Fatwa Against Terrorism

Topic locked
  • Reply
Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 02, 2010
Islamic scholar Tahir ul-Qadri to issue terrorism fatwa
By Dominic Casciani
BBC News

An influential Muslim scholar is to issue in London a global ruling against terrorism and suicide bombing.

Dr Tahir ul-Qadri, from Pakistan, says his 600-page judgement, known as a fatwa, completely dismantles al-Qaeda's violent ideology.

The scholar describes al-Qaeda as an "old evil with a new name" which has not been sufficiently challenged.

The scholar's movement is growing in the UK and has attracted the interest of policymakers and security chiefs.

In his religious ruling, Dr Qadri says that Islam forbids the massacre of innocent citizens and suicide bombings.

Although many scholars have made similar rulings in the past, Dr Qadri's followers argue that the massive document being launched in London goes much further.

They say it sets out point-by-point theological arguments against the rhetoric used by al-Qaeda inspired recruiters.

The fatwa also challenges the religious motivations of would-be suicide bombers who are inspired by promises of an afterlife.

The populist scholar developed his document last year as a response to the increase in bombings across Pakistan by militants.

The basic text has been extended to 600 pages to cover global issues, in an attempt to get its theological arguments taken up by Muslims in western nations. It will be promoted in the UK by Dr Qadri's organisation, Minhaj ul-Quran International.

Shahid Mursaleen, spokesman for Minhaj-ul-Quran in the UK, said the fatwa was hard-hitting.

"This fatwa injects doubt into the minds of potential suicide bombers," he said.

"Extremist groups based in Britain recruit the youth by brainwashing them that they will 'with certainty' be rewarded in the next life.

"Dr Qadri's fatwa has removed this key intellectual factor from their minds."

Religious rulings

The document is not the first to condemn terrorism and suicide bombing to be launched in the UK.

Scholars from across the UK came together in the wake of the 7 July London attacks to denounce the bombers and urge communities to root out extremists.

But some scholarly rulings in the Middle East have argued that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is an exceptional situation where "martyrdom" attacks can be justified.

Although Dr Qadri has a large following in Pakistan, Minhaj ul-Quran International remained largely unknown in the UK until relatively recently.

It now has 10 mosques in the British cities with significant Muslim communities and says it is targeting younger generations it believes have been let down by traditional leaders.

The organisation is attracting the attention of policymakers and security chiefs who are continuing to look for allies in the fight against extremists.

The Department for Communities, which runs most of the government's "Preventing Violent Extremism" strategy, has tried building bridges with a variety of liberal-minded groups, but often found that they have limited actual influence at the grassroots.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8544531.stm

(Cue our resident 'sheikh': I denounce this 600 page report and here are my selective quotes again... ;) )

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 02, 2010
Excellent step in the right direction. Thats the kind of fatwa that we all need. :wink:
RobbyG
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
Posts: 5927
Location: ---

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 03, 2010
Muhammad must be spinning in his grave as we speak.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 03, 2010
event horizon wrote:Muhammad must be spinning in his grave as we speak.

:lol:
RobbyG
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
Posts: 5927
Location: ---

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 03, 2010
The 'sheikh' doesn't disapoint! :mrgreen:

What's the betting sheikhy baby didn't read past the thread title? :bigsmurf:

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 03, 2010
There's nothing new under the sun.

From Judas to collaborators in France there will always be those who are attracted to the lure of money, fame and fortune.

And some lighthearted entertainment of this 'scholar' and his followers dancing with each - Is dancing allowed in Islam? Sure, if it's with other men.

Enjoying Watching his fellow members dance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMiM6...eature=related

You can also see him asking his fellow members to demonstrate:
[Froward to: 0:41 and watch it ]

Heres some more just incase you get bored:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gsf8...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34cc-5kx ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtaXD...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0EiS...eature=related [The dancing/excercise starts at about 04:48]
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 03, 2010
Indeed, you can bring a horse to water - but you can't make it drink!

So, this scholar is wrong and our resident sheikh is right - Islam is a war mongering religion that condones terrorism!

(but wait, I note that sheikh didn't confirm whether he had actually read the article - let alone the 600 page fatwa... he must be really, really inteligent to post youtube clips to debunk a fatwa he hasn't read!)

Then again, even horizon, is condoning the slaughter of children, women and men by Israelites, and doesn't even condone the enslavement and probable rape of 32,000 virgins (nor does he condemn Baruch Goldstein who massacred worshippers in Palestine in the 90s).

