.379 in the first place for this attack, according 00:04:14.379 --> 00:04:16.839 to the classical sources? Alda Woody's thesis 00:04:16.839 --> 00:04:20.709 here is unambiguous. Jihad in the sense of an 00:04:20.709 --> 00:04:23.370 international armed conflict is overwhelmingly 00:04:23.370 --> 00:04:26.829 defined as a defensive war. Defensive only? Yes. 00:04:27.649 --> 00:04:30.649 Justified only when Muslims face aggression or 00:04:30.649 --> 00:04:33.310 what the sources call fitna, severe persecution. 00:04:33.970 --> 00:04:37.410 It is not, historically or legally, a blank check. 00:04:37.790 --> 00:04:39.810 for aggressive warfare. And this isn't just an 00:04:39.810 --> 00:04:41.990 interpretation. It's rooted right in the Quran 00:04:41.990 --> 00:04:46.350 itself. It is. Verse 2 .190 is key. It conditions 00:04:46.350 --> 00:04:49.149 the permission to fight on engaging those who 00:04:49.149 --> 00:04:51.209 fight with you and do not exceed the limits. 00:04:51.269 --> 00:04:53.230 Those who fight with you. That's very specific. 00:04:53.389 --> 00:04:56.149 It's conditional. It establishes warfare as reactive. 00:04:56.350 --> 00:04:58.430 It puts the burden of proof on the attacker to 00:04:58.430 --> 00:05:00.110 show they were the victim of aggression first. 00:05:00.329 --> 00:05:03.670 Okay, but that leads to, well, a huge authority 00:05:03.670 --> 00:05:05.949 problem. Even if you could argue a state of aggression 00:05:05.949 --> 00:05:08.610 existed, who actually has the right to declare 00:05:08.610 --> 00:05:11.370 jihad? And that is the crucial point. Classical 00:05:11.370 --> 00:05:13.829 jurists universally treated jihad as an obligation 00:05:13.829 --> 00:05:16.610 of the Muslim ruler, the imam. It was a state 00:05:16.610 --> 00:05:18.990 function. It required governmental sanctions. 00:05:19.230 --> 00:05:21.009 So it's not something an individual or a group 00:05:21.009 --> 00:05:23.250 can just decide to do on their own? Absolutely 00:05:23.250 --> 00:05:26.189 not. It had to be a centralized authority, a 00:05:26.189 --> 00:05:28.990 ruler who could assess the situation, manage 00:05:28.990 --> 00:05:32.050 the resources, and critically ensure compliance 00:05:32.050 --> 00:05:35.769 with the rules of war. And Hamas, as a non -state 00:05:35.769 --> 00:05:38.610 armed group, operating outside the sanction of 00:05:38.610 --> 00:05:41.850 any recognized Muslim state authority. They fundamentally 00:05:41.850 --> 00:05:45.550 lack the classical authority to declare or prosecute 00:05:45.550 --> 00:05:49.220 a legitimate jihad. It's a non -starter. So if 00:05:49.220 --> 00:05:51.800 that authority is missing, what would classical 00:05:51.800 --> 00:05:54.399 jurists even call this kind of action? Well, 00:05:54.439 --> 00:05:56.199 they wouldn't call it jihad. They'd classify 00:05:56.199 --> 00:05:58.439 it as something far more serious, far more criminal. 00:05:58.600 --> 00:06:01.680 Which is? Armed action without the ruler's permission, 00:06:01.959 --> 00:06:04.060 especially involving this level of violence, 00:06:04.220 --> 00:06:07.720 would be categorized as ayurva, which is brigandage, 00:06:07.720 --> 00:06:11.689 or highway robbery. Corruption in the land. Yes, 00:06:11.829 --> 00:06:14.269 mischief and corruption in the land. These are 00:06:14.269 --> 00:06:17.290 serious crimes in Islamic law, not divinely sanctioned 00:06:17.290 --> 00:06:19.230 warfare. So from the perspective of the legal 00:06:19.230 --> 00:06:21.269 framework they claim to follow, their action 00:06:21.269 --> 00:06:23.290 is illegitimate before the first shot is even 00:06:23.290 --> 00:06:25.529 fired. That's the key takeaway from the Jost 00:06:25.529 --> 00:06:28.250 