In response to Hamas’ August 29, 2024 murder of six Israel hostages in the tunnels of Gaza, Palestinian journalist Abd Al-Bari Fayyad harshly attacked Hamas and accused it of barbaric and inhuman behavior that contravenes international law, the Islamic shari’a and the tradition of the Prophet Muhammad. Writing on the Saudi news website Elaph, Fayyad stressed that the Islamic shari’a and the Prophet’s tradition forbid murder and instruct to treat war prisoners humanely. Hamas, however, cruelly ignores these directives and prefers to promote its own interests and maintain its power in Gaza at the expense of the interests of the Palestinians, he said. Fayyad added that this deed may mark the end of Hamas’ role in Palestinian politics, for the flames it has ignited with this murder are likely to consume it before they burn Israel.
Abd Al-Bari Fayyad (Image: Alwasattoday.com)
The following are translated excerpts from Fayyad’s article:[1]
“The murder of the six Israeli hostages was like a bomb that exploded in the heart of Israel, [setting off] a wave of tremendous rage among the people of the occupation state and bitter weeping among the families of the victims. This incident was like [striking] a match in the heart of [Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu, after public opinion in the occupying entity turned against him, his relations with [Israeli] security officials turned hostile and he was accused of sacrificing the hostages to save his government…
“Hamas placed full responsibility for the incident on Israel and declared that the six hostages had died in the Zionist bombardment of the Gaza Strip. Assuming Hamas was actually involved in this incident, it may have been carried out in order to achieve several goals, the most important of which are: exerting pressure on the occupying entity and the international community in order to fulfill specific objectives; attempting to deter [Israel] from launching new attacks on the Gaza Strip, and using the remaining hostages as bargaining chips to win concessions or a ceasefire. Finally, perhaps [Hamas] wanted to take revenge [on Isael] for the damage it has sustained, especially given that it released new instructions to the people guarding the hostages regarding the steps to be taken if Israeli forces approach the places where the hostages are held – which strengthens the assumption that the hostages were [indeed] eliminated [by Hamas]…
“After the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Flood [war], Abu Obeida, the spokesman of [Hamas’ military wing], the ['Izz ad-Din] Al-Qassam Brigades, said that, for every Israeli bombing of a house in the Gaza Strip, the Brigades would execute one of the Israeli hostages – [because] the enemy does not understand human language or morality, so [Hamas] would speak to it in the language it understands.
“However, by perpetrating this deed [of murdering the hostages], Hamas behaved in a barbaric and inhumane manner. This is conduct that the Islamic shari’a prohibits. For Islam forbids a murder that is intended to inflame the situation and realize the narrow interests of the [Hamas] movement, which wants to return to power in the Gaza Strip and to control all its affairs, great and small, in order to become the force that rules it – as opposed to the Palestinian Authority, which tends to solve crises calmly and with diplomacy…
“The Third Geneva Convention defines the treatment of war prisoners from a humane perspective, but Hamas does not adhere to it… The basic principle on which this convention is founded is the obligation to treat war prisoners humanely at all times. According to Article 13 [of the convention], causing the death or endangering the health [of a war prisoner], as well as intimidation and humiliation or any other type of inhuman or demeaning treatment, are violations of this basic principle.
“Furthermore, most of the Muslim laws regarding the treatment of war prisoners are based on precedents that date back to March 624 CE, when the Muslims captured 70 enemy fighters in the Battle of Badr. In the absence of legislation defining the status of war prisoners and of detention facilities in which to house them, holding such a relatively large number of war prisoners was a great challenge. And yet, rather than choose the easier option, which would probably have been less humane – such as to leave them shackled in the open air – some of the 70 were held in a mosque, while the others were divided among the Companions of the Prophet, who hosted them in their homes. The Prophet instructed them to treat the prisoners well…
“Moreover, in the Quran and the Hadith there are many documented examples of war prisoners being treated humanely by the Prophet’s Companions, in compliance with [the Prophet’s] instructions. For instance, when it came to food, some of the prisoners recounted that the Muslims had served them the best food they could provide, even better than what they [ate] themselves, in accordance with the instructions of the Prophet.
“But Hamas did not adhere to the instructions of the Muslim shari’a regarding the treatment of prisoners or even [those of] the international conventions or international law. [Instead] it seemed to emulate the barbaric policy that the [occupying] entity is implementing in Gaza…
“Hamas’ conduct is condemned by every Muslim and Arab, despite the media ‘show’ the movement continuously tries to promote regarding its humane treatment of the hostages. At the start of the war, videos [were disseminated] that showed hostages being treated humanely by Hamas’ fighters. But [since then] the movement has apparently changed its ways – or perhaps has exposed its true face – and it thereby [seeks to] further inflame the war, to agitate the entire region and to transform it into an open warzone without agreeing to any peace initiative or discourse with the ceasefire negotiators...
“Following this crime [of the hostages’ murder], the coming days may hold surprises regarding the future of Hamas in Gaza. This incident may be the end of the movement’s political course [in service of] the Palestinian people – for it has struck a match in the region, a match which is likely to burn it first before it burns the occupying entity.”
[1] Elaph.com, September 4, 2024. The article was also posted one day later in the London-based Emirati daily Al-Arab.