Therefore, it is understandable that he would reject any fatwa that says terrorism is wrong - wouldn't he?

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 03, 2010
The sheik never denounced Jihad warfare (as practiced under classical Islam) or Islamic supremacism.

He simply issued a fatwa against suicide bombings (claiming those who carry them out will go to hell - sounds unIslamic to me) and provided a vague condemnation of massacring civilians (presumably, civilians can only be massacred by Muslims after an Islamic state is established and by the Caliph's army)
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 03, 2010
So you agree that there is a difference between terrorism and the concept of a 'Just War' (a concept not unknown in Christianity either)?

However, I'm intrigued as to whether you actually read the article above (or the fatwa).

Is there anything specific in his fatwa that you dispute - from a theological perspective?

Let's take suicide bombers for example - the article is quite categoric:
In his religious ruling, Dr Qadri says that Islam forbids the massacre of innocent citizens and suicide bombings.

Although many scholars have made similar rulings in the past, Dr Qadri's followers argue that the massive document being launched in London goes much further.

They say it sets out point-by-point theological arguments against the rhetoric used by al-Qaeda inspired recruiters.


Do you have a point-by-point theological argument to justify Al Qaeda's theology?


Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 03, 2010
So you agree that there is a difference between terrorism and the concept of a 'Just War' (a concept not unknown in Christianity either)?


I agree there is a difference between terrorism and warfare, just war or not.

Islam doesn't teach just war - only in the minds of apologists. The just war Islam teaches (if we are to use our imaginations) is to 'liberate' disbelievers from ignorance and unbelief - to liberate disbelievers from jahiliyyah.

Is there anything specific in his fatwa that you dispute - from a theological perspective?


I'll let the scholars hash it out. I don't disagree that violence in Islam is primarily reserved for the Muslim nation-state. Al-Qaida subscribes to the philosophy of the late Muslim theologian Ibn Taymiyyah who lived during the Mongol invasions and went against conservative tradition by advocating that individual Muslims (without the approval of the Caliph) could carry out acts of violence when the state was ineffective against the enemies of Islam, or worse, collaborated - including when the enemies of Islam were Muslims who were not Islamic enough (did not apply all of sharia law), such as the Mongols.

Do you have a point-by-point theological argument to justify Al Qaeda's theology?


No, but al-Qaeda does. Regardless, condemning terrorism is not the same as condemning the doctrines of Islamic supremacism and Jihad. To condemn terrorism is simply to condemn individual Muslims who take the law into their own hands - like vigilantes.

The texts and teachings on Jihad and Islamic supremacism have not been touched/interpreted since the gates of interpretation were closed centuries ago. Until they are questioned and reinterpreted, Muslims will continue to be inspired to 'take the law into their own hands' and wage Jihad and establish Islamic laws without a kalifa.

As I said, the more important issue of perpetual warfare and Islamic supremacism has still been untouched. I say more important because, modern warfare involving industrialized nation states will kill far more people than contemporary terrorism can.

All Muslims, with the exception of Qadianis (and no one takes them or their nutjob founder seriously), follow one of the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence (five schools if you include Shia), which are all in agreement that when the caliphate is established, and the Islamic state is powerful enough, Islam is to expand militarily once more. Despite your holier-than-thou/I know-more-than-everyone-else(which hasn't gotten you very far on the concubine thread) attitude, Islamic Law *does* stipulate that the Islamic nation is to wage war against disbelievers and spread Islamic Law by force if non-believing nations do not voluntarily establish Allah's laws.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 03, 2010
The article says that Al Qaeda don't have a leg to stand on, theologically.

Pretty much like you on the subject then.

Another classic example of 'All Mouth, No Trousers' - especially as I note you haven't actually conceded that you've read the article above, let alone the fatwa itself!

But let me quote again the description of the tactics of one of your 'scholars', Raymond Ibrahim:

...
And, mind you, you don't need to be an expert on the subject matter, just make sure to quote verses from the Qur'an out of context, cite Osama Bin Laden as the role model of Muslim behavior, bank on tired canaries like "Islam oppresses women," and "Islam was spread by the sword," and other washed out cliches, and voila!


Tired canaries indeed - but unfortunately the 600 page fatwa demolishes your argument. I don't blame you for not wanting to tackle it head on by actually reading it (or even the article above)!