ad Bellum test. The authority is absent. But 00:06:28.250 --> 00:06:30.720 let's push this further. Let's say... For the 00:06:30.720 --> 00:06:33.000 sake of argument, they somehow cleared that hurdle 00:06:33.000 --> 00:06:35.899 of authority. The bigger issue for most people 00:06:35.899 --> 00:06:38.439 is the actions themselves. Of course. The sheer 00:06:38.439 --> 00:06:40.959 horror of what happened on October 7th targeting 00:06:40.959 --> 00:06:44.439 civilians, the mutilation, the sexual violence, 00:06:44.639 --> 00:06:47.360 this moves beyond legal authority into just, 00:06:47.480 --> 00:06:50.620 well, fundamental religious adherence. And this 00:06:50.620 --> 00:06:53.490 brings us to Jess and Bello. The conduct in war. 00:06:53.670 --> 00:06:56.449 Right. And on this, the classical sources aren't 00:06:56.449 --> 00:07:00.009 just restrictive. They are absolutely unequivocally 00:07:00.009 --> 00:07:03.509 categorical. How so? The law makes it, to use 00:07:03.509 --> 00:07:07.129 Alda Woody's phrase, abundantly clear that fighting 00:07:07.129 --> 00:07:09.850 must be directed solely against enemy combatants. 00:07:09.990 --> 00:07:12.810 That principle of distinction is non -negotiable. 00:07:12.949 --> 00:07:15.329 What are some of the specific prohibitions that 00:07:15.329 --> 00:07:17.810 the earliest sources lay down? They're incredibly 00:07:17.810 --> 00:07:20.680 specific. The Prophet Muhammad himself explicitly 00:07:20.680 --> 00:07:24.120 prohibited targeting women, children, the elderly, 00:07:24.220 --> 00:07:27.259 clergy, and anyone not actively participating 00:07:27.259 --> 00:07:29.160 in the fighting. These are the foundational protected 00:07:29.160 --> 00:07:31.399 categories. And it wasn't just a one -off instruction. 00:07:31.579 --> 00:07:33.339 We see it being institutionalized immediately 00:07:33.339 --> 00:07:35.939 after. Exactly. Look at the commands from the 00:07:35.939 --> 00:07:38.399 first caliph, Abu Bakr, to his army. He ordered 00:07:38.399 --> 00:07:41.160 them, do not commit treachery, do not mutilate, 00:07:41.339 --> 00:07:44.040 neither kill a child or aged a man or woman, 00:07:44.139 --> 00:07:47.860 do not cut down fruit -bearing trees. And when 00:07:47.860 --> 00:07:50.139 you look at the documented abuses of October 00:07:50.139 --> 00:07:53.060 7th. The deliberate targeting of noncombatants, 00:07:53.060 --> 00:07:55.660 the reports of mutilation, the sheer destruction 00:07:55.660 --> 00:07:59.279 of life. These are direct violations of those 00:07:59.279 --> 00:08:01.920 ancient foundational commands. They are textbook 00:08:01.920 --> 00:08:04.949 examples of un -Islamic conduct. The victims, 00:08:05.170 --> 00:08:08.170 the women, the children, the elderly, the foreign 00:08:08.170 --> 00:08:10.829 workers, people at a music festival, they all 00:08:10.829 --> 00:08:12.769 fall squarely within those protected categories. 00:08:13.149 --> 00:08:15.569 Absolutely. And later jurists extended those 00:08:15.569 --> 00:08:17.509 protections even further to farmers, traders, 00:08:17.709 --> 00:08:20.250 craftsmen. Basically, anyone not holding a weapon 00:08:20.250 --> 00:08:22.529 is protected. There's just no ambiguity on this 00:08:22.529 --> 00:08:24.800 point. So this brings us to an argument you always 00:08:24.800 --> 00:08:27.560 hear in these situations, retaliation. The idea 00:08:27.560 --> 00:08:29.639 that, well, the enemy does it to us so we can 00:08:29.639 --> 00:08:33.019 do it to them. Does Islamic law permit retaliation 00:08:33.019 --> 00:08:34.879 against civilians? And that's a critical point 00:08:34.879 --> 00:08:37.360 of theology. The answer is a resounding absolute 00:08:37.360 --> 00:08:40.899 