The American Islamic Leaders' "Fatwa" is Bogus

July 29, 2005 3:28 PM

The American Islamic Leaders' "Fatwa" is Bogus "This morning a group of American Islamic leaders held a press conference to announce a fatwa, or Islamic religious ruling, against “terrorism and extremism.” An organization called the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) issued the fatwa, and the Council on American - Islamic Relations (CAIR) organized the press conference, stating that several major U.S. Muslim groups endorsed the fatwa. In fact, the fatwa is bogus. Nowhere does it condemn the Islamic extremism ideology that has spawned Islamic terrorism.... "
posted by Postroad (57 comments total)

CAIR is the German American Bund for the 21st Century.
posted by TetrisKid at 3:48 PM on July 29, 2005

So, a fatwa that says, simply:

In the light of the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah we clearly and strongly state:

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.

is not enough by some standards, eh? I am tempted to be rude, but see nothing positive that will come of it. The council's mission is to bring peace, not engage in a warlike mentality of their own.

So, Postroad, I don;t know your take on this, but I think Emerson is trying to stir up froth.
posted by beelzbubba at 3:53 PM on July 29, 2005

That "There has been no Muslim response to terrrorism" meme is wearing pretty thin now. Somehow the "Well there has been, but it doesn't count" one doesn't seem to have as much bite.
posted by Artw at 4:00 PM on July 29, 2005

remember how things worked on the playground, when you were a kid? how sometimes some of the other kids would just get bored and decide it would be fun if there were a good fight to watch, so before long the rumors would start to fly around the school about this kid who said your momma was gay or whatever, and suddenly you'd find yourself squaring off with some scrawny kid (who you never really even knew until your classmates decided it was time for you to fight him) out on the football field, surrounded by a circle of your bloodthirsty classmates, some egging you on, others pretending they couldn't stand to watch, until inevitably some fat kid would surreptitiously shove you face first into the other kid and call you out in front of everyone else, saying: "ooh, ooh--he pushed you!" and his buddies would all back him up, saying they had seen it happen, too, and chiming in "are you gonna take that?" and then before you knew it, you'd let yourself get pressured into sucker punching that scrawny kid in the nose, and he was crying and bleeding all over the place, and then all those little vultures who goaded the whole thing on would just slink back anonymously into the crowd, laughing and telling stories about the fight. that's what this whole ugly episode in history reminds me of sometimes. and that's the last thing i am ever going to say on the subject, so please don't bother responding to this comment to tell me how wrong i am.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 4:01 PM on July 29, 2005

Quick question. When did Pat Roberts and Jerry Falwell condemn Eric Rudolph for trying to kill doctors, nurses and homosexuals? When did that happen? Anybody remember? Did they speak up when he was sentenced recently? Anybody remember when they told the world that was not Christian? I didn't see that covered anywhere if they did.
posted by raaka at 4:07 PM on July 29, 2005

When did Pat Roberts and Jerry Falwell condemn Eric Rudolph for trying to kill doctors, nurses and homosexuals?

And if they did, it was bogus!
posted by beelzbubba at 4:10 PM on July 29, 2005

And dammit, if they don't let's nuke the 700 club!

On a more serious note, I was totally joking about nuking the 700 club.
posted by Freen at 4:14 PM on July 29, 2005

but I think Emerson is trying to stir up froth.

I think Emerson is trying to stir up froth shit
posted by matteo at 4:18 PM on July 29, 2005

In the light of the teachings of the Qur’an and Sunnah we clearly and strongly state:

1. All acts of terrorism targeting civilians are haram (forbidden) in Islam.

Heh. Too bad nobody told Muhammad, or the zillions of jihadis who for 1400 years have slaughtered in Islam's name. Of course they could be referring to a higher authority than the Koran.

2. It is haram for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence.

"Any act of terrorism or violence "? There's a reason why the Koran mentions war and other forms of violence in every other sura.

3. It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities to protect the lives of all civilians.

That may well be how they construe it in America these days, but in the old days it was the duty of every Muslim to do everything they can to ensure the victory of Islam.

