An Islamic Gazan Critique of Hamas' Strategy

Essay by Dr. Salman bin Nasr al-Daya

In a series of recently published posts (6 November) entitled “Oh politicians, stop this protraction,” the former dean of the college of Shari‘a (Islamic law) and law at Gaza’s Islamic University- Dr. Salman bin Nasr al-Daya- offers an extended critique of Hamas’ strategy in provoking the current war in Gaza by launching the 7 October assault and its fight against Israel amid the latter’s ongoing military campaign, which, by this point, looks set on continuing to try to destroy Hamas in Gaza (not necessarily impossible as some critics imagine) while establishing a lasting Israeli military presence and effectively implementing ‘population control.’

To be clear, al-Daya, a Salafi by orientation, is not in any way trying to justify or approve of Israel’s war: on the contrary, he is very clear that he sees the war waged by the “warring people” (his constant term of reference to the Israelis) as genocidal in nature. Instead, I would characterise al-Daya’s critique as an extended Islamic elaboration on the point of skepticism raised by anti-war activist Matthew Hoh immediately after the 7 October assault, who poignantly asked what Palestinians would gain as a result of this attack.

al-Daya’s essay is divided into six parts, making extensive use of the Qur’an, hadiths and Islamic jurisprudence. The essay critically responds to talking points raised by Hamas leaders about the justification for the assault and the war. The six parts can be summarised as follows:

1. Jihad (armed struggle) is not something to be waged for the pure sake of fighting. Rather, it has to have specific aims, intentions and conditions. For example, it should be waged with aims like the realistic prospect of repelling aggression against Islam and Muslims and liberating prisoners, and should be fought on frontlines far removed from places crowded with civilians. In rounds of fighting prior to the 7 October assault, the Israelis showed that they could inflict severe damage both in terms of killing people, destroying infrastructure and imposing restrictions. It should have been expected that the 7 October assault would have elicited a much harsher Israeli response given how many more casualties it caused among Israelis. Evidence from Islamic texts and jurisprudence establish that in some circumstances, such as where the enemy outnumber the Muslims by more than two-to-one and complete asymmetry in military capabilities, it is permitted to flee from the enemy/not fight the enemy at all. This is relevant in Gaza’s case, where the terrible impacts of the war will likely last decades.