الدكتور نضال خلوف كلية القانون الدولي جامعة أجيال وتكنولوجيا Generations and Technology University The Sanctity of Places of Worship Between Divine Legislations and Earthly Covenants: Targeting Mosques as a Model Introduction: The spiritual identity of any community is shaped through its sacred symbols, and places of worship come at the forefront of these symbols; they are not merely stone, minarets, and domes, but a material expression of the collective conscience, and fortresses for psychological and social security. When these fortresses turn into targets in armed conflict, as has happened and is happening in Syria and other parts of the world, the crime is of a dual nature: it is a blatant violation of the sanctity of the sacred in religion, and an assault on the essence of human dignity in law. Targeting mosques, in this context, aims not only to take innocent lives under the domes of prayer, but also inherently aims to sow the seeds of sectarian strife, and tear apart the unified social fabric that has been established over centuries of peaceful coexistence. This article reviews the crime of targeting mosques from two complementary perspectives: the perspective of Islamic Sharia, from which the community's spiritual identity emanates, and the perspective of international humanitarian law, which represents the global ethical and legal framework for protecting humanity in times of war. First Axis: The Sanctity of Mosques and Places of Worship in Islamic Sharia Islamic Sharia establishes the sanctity of places of worship, especially mosques, on definitive foundations that go beyond formal protection to root the values of coexistence and safety. First: The Explicit Quranic Text and the Prophetic Sunnah: Allah Almighty says: {And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned.} [Al-Hajj: 40]. This verse carries several profound implications: · Equality in Sanctity: It equates between "monasteries" (monks' cloisters), "churches" (churches of Christians), and "mosques"; the sanctity stems from them being places where the name of Allah is much mentioned, not from the affiliation of their followers. ·Spiritual Causality: Repelling aggression from believers is positioned in Sharia as linked to preserving the sanctity of all these spiritual places, making their protection a supreme value. As for the Prophetic Sunnah and applied history, they confirm this approach. The Prophet (peace be upon him) granted safety to the churches of Christians in Najran, and wrote for them a document stipulating that "they have the protection of Allah and the covenant of Muhammad the Prophet over their wealth, themselves, their religion, their churches, their crosses...". This elevates the sanctity of the place of worship to the level of a general covenant and pact, and embodies the principle of "safety" extended even to non-Muslims. Second: Consensus and Jurisprudential Foundation for the Sanctity of Non-Combatants: The schools of Islamic jurisprudence have unanimously agreed on the prohibition of aggression against non-combatants in war, and those in similar status. Worshipers in the houses of God, whether Muslims or Dhimmis, are considered "secure worshippers" to whom the rulings of full protection apply. Targeting a worshiper while at the peak of devotion and weakness before his Creator represents a blatant violation of this sacred safety. Third: The Higher Objectives of Sharia and Their Manifestations in the Issue of Sanctity: Targeting places of worship falls under the category of "spreading corruption on earth," which scholars consider among the gravest major sins. This is because it demolishes the comprehensive objectives of Sharia, according to the following analysis: 1. Preservation of Life: By taking innocent lives in a state of worship and tranquility. 2. Preservation of Religion: By disabling the places of its practice and terrorizing its people, leading to a weakening of religious awareness and spiritual disconnect. 3. Preservation of Progeny and Mind: The explosion displaces families and inflicts deep collective psychological trauma on survivors and the community, threatening the structures of family cohesion and mental well-being. 4. Preservation of Wealth: By destroying public and heritage properties that represent wealth for the community and history. 5. Preservation of Human Dignity and Social Unity: The crime digs up the roots of coexistence and sows sectarian hatred, threatening the "objective of preserving honor" and the "objective of unity of ranks" encouraged by the texts. Second Axis: Targeting Places of Worship in Light of International Humanitarian Law and International Covenants International humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict) and the international framework for human rights form an impenetrable barrier against these acts, classifying them as international crimes. First: Explicit Protection in the Core of International Covenants: · The Hague Convention of 1954: It is the oldest and most specialized convention in protecting cultural property in the event of armed conflict. It considers places of worship as part of the cultural heritage of humanity and places its special emblem (the Blue Shield) for their protection. ·The Fourth Geneva Convention (1949): Article 16 stipulates the obligation to respect and protect places of worship as civilian properties. ·The Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions (1977): Article 53 of Additional Protocol I explicitly prohibits "any acts of hostility directed against historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples." Second: Violation of the Basic Principles of the Law of Armed Conflict: An attack on a place of worship violates three basic principles: · The Principle of Distinction: It is the cornerstone of international humanitarian law, and imposes a permanent distinction between military objectives and civilian objects. Places of worship are the most suitable model for absolutely protected civilian objects, unless they are used effectively and substantially for military purposes. ·The Principle of Proportionality: It prohibits any attack that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian property that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Even if a military element is near a mosque, destroying the mosque itself lacks the condition of proportionality. ·The Principle