Furthermore, it's not good practice to try to require people to snitch on their friends and family members; it would be better to create a climate of opinion where advocates of terrorism were looked down on and ostracized, the way modern hillbilly society views drunken wife-beaters.

But anyway, I don't care if they have to twist the Koran a thousand ways from sunday to do it, I hope CAIR can keep the hotheads from blowing up our subways. If it's wrong for the US to kill Muslim civilians, our civilians should be safe too. Let it never be said that I hold Americans to higher standard than I do anybody else -- my mama didn't raise a total moron.

And by the, all-seeing eye dog, did you go the same grade school I did? That sounds pretty damn correct to me.
posted by davy at 4:22 PM on July 29, 2005

Quick question. When did Pat Roberts and Jerry Falwell condemn Eric Rudolph for trying to kill doctors, nurses and homosexuals? When did that happen? Anybody remember? Did they speak up when he was sentenced recently? Anybody remember when they told the world that was not Christian? I didn't see that covered anywhere if they did.

Good point, Muslim leaders should under no circumstances reject terrorism. On the other hand, the vast majority of Christian leaders (not counting the loonies you cherrypicked) would be quick to condemn such actions and especially if they resulted in the murders of thousands of people.
posted by Falconetti at 5:05 PM on July 29, 2005

Our subways? Are you British davy? What group were you thinking about when you said our?
posted by betaray at 5:06 PM on July 29, 2005

this fatwa is about as meaningful as the ubiquitous condemnations that get issued anytime some terrorist act is committed. it's all just more lip service.
posted by ronenosity at 5:08 PM on July 29, 2005

Steve Emerson is a media grand-stander with nothing of value to say.

No matter what, Muslims will never be able to apologize or condemn or self-police enough for certain people. The idea, and this whole issue is absurd anyway.

CAIR and Steve Emerson are basically the same thing- they don't exist without TV cameras.
posted by chaz at 5:12 PM on July 29, 2005

A link to the Fatwa. Read it yourself.
posted by stevefromsparks at 5:19 PM on July 29, 2005

Also, here's an MP3 of a public service announcement by CAIR and other Muslim groups denouncing terrorism.
posted by stevefromsparks at 5:38 PM on July 29, 2005

That's nice, but it would have been nicer four years ago. And it would be nicer still if it were coming out of a majority Muslim country.

Myself, I like the idea of the Million Muslim March.
posted by IndigoJones at 5:57 PM on July 29, 2005

One might note that one of the London tube bombers was finked out by his own father.

But, then, the Muslims in London seem to be on rather better terms with the police than they are here in North America.

I wonder why that would be.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:33 PM on July 29, 2005

It's a start, and a damn good one. You can criticize the starts that people make all you want, but many times all you accomplish is to discourage them from starting. This is just like the criticism the IRA got. I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt and save the criticism for any failure in performance.
posted by caddis at 6:37 PM on July 29, 2005

This is just like the criticism the IRA got.

The IRA wanted Ireland. Radical Islam seems to want rather more.

(P.S. - F*** the IRA, too.)
posted by IndigoJones at 6:49 PM on July 29, 2005

but I think Emerson is trying to stir up froth.

I think Emerson is trying to stir up froth shit

= I think Emerson is trying to stir up santorum
posted by Pliskie at 6:56 PM on July 29, 2005

I like the fact that he uses “bogus” in the surfer-dude vernacular, i.a.: “that’s like, totally, bogus, dude”.
posted by signal at 7:26 PM on July 29, 2005

What a lame effort at defamation. Steve Emerson, Paris? Do you really find him a credible source for terrorism news? If so, I'm curious as to why.
posted by mediareport at 7:44 PM on July 29, 2005

Emerson is either intellectual dishonesty, or a coward, for not providing a link to the text of the Fatwa. Doing a Google search on this topic reveal tons of links to his post, so apparently many people are convinced without looking for themselves.

One of the trackbacks on Emerson's page goes to this publication of the Baptist Press quoting one Anis Shorrosh, described as "author of several books on Islam who, as an evangelist, has debated Muslim scholars."