no. No exceptions. None. The Islamic rules of 00:08:40.899 --> 00:08:42.860 war are binding on the Muslim soldier regardless 00:08:42.860 --> 00:08:46.179 of the enemy's conduct. Compliance is a theological 00:08:46.179 --> 00:08:49.230 act. It's considered an act of worship. An act 00:08:49.230 --> 00:08:51.850 of worship. So it's not a reciprocal deal that 00:08:51.850 --> 00:08:54.269 you can just suspend if the other side breaks 00:08:54.269 --> 00:08:56.509 the rules. Exactly. The moral obligation is to 00:08:56.509 --> 00:08:59.909 God, not to the enemy. So the argument that Israeli 00:08:59.909 --> 00:09:02.850 actions, however one judges them, could ever 00:09:02.850 --> 00:09:05.149 justify Hamas's retaliation against civilians 00:09:05.149 --> 00:09:08.529 is completely nullified by the theological basis 00:09:08.529 --> 00:09:11.470 of CR. OK, let's talk about the hostage taking. 00:09:11.669 --> 00:09:14.730 This was a huge part of the attack. Seizing civilians, 00:09:15.169 --> 00:09:17.870 children, elderly people for political leverage. 00:09:18.210 --> 00:09:20.750 Classical Islamic law always required humane 00:09:20.750 --> 00:09:23.029 treatment towards the prisoners. The jurists 00:09:23.029 --> 00:09:25.090 debated what to do with captured combatants, 00:09:25.110 --> 00:09:27.649 whether to release them, ransom them. But humane 00:09:27.649 --> 00:09:29.730 treatment was a constant. But what about taking 00:09:29.730 --> 00:09:32.250 noncombatant hostages? Badawi points out that 00:09:32.250 --> 00:09:35.049 this specific tactic, seizing civilians for political 00:09:35.049 --> 00:09:38.620 leverage, is a modern tactical innovation. It 00:09:38.620 --> 00:09:41.480 finds no support, none in classical law. And 00:09:41.480 --> 00:09:45.779 abuse of captives. Torture. It was simply inconceivable 00:09:45.779 --> 00:09:48.360 in that framework. There's a famous story of 00:09:48.360 --> 00:09:50.740 Imam Malik, one of the greatest jurists, being 00:09:50.740 --> 00:09:52.779 asked about torturing prisoners. His response 00:09:52.779 --> 00:09:55.799 was just, I have not heard of that. Wow. It's 00:09:55.799 --> 00:09:58.059 a response that shows how deeply alien the concept 00:09:58.059 --> 00:10:00.899 was. So the seizure and abuse of women, children 00:10:00.899 --> 00:10:04.440 and the elderly for political aims is completely 00:10:04.440 --> 00:10:07.659 and totally outside the bounds of Islamic Justin 00:10:07.659 --> 00:10:09.820 Bellow. So let's bring this all to a head. We 00:10:09.820 --> 00:10:13.860 have two massive failures here. First. the lack 00:10:13.860 --> 00:10:16.240 of legitimate authority under Justin Bellum. 00:10:16.259 --> 00:10:18.259 A complete failure on that front. And then the 00:10:18.259 --> 00:10:21.500 spectacular, horrific failure to adhere to the 00:10:21.500 --> 00:10:24.259 core principles of conduct under Justin Bellum. 00:10:24.320 --> 00:10:25.700 And the conclusion from the scholars we've been 00:10:25.700 --> 00:10:27.720 looking at is definitive. Yeah. As Ben -Nun puts 00:10:27.720 --> 00:10:30.139 it, once those humanitarian precepts are violated, 00:10:30.419 --> 00:10:33.080 the targeting of women and children, the mutilation, 00:10:33.299 --> 00:10:36.600 the conflict, no longer qualified as permissible 00:10:36.600 --> 00:10:38.879 warfare because it was no longer Islamic. It 00:10:38.879 --> 00:10:40.919 stops being Islamic at that point. It ceases 00:10:40.919 --> 00:10:43.399 to be. according to its own rules. So is this 00:10:43.399 --> 00:10:45.259 just an academic argument, or do we see this 00:10:45.259 --> 00:10:47.240 reflected by mainstream religious authorities 00:10:47.240 --> 00:10:50.259 today? Oh, it's been thoroughly echoed. Major 00:10:50.259 --> 00:10:52.700 Islamic institutions around the world have not 00:10:52.700 --> 00:10:55.220 endorsed this conduct. You see an overwhelming 00:10:55.220 --> 00:10:58.860 scholarly consensus that jihad has to be bounded 00:10:58.860 --> 00:11:01.000 by law. It's not a blank check for slaughter. 