Responding to the recent terror attacks in London and Egypt (or, more accurately, to the surge in anti-Islam sentiment that the terror attacks inspired), the Fiqh Council of North America has issued a "fatwa against terrorism":
The Fiqh Council of North America wishes to reaffirm Islam's absolute condemnation of terrorism and religious extremism.It goes on in that vein for a while. Here's the bottom line:
Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians’ life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram — or forbidden — and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not “martyrs.”
In the light of the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah we clearly and strongly state:Item number 1 sounds good, although it won't do anything to end Palestinian suicide bombings of Israelis. Most Palestinians consider those acts to be a form of "legitimate resistance", not "terrorism." And because all Israelis, in general, perform a few years of mandatory service in the military, many Palestinians argue that there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian. So the the Jew killin' is likely to continue.
1. All acts of terrorism targeting civilians are haram (forbidden) in Islam.
2. It is haram for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence.
3. It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.
But what really caught my eye was item number 2. It forbids Muslims from cooperating "with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence." Well, the U.S. military is certainly involved in acts of violence in Afghanistan and Iraq right now. Does that mean this fatwah prohibits Muslims from serving in or cooperating with the U.S. military?
Before I get too excited about this fatwah, I'd like a little clarification from the Fiqh Council on points 1 and 2.
And via LGF, Steven Emerson also takes a critical view of the fatwah here, claiming that members of the Fiqh Council have ties to various terror groups.
10 comments:
Another view of the fatwa-
Posted by psyopsvsislam
Again, I have to ask: What would it take to get Gaijinbiker to acknowledge that extremists are a tiny minority that is first and foremost AGAINST the vast majority of Muslims who oppose attacks against civilians.
No one, not Christians, not Jews, not Hindus, has suffered more at the hands of Islamic militants than moderate, peace-loving Muslims. What are GB's motives in making the monumentally arrogant assertion that these groups may not be sincere in condemning terrorism?
What would it take to get Gaijinbiker to support Islam in its long-fought battle against extremism, rather than try to undermine it by questioning the avalanche of evidence proving its existence?
In this regard, GB shares the jihadist mentality. The jihadists justify attacks by pointing the violence perpetrated by Christian and Jewish extremists against Muslims. They too, refuse to acknowledge that the vast majority of Jews and Christians are peace-loving and tolerant. Rather, they argue that both religions foster hatred of them, thus the need to attack those religious communities at large.
Posted by bunkerbuster
I can't believe I am saying this, but I agree with Bunker Buster.
We have been calling on Muslims to denounce terror. Some do and all you can do is carp at them?
How about a little encouragement for postive steps?
Posted by Dave Justus
Sorry to pile on, GB, but how can you claim that a sentence like "All acts of terrorism targeting civilians are haram" is ambiguous? Sure, people will try to use lawyerisms to weasel their way out of anything, but the statement itself is about as clear as it possibly could be.
2 might be unlear if looked at out of context, but it's in the middle of a statement denouncing violence against civilians. Everywhere else in the statement that mentions violence or terror includes some variation on the words "against civilians" and it should be obvious that it was meant here too.
So you want muslims to denounce terrorism, but when they do, you call it "a hey-don't-blame-us routine" or nitpick over the fine print and claim it means they don't really mean it. Great way to encourage the moderates there--first conflate their religion with terrorism and then accuse them of sloppiness and hiding their real motives when they try to repudiate it.
Posted by Big Ben
Big Ben, you wrote, "Great way to encourage the moderates there..." Are you actually saying that moderate Muslims need my encouragement to reject terrorism? According to you, they're inherently, sincerely opposed to it. Yet apparently all it takes is a breath of skepticism from me, and off they go to strap on bomb vests and ride the bus.
Granted, it is nice to see a fatwa like this being made. However, my happiness at hearing it has not completely stripped me of my critical faculties.
And the fact remains that members of CAIR and the Fiqh council have had, or still do have, links to terror groups including Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, and even Al Qaeda. (Did you guys even read the article I linked to? And this one is even more detailed.) Given the background of some of the people behind this fatwa, I hope you will excuse me if I cannot completely dispel my cynicism, however much I would like to take their words at face value.
Yes, my observation about point (2) and Muslims serving in the U.S. military was something of a nitpick. The more important point is that the fatwa appears intentionally deisgned to leave the door wide open to continued terrorist attacks on Israelis.
Given that Israelis probably suffer more Islamic terrorist attacks than any other people on Earth, we might have hoped for a bit more clarity here.
I am actually prepared to give this fatwa a chance and assume it really means what it says. But are Hamas and the people who fund them prepared to do the same? We shall see.
Posted by GaijinBiker
"Given that Israelis probably suffer more Islamic terrorist attacks than any other people on Earth... "
Actually, Muslims suffer more Islamic terrorist attacks any other people on Earth. Israelis are likely third, behind Indian Hindus.
Posted by Bojack
Israelis are probably number one on a bombings-per-capita basis.
Posted by GaijinBiker
bin Laden and his ilk assert that the U.S. is engaged not in a war against "terrorism" but in a war against Islam.
Gaijinbiker is doing his part to prove bin Laden right.
Posted by bunkerbuster
Are you actually saying that moderate Muslims need my encouragement to reject terrorism? According to you, they're inherently, sincerely opposed to it. Yet apparently all it takes is a breath of skepticism from me, and off they go to strap on bomb vests and ride the bus.
You realize that there's a huge range of options between vocal opposition to terror and strapping on a suicide bomb, don't you? And if you think your words have no effect, why do you bother blogging?
We need to appeal to those who are on the fence about terror, and those who are against it but are afraid to speak out. If they see that any attempts to denounce terrorism are met with derision and skepticism, they're a lot more likely to choose the safe route and keep their mouths shut. Why rock the boat if the infidels are just going to keep viewing you as the enemy anyway?
You act like making a statement like this is easy, when the reality is that any muslim leader who speaks out against terror is effectively painting a bullseye on his forehead. If those speaking out have previously had contacts with terror groups, I think that makes it even more encouraging that they now feel able to denounce it. Regardless of who they may have contact with, the statement itself is an unequivocal denouncement of terrorism and is likely to sway many muslims in our favor and is therefore more likely to have a positive effect in the struggle against terrorism than any rightwing warblogger could ever hope to, so at the very least it's strange that your primary reaction to it is nitpicking rather than praise.
Posted by Big Ben
Sorry, that was terible run-on sentence there. I hope the point came across through my bad writing.
Posted by Big Ben
Post a Comment