Your personal 'tired canary' about Islam teaching that there should be perpetual warfare is also demolished in this fatwa. But then again, I understand why you would want to believe otherwise and not actually address what it says. As the article states, he's not saying anything new - the Muslims of Britain issued clear fatwas after the July 7 bombings stating the same thing - what is different now is that it is a more detailed theological exposition of the same point.

I fully understand that you wish to align yourself with Al Qaeda - given that you too think it is ok to kill civilians (and even go further than Bin Laden - you condone the enslavement and probable rape of 32,000 virgins by Israelites) - as long as 'God told them to do it' is offered as an excuse. You even argue that the Israelites are just acting like angels when they butcher and enslave (I'm not sure that Bin Laden is that audacious)

However, you have singularly failed to convince me that it is ok to condone cold-blooded slaughter of civilians - and I'm surprised you are still trying to convince us that you are right on the matter.

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 04, 2010
No, I wasn't aware that this fatwa challenges perpetual Jihad and Islamic supremacism inherent in the texts and teachings of Islam.

Perhaps you can quote the article where it says that (as you claimed)???
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 04, 2010
That's because you haven't read the article or the fatwa yet and desperately want to believe that you are right to side with Al Qaeda.

I also refer you back to the above reference to 'tired canaries' - and also to 'QB1' - your quaint belief no. 1 that Islam says there should be perpetual warfare against all non-Muslims.

If you had got beyond the first sentence of the article, you would have read:


Dr Tahir ul-Qadri, from Pakistan, says his 600-page judgement, known as a fatwa, completely dismantles al-Qaeda's violent ideology


'completely dismantles'


And, in any case, the Palestinian/Israeli issue is over land and national sovereignty - and the greediness of the Israelis who are not satisfied with 78% of the land and want to steal more of the 22% that is left for Palestine (which is illegal under international law). As the article states, the Israeli injustices gives some Muslims the excuse to condone suicide attacks against the oppressor (and as you say, Just Wars can be waged against oppressive regimes - according to the Bible and the Quran). But even then, this fatwa makes is crystal clear that suicide bombs and targetting of civilians is totally unIslamic - and yet you want to side with Al Qaeda on the issue.

But then again, you are happy to condone massacres carried out in cold blood - just as long as the excuse 'god told me to do it' is used. Therefore you are just like the caricatures of Al Qaeda we see in the press.

Cheers,
Shafique

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 04, 2010
The quote you provided says nothing about renouncing the texts and teachings of Islam which call for perpetual jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 04, 2010
Yawn.

Did you even read the article or just my quote? When you read the fatwa itself, perhaps then you'll be in a better position to question whether it addresses your 'tired canary'/'quaint belief' or not.

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 04, 2010
The fatwa, in full,isn't posted online yet.

Let me know, when it is fully posted, where the fatwa denounces offensive Jihad warfare.

Otherwise, it sounds like you've been caught in another lie.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 04, 2010
I've done my bit - it's over to you now to back up your claims about the fatwa (which seems weird now it is clear you haven't actually read it - or even admitted to reading the article even).

Ad hominem attacks won't disguise the fact you've tried to issue a fatwa without actually reading the evidence.

I too am interested to read whether he will agree with your 'tired canary'/quaint belief and so am looking forward to your analysis.

Anyway - as I said, it's fascinating that you're siding with Al Qaeda and even exceed them in your radical views about killing people and enslaving virgins (that it is ok, as long as the excuse 'god told me to do it' is given)

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 04, 2010
shafique wrote:Your personal 'tired canary' about Islam teaching that there should be perpetual warfare is also demolished in this fatwa.


Where does the fatwa 'demolish' the concept of perpetual warfare waged by a nation-state?
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 04, 2010
Ok, first let's clear up something that you seem to be implying - I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting your views:

Do you agree, or disagree, with the fatwa's main finding that Islam condemns/does not allow any acts of terrorism - i.e. killing of civilians will send you to hell, not to heaven? This is clear from the Article.

(You seem to be arguing that the fatwa may not address another issue - that of what you call 'offensive jihad' - so, let's just clarify that on the point of Terrorism and the killing of civilians specifically - Islam forbids this action)


Now coming to your quaint belief:

Your 'tired canary'/'quaint belief' is that Islam is violent and teaches that Muslims should wage a perpetual war with non-Muslims. The correct belief is that Jihad is nothing more than the concept of 'Just War' to be found in Christianity.

The Al Qaeda theological arguments (which you seem to be defending) justify the killings of innocents (just like you justify the slaughters carried out by Israelites). The article clearly states that this theological argument is demolished.

