Pretty much says it all in the title. I’m sure everyone knows what I’m referring to here, but in general, is burial at sea a defilement of Islamic belief, or forbidden by Islam? I was reading this CNN opinion article and it seems to indicate that it is…but is this as cut and dried as they seem to be saying? And if so, why didn’t the US government or the Pentagon know about it?
(Apologies if this subject has already been done…I didn’t see a thread on it)
-XT
Reading the wiki paragraph on burial at sea, under Islam (which appears to have been written before this to do), it seems not to be forbidden but seems to be disliked. I think the obnoxious part, from the POV of religious scholars is deliberately taking the body out to see.
I had to grant Commissar the point that this was probably a Geneva convention violation as well.
The NYT had an op-ed piece yesterday, titled “Watery Grave, Murky Law” that seems to support the CNN article.
Someone posted in one of the other threads a quote stating it was permissible if the body might suffer defilement if it were buried on land (which I’d say was at least potentially the case with Osama). Sorry I can’t remember the thread.
Pretty sure murdering innocent people is a violation of Islam, too.
From what I’ve read, it seems to be acceptable only if burial on land isn’t possible. IE, you’re out at sea when a Muslim dies, you have no refrigeration available to preserve the body, and it’s going to be days before you reach land again. Then it would be acceptable. Even then the procedure (strapping the body to a board) seems designed to maintain the possiblity that the body might wash ashore somewhere and be buried by a good samaritan. In short, you really, REALLY, want to bury the body on land, unless you absolutely cannot.
I don’t think the refrigeration is a factor. Islam seems to require a hasty burial (24 hours has been cited). The claim is that there was not enough time to set up burial arrangements (as they couldn’t very well ask ahead of time). And that, while disliked, a burial at sea is less offensive than keeping the body too long.
From the reading I’ve done there are a lot of conflicting factors here.
As a standalone issue, burial at see is not preferred except in the very specific instance where land cannot / willnot be reached before the body rots.
HOWEVER - doctrinally, there are questions about whether
a) Osama should be buried as a Muslem (I read he has actually been excommunicated)
b) There is another over-riding principal in Islam about bodies killed in war and what is acceptable
c) If the body were to be defiled or some other circumstances it is ok to do whatever is required to prevent it.
“Excommunicated” by whom?
I think he was buried at sea with, well, I hate to say “honors”, but Navy-style.
From Leor Halvi, via my local newspaper reprinting a NYT article…
I view it as a gesture of respect, sort of.
Shooting someone in the head and then dumping him in the sea is certainly more respectful than what a lot of other countries would have done to the guy, or what would have been done to him in bygone days. No gibbet, no years of torture, dismemberment, etc.
Perhaps those concerned about the application of Islamic law in this case had ought to consider how remarkably restrained his final treatment really was. I’d seriously bet that, had Obama gibbeted the body in front of the white house, the media would have protested strenuously, and there’d be a huge outcry about how barbaric it was, but about 50 percent of the US population would have supported it anyway.
Does make me wonder, though: what would have been done had he been killed in, say, 2006? Would Bush have dealt with the issue differently?
President Obama can’t ‘win’ on this one.
The guy was a formidable opponent. What are you going to do? I think it’s perfectly fine that the Admin took the high road and said, “Hey, we’re not going to let people make a spectacle of his dead body, and we’re going to bury him at sea appropriately. End of story. Move on.”
Being buried at sea is kind of an honor. I think that if burying him on land wasn’t feasible, this was perfectly appropriate. I trust the Navy handled it perfectly fine.
edit: this is the first time I’ve been proud of my President since, well, before he held the title.
I think another problem they faced was figuring out where the heck they would bury him. Major case of NIMBY.
Given the inevitable conspiracy theories that will erupt, no matter what; Area 51 would seem to be a safe start.
This, from the NYC article cited above:
These exceptions matter because Bin Laden’s religious status is a matter of contention among Muslims. On one end of the spectrum are Muslims who consider him an outsider to Islam: if not quite an apostate, a terrorist whose right to an official Muslim prayer is debatable at best. (In 2005 the Islamic Commission of Spain essentially excommunicated Bin Laden, arguing that he should not be treated as a Muslim.) They must find it as perplexing as I do that the United States government granted the man it identified not as a Muslim, but as a “mass murderer of Muslims,” the dubious honor of a quasi-Islamic funeral.
In the immediate aftermath I read British media reports who contracted Islamic experts about this issues (can’t remember which reports, I’m afraid). The conclusion seemed to be that burial at sea was acceptable under two main scenarios: the first is when the deceased was travelling on a ship at the time, a long way from land. The second was when the body had a serious risk of being dug up and defiled by enemies if buried on land. But other than in a handful of specific exceptions, burial at sea wasn’t acceptable.
In terms of Osama bin Laden in particular: essentially it wasn’t technically allowed under Islamic law. Clearly the “long way from land” exception doesn’t apply and the defilement by enemies exception seems like a stretch. It’s pretty intuitive that a Muslim dies on land, hundreds of miles from the ocean, flying him out there by helicopter in order to bury him at sea doesn’t accord with the spirit of the ‘burial at sea’ exceptions under Islam. And accordingly, there are apparently a lot of Islamic clerics in the middle east who are complaining about it.
That said I think it was the right thing to do (having killed him) and I don’t think the Obama administration will be too bothered about the complaints. The point was to make it clear that they treated Bin Laden’s body with respect after death, and didn’t defile it. They washed it, wrapped it in white cloth, had a native Arabic speaker read certain rites, buried it within 24 hours, burial at sea is allowed in certain circumstances, etc. Whether they technically followed the letter of the law probably doesn’t matter to them as much as ensuring that the Muslim world comes away with a feeling that they at least made an effort to be respectful to Islamic custom.
There are a billion Muslims in the world. Of course someone is gonna be pissed.
He was a mass murderer and would have murdered more if he had lived. If he had been dumped in a landfill and left to the mercy of rats it wouldn’t bother me at all. He’s D & G; why should anyone care what happened to the carrion?
I hear that muslims demand that the corpse is washed before burial, I wonder how many of the Carl Vinson crew needed to ‘visit the bathroom’ at that time?