Here's what the esteemed Mr. Shorrosh wants before he will be satisfied: “Muslim scholars worldwide must agree that the nearly 100 verses in the Qur’an [Koran] which promote fighting and killing can no longer be valid. Otherwise, terrorism by Muslim fanatics will continue until the end of time.”

I'd like to see either Mr. Shorrosh or the Baptist Press condemn any of the verses in their Bible that promote fighting and killing.

I'd love to see any Christian or Jew condemn the genocide of Canaanites, or the destruction of Sodom, or asking what kind of father would create a world that would require his own son's death for its completion.

Let's face it, Jews, Christians, Muslim, they all worship a blood thirsty god. The only thing that they really love is their hate, blood and gore.
posted by tkb at 7:55 PM on July 29, 2005

I like the fact that he uses “bogus” in the surfer-dude vernacular, i.a.: “that’s like, totally, bogus, dude”.

Way excellent! [airguitarsolo][/airguitarsolo]
posted by jonp72 at 8:10 PM on July 29, 2005

The Fatwa seems pretty straight forward to me. "any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence." Clearly includes Al Quada, Hamas, and everyone else they care to biatch about.

To call it "bogus" is amazingly intelectualy dishonest. And clearly only a position you could hold if you had not read the actual text.
posted by delmoi at 8:19 PM on July 29, 2005

Also, "Jihad" simply means "Struggle".
posted by delmoi at 8:20 PM on July 29, 2005

what a bogus editorial ... no link to the actual fatwa ... they didn't even have nerve enough to quote from it

pure garbage and bullshit
posted by pyramid termite at 9:12 PM on July 29, 2005

Well, I don't know about you but I imagine a suicide bomber has a significant struggle within himself to splatter himself all over the landscape, and taking others with him. At least, I HOPE he would.

Fatwas are starting to seem like toilet paper - needed one minute and then discarded the next after they've served their purpose.

And then while browsing I found this little gem.

----------------

Ask-Imam.com [8271] My friend told me that if there is a islamic battle and after winning that battle if muslims capture some women they are free to do whatever they want to do with them...

Slavery was prevalent long before the advent of Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) left it to exist even after his attaining prophethood. But Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) adopted many schemes to abolish it e.g. continuously encouraging the Sahabah (Radhiallaahu Anhu) to free the slaves and also laying down many conditions for possessing one.

If an Islamic battle breaks out in which the Muslims attain booty which includes women, then the leader will distribute the booty amongst the participants. If a person receives a slave girl in his share allocated to him by the leader then he has the option of either freeing her or keeping her for his own needs, which includes having intimate relations with her without the need for Nikah (i.e. if she is a Muslim, Christian or Jew). The owner and leader both are not allowed to kill the slave girl.

In the present age it is difficult to find Shar’ee slave girls as the rules and regulations of owning slaves are not found, therefore it is not permissible to buy any man or woman nor have intimate relationships with such women without performing Nikah with her first. (Fataawaa Rahimiyyah, Vol. 1, Page 50-58)

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Muhammad Ashraf
Darul Ifta – Jameah Mahmoodiya, Springs

-----------------

Ask the Imam should be able to clear up a lot of these little doctrinal quibbles. Unless it's a spoof site, of course. Gotta admit looking at some of these things... especially in the 'Women' section... I'm a bit in awe.

"Can I cut my 11 year old daughter's hair?"
On the basis of what you mention, it is permissible to cut her hair. It seems she hasn’t reached puberty as yet. Hence, you may cut her hair due to the inconvenience. However, since she is on the threshold of puberty, the best is to abstain.

If she has attained puberty, her hair may not be cut even if it is an inconvenience.

out of ignorance i used to pluck my eye brows. i did it for a long time and then i heard the hadith of nabi saw. now i cant stop doing it coz it looks terrible.

You should repent and ask Allah to forgive you. You should also stop plucking them. If your eyebrows continue growing to such an extent that they become double the size of a normal person’s eyebrows, then there could be permissible for you to trim them to a normal size, not smaller than that.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

Got an answer for everything... Wow. This IS a spoof site, right?

