Saddam Violated Islamic Law by Taking Hostages

By Kamran Memon

Saddam violated Islamic law by taking hostages. No question about it. Muslims are not allowed to harm innocent civilians. And being held hostage is certainly no picnic.

Saddam's hostages, however, were luckier than his earlier victims. True, it's no fun being Saddam's "guests, " but at least these innocent civilians had the whole world watching out for them.

The hostages' anguish should not be downplayed, but the thousands of innocent Iraqi, Iranian and Kuwaiti civilians whom Saddam has laid to rest in his quest for regional domination never had protectors. That should put his holding of hostages in context. Saddam is a lot worse than some people make him out to be. Unfortunately, Westerners often confuse his actions with those of his brutalized subjects. Iraqis, unlike Saddam, are decent people.

Islamic law prohibits taking and holding hostages. Soldiers taken prisoner-of-war fall into another category. That's legit. But, according to the Islamic code of warfare, Muslims are forbidden from harming people who have not attacked them. Most of Saddam's "guests" clearly fall into this category of innocents. Some, on the other hand, may be foreign agents bent on taking Saddam down, in which case they do become fair game.

Much-maligned Islam's prohibition on holding hostages stems from its emphasis on human rights and the freedom of will. Saddam, who from his recent prayer-appearances on television seems to be a new convert to Islam, wouldn't know a human right if he violated one.

Muslims, on the other hand, are not pacifists. They are required to physically fight for justice. The Quran orders Muslims to "Enjoin good and forbid evil." But when Muslims do fight, they are obligated to follow a strict code of warfare, laid down 1,400 years ago.

Muslims may not strike the first blow, as Saddam did against those whom he held. Muslims may only take up arms to right a wrong. Muslims may not destroy the animals or crops of those who attack diem.

The only civilians Saddam may have some vague right to hold aire those who may have been plotting against him. Of course, even taking up arms against Saddam is justifiable, because he attacked Kuwait. Granted, those Kuwaiti rulers may not have been so Islamic themselves, but that's another story.

Examining Islamic law doesn't shed much light on Saddam's actions. He has never put much stock in Islamic "do's and don't's." This dictator, like all the others ruling the Muslim world, sees Islam as a convenient, powerful banner around which to rally his country when the call of Arab nationalism fails. When Islam and Muslims get in his way, however, they are quickly disposed of. So you can understand why Islamic regulations on hostage-taking didn't hold Saddam back.

In all fairness, it is true that Saddam is not the first Muslim to have taken hostages. Others have violated Islamic law after being frustrated by the West's colonial attempts to dominate the Muslim world. They were too weak to attack oppressive Western governments, so they lashed out at innocent representatives of the West. That was often the only way to get the world to pay any attention to the suffering of the Muslim masses. Of course, that doesn't apply in this case. Saddam himself has no qualms about killing the Muslim masses, much less holding hostages.

Kamran Memon is a Muslim-American reporter for the Bethesda and Chevy Chase Gazettes in Maryland.