00:11:01.500 --> 00:11:03.940 Can you point to anything specific? Sure. Look 00:11:03.940 --> 00:11:06.220 at documents like the Amman Message, signed by 00:11:06.220 --> 00:11:09.080 hundreds of top scholars, or statements from 00:11:09.080 --> 00:11:12.240 institutions like Al -Azhar in Cairo. They all 00:11:12.240 --> 00:11:14.480 affirm that noncombatants are not legitimate 00:11:14.480 --> 00:11:17.440 targets. So Hamas's claims are really a fringe, 00:11:17.480 --> 00:11:20.360 politically motivated interpretation that the 00:11:20.360 --> 00:11:23.059 scholarly majority rejects. Absolutely. And it 00:11:23.059 --> 00:11:25.500 just reinforces Binyon's point. Hamas is actively 00:11:25.500 --> 00:11:28.049 betweening the authentic Islamic tradition. They 00:11:28.049 --> 00:11:29.889 are engaging in the political manipulation of 00:11:29.889 --> 00:11:32.389 religion by cherry picking texts while ignoring 00:11:32.389 --> 00:11:34.830 the vast body of law that constrains violence. 00:11:35.049 --> 00:11:36.789 And for you, the listener, the implication here 00:11:36.789 --> 00:11:38.830 is pretty profound. When the international community 00:11:38.830 --> 00:11:41.330 talks about IHL compliance in Muslim contexts, 00:11:41.549 --> 00:11:44.389 it's not about imposing foreign Western values. 00:11:44.669 --> 00:11:47.309 Not at all. It's actually promoting the revival 00:11:47.309 --> 00:11:50.090 of neglected principles within the Islamic tradition 00:11:50.090 --> 00:11:53.049 itself. Principles of civilian immunity that 00:11:53.049 --> 00:11:55.110 have been there for a millennium. So to wrap 00:11:55.110 --> 00:11:57.899 this up. Our deep dive really shows that Hamas's 00:11:57.899 --> 00:12:00.740 claims to Islamic legitimacy completely fail 00:12:00.740 --> 00:12:03.340 when judged by their own jurisprudential standards. 00:12:03.539 --> 00:12:06.440 They do. The historical consensus against targeting 00:12:06.440 --> 00:12:09.220 civilians, against mutilation, against this kind 00:12:09.220 --> 00:12:12.419 of destruction of life is just clear and unequivocal 00:12:12.419 --> 00:12:15.519 in the classical sources. It makes the conduct 00:12:15.519 --> 00:12:19.120 not only illegal under IHL, but impermissible 00:12:19.120 --> 00:12:21.620 under the very law they claim to be championing. 00:12:21.639 --> 00:12:23.759 And that theological basis leaves us with a powerful 00:12:23.759 --> 00:12:26.419 point to think on. It does. Remember, these rules 00:12:26.419 --> 00:12:29.000 protecting civilians, treating prisoners humanely, 00:12:29.059 --> 00:12:31.360 they're based on divine commands. They're considered 00:12:31.360 --> 00:12:34.350 inviolable norms, acts of worship. So think about 00:12:34.350 --> 00:12:36.629 this. If Islamic law's humanitarian obligations 00:12:36.629 --> 00:12:39.529 are grounded in a theological command, not just 00:12:39.529 --> 00:12:41.950 reciprocity or politics, what does that really 00:12:41.950 --> 00:12:44.230 imply? What does it imply about the future? It 00:12:44.230 --> 00:12:47.169 implies a potential for truly robust interfaith 00:12:47.169 --> 00:12:50.110 dialogue, for lasting humanitarian protections 00:12:50.110 --> 00:12:52.990 that can transcend political divides. It's a 00:12:52.990 --> 00:12:54.970 moral standard that demands to be met no matter 00:12:54.970 --> 00:12:55.830 what the enemy does.