JB
posted by JB71 at 9:13 PM on July 29, 2005

can you issue a fatwa against a tactic or method? it seems weird, but as long as they did it specifically against the people who use that tactic and not the tactic itself (a la our now-renamed "war on terror")...

I remember the Rushdie thing, and sometimes these are really listened to, and obeyed.

And i'm with raaka, and will add the question of why didn't the media and the world look to those religious leaders to speak out against the violence perpetrated under the banner of Christianity? Have they ever? Why is it ok to look to Islamic leaders to do so?
posted by amberglow at 9:18 PM on July 29, 2005

betaray, you think London is the only city with a subway in the whole wide world? Here in the U.S. I've ridden subways in San Francisco, New York City, Baltimore and Boston; I was also informed they have 'em in Paris, France and Moscow, Russia, off the top of my head, and I'm pretty sure that's not the whole list either.

The point is if I ever find myself in a subway again, in my country or any other, I'd be very upset if somebody blew it up. The same for buses, trams, trolleys, light rail systems, passenger trains, airplanes, escalators, elevators, jitneys, rickshaws,
or any other method of public conveyance.

Get it now?
posted by davy at 11:07 PM on July 29, 2005

And by the, all-seeing eye dog, did you go the same grade school I did? That sounds pretty damn correct to me.

Davy: My current theory is we all went to the same grade school and never advanced to the next grade.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 11:35 PM on July 29, 2005

"Good point, Muslim leaders should under no circumstances reject terrorism. On the other hand, the vast majority of Christian leaders (not counting the loonies you cherrypicked)"

"Loonies"? I "cherrypicked"? Pardon, the Christian community picked these "loonies" all by themselves. The Christians gave these "loonies" money, the Christians made these "loonies" popular. If anyone is "cherrypicking", it's Christians themselves. You can't blame me for reality, but you can try to avoid it if you want, just like these "loonies".

"would be quick to condemn such actions and especially if they resulted in the murders of thousands of people."

A handful of assassinations and attempted assassinations of nurses, gynecologists, Olympic spectators and gays doesn't even merit a mention from any Christian leader, anywhere? Jesus truly is love.

As I asked before: Why didn't Christian leaders condemn Eric Rudolph when he was sentenced? Apparently if Muslim leaders need to condemn every act of Islamic terror, then surely Christians must do similiarly.
posted by raaka at 12:17 AM on July 30, 2005

1. All acts of terrorism targeting civilians are haram (forbidden) in Islam.

We are, on the other hand, totally cool with acts of terrorism targeting US and Iraqi soldiers. Also, blowing yourself up in front of a police station is kosher.
Furthermore, only terrorism *targeting* civilians is verboten. Collateral damage is regrettable but unavoidable.

2. It is haram for a Muslim to cooperate with any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence.

Translation: It is forbidden to cooperate with the US forces currently occupying Iraq.
posted by sour cream at 1:44 AM on July 30, 2005

We are, on the other hand, totally cool with acts of terrorism targeting US and Iraqi soldiers.

Not many religious hierarchies are willing to doctrine away their ability to go to war.
posted by catachresoid at 2:18 AM on July 30, 2005

Yes, it is "bogus." Just like its bogus for Liberal American Catholics to support the church, while the church bans contraceptives (increases suffering from AIDS and keeping people in poverty). Its just a religion covering its ass.

The world needs to realize that ancient religions inherently leed to a moral vacuum! Machiavellian religions that (can be used to) advocate dispicable things were the only ones to survive.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:09 AM on July 30, 2005

Let's face it, Jews, Christians, Muslim, they all worship a blood thirsty god. The only thing that they really love is their hate, blood and gore.