Along with this, any 'quaint belief' that Jihad is actually a perpetual war and Islam condones attacking nations just because they are non-Muslim (rather than only going to war for the conditions that God states constitutes a Just War) is also demolished.

Just because you think your 'quaint belief' that Jihad is offensive war (which you coyly term as 'Jihad as practised under classical Islam' but is more correctly labelled as 'Jihad as imagined by orientalists') - is correct, is not really the Sheikh's problem.

He has just cut the theological legs out from under you and Al Qaeda sympathisers.

However, I'm only going by what I quoted in the first article - so I am genuinely interested in reading your analysis of the fatwa itself when you get to read it.

You can show me I'm wrong and quote him saying that it is ok to wage war against all non-Muslims as long as Muslims are strong enough... and whatever else accords with the 'tired canary'/quaint belief view of Islamic theology.

Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 05, 2010
Just because you think your 'quaint belief' that Jihad is offensive war (which you coyly term as 'Jihad as practised under classical Islam' but is more correctly labelled as 'Jihad as imagined by orientalists') - is correct, is not really the Sheikh's problem.


Great - why don't you show me that Jihad's primary meaning in classical/medieval Islam was an inner struggle and not a holy war waged against disbelievers.

He has just cut the theological legs out from under you and Al Qaeda sympathisers.


Well, his fatwa hasn't come out yet. But considering that he probably has only rehashed the typical tired old canards about Islam, that Jihadist scholars demolish on a routine basis, I won't throw caution to the wind and imagine that this is a 'case closed' opinion.

The Al Qaeda theological arguments (which you seem to be defending) justify the killings of innocents (just like you justify the slaughters carried out by Israelites). The article clearly states that this theological argument is demolished.

Along with this, any 'quaint belief' that Jihad is actually a perpetual war and Islam condones attacking nations just because they are non-Muslim (rather than only going to war for the conditions that God states constitutes a Just War) is also demolished.


That's a straw-man you've set up. You can condemn vigilantism without condemning police officers, obviously. You can condemn the blatant murder of civilians but still defend the horrible mass beheading of civilians (if you're a Western Muslim). You can condemn wars by secular nation-states but defend the wars of aggression by the 'rightly' guided caliphs (once again, if you're a Muslim, Western or not).

There's nothing in the article you quoted that says the sheik has addressed the concept of offensive warfare in Islam. He condemns terrorists, but doesn't condemn the doctrines of Islamic supremacism and Jihad which is the swamp water for these people to breed.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 05, 2010
From wikipedia, Shafique's primary source of information:

Controversy has arisen over whether use of the term jihad without further explanation refers to jihad of the sword, and whether some have used confusion over the definition of the term to their advantage.[20]

Some scholars consider the Hadith in which Muhammad speaks of greater and lesser Jihad as of doubtful authenticity.[21] The hadith has been analysed to be fabricated by different individuals.[22][clarification needed][23]

Middle East historian Bernard Lewis argues that "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists [i.e., specialists in the hadith] ... understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."[24]

Scholar David Cook writes:

In reading Muslim literature -- both contemporary and classical -- one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible. Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non-Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superseded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by Western scholars, primarily those who study Sufism and/or work in interfaith dialogue, and by Muslim apologists who are trying to present Islam in the most innocuous manner possible.[25]

And according to Douglas Streusand, "in hadith collections, jihad means armed action; for example, the 199 references to jihad in the most standard collection of hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari, all assume that jihad means warfare."[26]


Don't worry, I don't expect shafique to actually address the quotes (apparently, he has read more from Muslim scholars than either two historians cited above combined), but I'll provide the quote for the reader's benefit to help them wade through the torrent of spin (copy/pastes from that Qadiani site) that will inevitably be posted by shafique.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 05, 2010
Interesting EH.

This is what Andre Möller, Department of History and Anthropology of Religions, Lund University, Lund, Sweden thinks of the book written by David Cook.