of Limiting Suffering: It obligates taking all feasible precautions to protect civilians and their property. Directing a direct attack to a place of worship occupied by worshippers is a stark regression from this duty. Third: Legal Classification as an International Crime and Accountability: ·War Crime: The deliberate attack on protected places of worship is explicitly classified as a war crime according to Article 8(2)(b)(ix) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998). This classification opens the door to individual accountability for leaders and perpetrators. ·Accountability Challenges: Accountability faces major obstacles, most importantly: the use of the veto power in the UN Security Council, non-cooperation of states, and difficulty accessing the locations where crimes are committed. However, some of these obstacles can be overcome through: · Parallel Mechanisms: Such as the UN General Assembly and independent investigation mechanisms. · The Principle of Universal Jurisdiction: Which allows national courts in any state to prosecute war crime perpetrators, based on the nature of the crime, not the nationality of the perpetrator or the location of its commission. Conclusion and Recommendations: Towards an Integrated Protection Strategy Targeting mosques is not a "passing mistake" in battle calculations, nor is it an acceptable "collateral damage." It is a crime of dual nature: grave in the scale of Sharia, and a war crime under international law. It is a sword that strikes the spirit of society before its body, due to its aim to transform places of worship from places of monotheism and peace into arenas of blood and divisions. Therefore, the need arises for an integrated strategy for protection and confrontation, working on parallel levels: 1. At the Religious and Spiritual Level: Unifying the Global Religious Voice: ·Key Actors: Authoritative and global Islamic religious institutions (such as Al-Azhar Al-Sharif, the Council of Senior Scholars in Saudi Arabia, the International Islamic Fiqh Academy, and the Supreme Islamic Councils in various countries), in cooperation with Christian, Jewish, and other religious leaderships. ·Proposed Measures: · Issuing a "Universal Declaration on the Sanctity of Places of Worship" signed by senior scholars from all schools of thought, explaining the absolute sanctity of these places in Islam, and interpreting texts collectively to block extremist interpretations. · Holding global interfaith conferences and seminars among followers of religions, focusing on shared values in the sanctity of sacred places. · Utilizing sermons and lessons in mosques and churches to enhance the unity of the social fabric and reject hate speech. 2. At the Legal and International Level: Preventing Impunity: ·Key Actors: UN Security Council, UN General Assembly, International Criminal Court, the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism (IIIM) concerned with documenting crimes in Syria, international human rights organizations (such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch), states with legislation that allows universal jurisdiction. ·Proposed Measures: · Intensive diplomatic and political pressure to systematically refer these crime files to the International Criminal Court. · Supporting and enhancing the capabilities of international mechanisms for investigation and documentation (such as the IIIM) financially and politically, and ensuring the preservation of their records for future generations. · Encouraging states that have "universal jurisdiction" legislation to exercise their role in pursuing suspects who may pass through their territories. · Exploiting all international platforms (such as the Human Rights Council) to consistently shed light on these crimes and describe them with their correct designations: "war crimes." 3. At the Community and Media Level: Fortifying the Social Fabric: ·Key Actors: Educational and pedagogical institutions, local and international civil society organizations, national and global media, activists, and community leaders. ·Proposed Measures: · Incorporating concepts of "shared citizenship," "sanctity of sacred sites for all," and "history of coexistence" into educational curricula and cultural programs. · Launching innovative media campaigns that show how these crimes "do not target a specific sect, but target the very breath of the one society and its communal peace." · Shedding media light on models of coexistence and cooperation in rebuilding different places of worship, and models of popular solidarity across sectarian lines in times of adversity. 4. At the Reconstruction Level: Building Stone and Repairing Humanity: ·Key Actors: The government (in post-conflict situations), specialized international agencies (such as UNESCO for heritage sites), charitable endowment institutions, local and international relief organizations. ·Proposed Measures: · Giving material and moral priority to rebuilding destroyed places of worship, considering it a fundamental step in restoring the community's dignity. · Linking physical reconstruction with moral reconstruction programs: by making the building process itself an occasion for reconciliation, with the participation of members of all community components in restoring the places of worship of their neighbors. · Supporting psychological and social support programs for survivors of these attacks and for the surrounding community. Conclusion: Defending the sanctity of places of worship is, in essence, defending the common knot of humanity. The collapse of the sanctity of a mosque or church in one place is the beginning of the weakening of the very idea of sanctity everywhere. Sharia, as divine legislation, has affirmed, and international law, as an earthly covenant, has affirmed the sanctity of this inviolability. Yet the greatest challenge remains: transforming these theoretical certainties and written laws into a collective practical will. The responsibility for protection does not fall solely on the religious figure, nor solely on the legal or political figure; rather, it is placed on the shoulders of every human being who believes that sacred things have immunity, and that conscience has sanctity, rising above the conflicts of politics, the mercury of interests, and the destruction of wars. الدكتور نضال خلوف كلية القانون الدولي جامعة أجيال وتكنولوجيا