What's really bogus is that statement right there. Mankind has always been given to worship the idols of power and oppression. To blame it on a "bloodthirsty god" or even religion, is ridiculous. War in specific, and violence in general have always been about the quest for power or to dominate the other. If it hadn't been religion at the root of this, as it was during the Crusades and some of the other events you mention, there's no question in my mind that there would have been some other and perhaps even more arbitrary driver.
posted by psmealey at 5:35 AM on July 30, 2005

amberglow--

A fatwa is simply a judicial ruling based on the Qu'ran, Hadith (the passed down anecdotes about the life of Mohammed and his Companions), and--typically--one of the five schools of Islamic law. Usually, it's about behavior instead of against individuals. So yeah, it's possible to condemn a tactic versus condemning a person, and in fact that's the way it normally works. Khomeini was a little crazy when he issued the fatwa against Rushdie.
posted by thecaddy at 5:40 AM on July 30, 2005

oh--thanks, thecaddy. I thought they were always against people, because of actions/tactics taken by those people, and not the actions/tactics themselves.
posted by amberglow at 8:55 AM on July 30, 2005

why didn't the media and the world look to those religious leaders to speak out against the violence perpetrated under the banner of Christianity? Have they ever? Why is it ok to look to Islamic leaders to do so?

It occurs to me that one significant difference in the West is that our religionist and political systems are supposed to be separate, whereas in the mid-East, they are one and the same.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:22 AM on July 30, 2005

Don't tell the Muslim Brotherhood that.
posted by raaka at 1:29 PM on July 30, 2005

Tell them what?
posted by five fresh fish at 3:13 PM on July 30, 2005

That "in the mid-East" "religionist and political systems" "are one and the same". The Muslim Brotherhood is the most well known and probably most successful Islamist political organization in the world. They believe Arab governments are not nearly religious enough. Nor are they some fringe group -- if Egypt actually had open elections they would surely run the country.
posted by raaka at 9:18 PM on July 30, 2005

Er, okay. That's all the more to my point, then, isn't it: that it's okay to look to Islamic religious leaders for condemnation of the acts of Muslim terrorists, because those leaders are politicians, just as we look to our own political leaders to condemn the acts of vigilantes in our own society.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:20 PM on July 30, 2005

Apparently if Muslim leaders need to condemn every act of Islamic terror, then surely Christians must do similiarly.

What does the one have to do with the other? Muslim leaders cannot act on their own, they must wait and see what Christian leaders do first? Why?

It would be a 'good' thing for this to happen regardless of what anyone else is doing. It's not a relative thing, it's an absolute thing - it would be good period, as a stand-alone concept.

Look, the only way this ends is when mainstream Islam in all it's forms decides that terrorists are heretics led by heretics and figures out how to get rid of 'em. It's got to be an internal doctrinal thing. Only way.
posted by scheptech at 11:06 PM on July 30, 2005

I think it's pretty obvious what the opinion of most muslims worldwide: in every major struggle their fellow muslims are in (in Palestine, Chechnya, Bosnia, Kashmir and Iraq), the muslims are in the right. Their people are being slaughtered in the name of religious, ethnic or nationalist extremism, and they are right.

While the majority of muslims feel each of the above struggles is valid, they do not believe they in any way justify killing innocent civilians in those countries or elsewhere in the world (i.e. USA, UK, Spain, Bali).

But I - and evidently most muslims - fail to see why they should jump up and down and condemn terrorism (the above incidents killed combined what, 3500 people?) while their own kind is being butchered.

Seriously, how many muslims live under Israeli oppression? How many have been killed? How many live under house arrest and without rights in Palestince and Chechnya? How many innocents died at the hands of the Serbs? How many innocent Iraqis have been wiped out by a stray US bomb?

And you want them to stop EVERYTHING and condemn killing on a much smaller scale that they never supported in the first place?

Seriously, get over yourself.
posted by b_thinky at 11:47 PM on July 30, 2005

And you want them to stop EVERYTHING and condemn killing on a much smaller scale that they never supported in the first place?

I think Islams leaders should start publicly separating the religion itself from the suicides, the bombs, the killing, the terror, the whole mess before it's too late to do so, before it is too late for the concept of Islam in the west to mean 'a religion' instead of all those other things.

See generally, imho, people in the West are very ignorant of Islam as a religion, as a culture, etc. They base their opinions solely on what they see in the news (violence). And this ignorance leads to all sorts of problems, of course (such as being able to demonize the enemy).

At the same time it seems to me many (not all) folk in Islamic countries such as Iraq or Iran are phenomenally ignorant and misinformed about the west. They base their opinions on what they see in the movies (sex and violence) or music videos (mostly sex).

So yes, anyone with a voice on either side needs to start talking: Islam is not the 'hatred' religion, all women in the west are not prostitutes, most Muslims love life, most westerners just want to peaceably raise their families, like that.
posted by scheptech at 1:00 AM on July 31, 2005

I think Islams leaders should start publicly separating the religion itself from the suicides, the bombs, the killing, the terror, the whole mess before it's too late to do so, before it is too late for the concept of Islam in the west to mean 'a religion' instead of all those other things.

This is a very good point.

Christians have not done so in Europe and North America, and look at the result: except in the USA, their religion is failing. When push comes to shove, most citizens in those countries do not go to church and, in the end, "believe" in the divinity of Christ only by default.

Why has this happened? I posit that it's because the church failed to make itself relevant to modern living; it especially failed to adapt itself to the reality of massive urbanization, which is successful only when the population agrees to politely disagree, and treats religion as a guide to self instead of a guide for others. Western religions mainly failed in this regard, instead trying to use its power to coerce others instead of focusing within. That doomed it to irrelevancy: we can't have a successful modern society if we're more worried about where others are sticking their dicks instead of how we live our own lives.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:17 AM on July 31, 2005

fff: Why has this happened? I posit that it's because the church failed to make itself relevant to modern living;

Wrong, fff, it's because we have separation of church and state, which is a clearly a good thing: Note how hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Muslims flee the opression in their home countries and migrate to the decadent West, whereas no Westerner in his or her right mind would trade the freedoms we are accustomed to with permanently living in an Islamic country (at least not without a return ticket).
posted by sour cream at 10:51 AM on July 31, 2005

Separation of church and state does not, imo, adequately explain the decline of religion in Europe and Canada.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:10 PM on July 31, 2005

Still waiting for some Muslim leadership in the war against Islamofascism. How do you spell that stuff they feed to babies: pablum? Pablem? Where are the Muslims with backbone?
posted by ParisParamus at 3:35 PM on July 31, 2005

(correction: where are the Muslims with backbone who aren't trying to kill all us Westerners?)
posted by ParisParamus at 3:40 PM on July 31, 2005

fff: Separation of church and state does not, imo, adequately explain the decline of religion in Europe and Canada.

Of course it doesn't explain everything, but unity of church and state as we have in many Islamic countries sure goes a long way to ensure the influence of the clerics.
posted by sour cream at 3:43 PM on July 31, 2005

But, good grief, I'm pretty sure that's part of what I said to begin with!
posted by five fresh fish at 6:27 PM on July 31, 2005

out of ignorance i used to pluck my eye brows. i did it for a long time and then i heard the hadith of nabi saw. now i cant stop doing it coz it looks terrible.

Monobrow!
posted by nlindstrom at 7:35 PM on July 31, 2005

Top ten reasons why Islam is NOT the religion of peace.
posted by davy at 4:37 PM on August 2, 2005

Davy, and everyone, this has got to be the most bizarre Islamofascist piece I have ever read; it would but a laugh riot, were it not part of a much larger, horrific cult. Via LGF
posted by ParisParamus at 4:48 PM on August 2, 2005

Jihad, the Arab Conquests and the Position of Non-Muslim Subjects

This one is not from a competing religion, it can't be defended against by calling the writer racist, and it cites not only Koranic verses but also various "authenticated" hadiths and widely-respected jurisconsults to give the lie to claims of "tolerance" and "peacefulness" from Islam's own mouth (so to speak). My point here is that everyone who says "Islam is a religion of peace!" can be easily refuted by citing 1500 years of contradictions from within Islam itself. The truth is out there to be Googled up.

I was tempted to use this an FPP but decided against it for purely tactical reasons; I will however anticipate charges of "Islamophobia" by pointing out that my fellow atheist and agnostic secularists have already for 300 years pointed out Christianity's crimes, lies, contradictions and idiocies, while doing the same for Islam is a fairly new endeavor.
posted by davy at 9:19 PM on August 2, 2005