Image
RobbyG
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
Posts: 5927
Location: ---

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 05, 2010
event horizon wrote:He simply issued a fatwa against suicide bombings (claiming those who carry them out will go to hell - sounds unIslamic to me) and provided a vague condemnation of massacring civilians (presumably, civilians can only be massacred by Muslims after an Islamic state is established and by the Caliph's army)


True. You will see a lot of people condemning killing civilians, including Chubby. Only the definition of what is a civilian differs.
Flying Dutchman
Dubai Forums Zealot
Posts: 3792
Location: Dubai

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 05, 2010
Whilst you're digesting and considering how to reply to Robby's post above, you seem to have overlooked this from my last post:

shafique wrote:Ok, first let's clear up something that you seem to be implying - I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting your views:

Do you agree, or disagree, with the fatwa's main finding that Islam condemns/does not allow any acts of terrorism - i.e. killing of civilians will send you to hell, not to heaven? This is clear from the Article.

(You seem to be arguing that the fatwa may not address another issue - that of what you call 'offensive jihad' - so, let's just clarify that on the point of Terrorism and the killing of civilians specifically - Islam forbids this action)


Cheers,
Shafique
shafique
Dubai Shadow Wolf
User avatar
Posts: 13442

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 05, 2010
I think it would be fair to derive the essential meaning of Jihad from historical warfare and differences in ordering a Jihad between Sunni and Shiiete Arabs.

Warfare in Muslim societies

History records instances of the "call for jihad" being invoked by Islamic leaders to legitimate wars of conquest. The major imperial Muslim dynasties of Ottoman Turkey (Sunni) and Persia (Shia) each established systems of authority around traditional Islamic institutions. In the Ottoman empire, the concept of ghaza was promulgated as a sister obligation to jihad. The Ottoman ruler Mehmed II is said to have insisted on the conquest of Constantinople (Christian Byzantium) by justifying ghaza as a basic duty.

Later Ottoman rulers would apply ghaza to justify military campaigns against the Persian Safavid dynasty. Thus both rival empires established a tradition that a ruler was only considered truly in charge when his armies had been sent into the field in the name of the true faith, usually against giaurs or heretics — often meaning each other.

The 'missionary' vocation of the Muslim dynasties was prestigious enough to be officially reflected in a formal title as part of a full ruler style: the Ottoman (many also had Ghazi as part of their name) Sultan Murad Khan II Khoja-Ghazi, 6th Sovereign of the House of Osman (1421 - 1451), literally used Sultan ul-Mujahidin[citation needed].

The so-called Fulbe jihad states and a few other jihad states in western Africa were established by a series of offensive wars.[118]

The commands inculcated in the Quran (in five suras from the period after Muhammad had established his power) on Muslims to put to the sword those who will neither embrace Islam nor pay a poll-tax (Jizya) were not interpreted as a general injunction on all Muslims constantly to make war on the infidels (originally only polytheists who claimed to be monotheists, not "People of the Book", Jesus is seen as the last of the precursors of the Prophet Muhammed; the word infidel had different historical uses, notably used by the Crusaders to refer to the Muslims they were fighting against).

It was generally supposed that the order for a general war can only be given by the Caliph (an office that was claimed by the Ottoman sultans), but Muslims who did not acknowledge the spiritual authority of the Caliphate (which is vacant), such as non-Sunnis and non-Ottoman Muslim states, always looked to their own rulers for the proclamation of a jihad; there has been in fact no universal warfare by Muslims on non-believers since the early caliphate. Some proclaimed Jihad by claiming themselves as mahdi, e.g. the Sudanese Mahommed Ahmad in 1882.


As can be seen from the underlinings above, is that there is an evolution of Jihad. Also in the last underlining it is summarized that 'there has been in fact no universal warfare by Muslims on non-believers since the early caliphate'.

So in presuming this is accurate, we can conclude that the perpetuating Jihad is nowhere close to modern day reality. From the differences in Sunni and Shia muslims, as long as the mahdi and/or caliphate is non-existent / vacant, the Western infadels are safe from the old Jihad (since early time of caliphate).. :shock:

Quite stressing to me...considering Ahmadinejad and his UN speeches about the mahdi... :?
RobbyG
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
Posts: 5927
Location: ---

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 05, 2010
Robby, a few thoughts on your last highlighted quote - as was explained by Berrin's copy-paste article on 'Jihad is not perpetual warfare', the Muslim scholar points that in practice, only the Rashidun and Umayyad kalifas actually implemented perpetual warfare. That isn't to say that Islam's borders were peaceful after later dynasties were established. But, as your article explains, but for practical purposes, perpetual warfare was too costly for these later empires. They were forced to limit the scope of their warfare against disbelievers to border raids and skirmishes - which are explicitly allowed, in fact, were commanded by Caliph Umar.

What I think needs to be distinguished is Islam in theory and Islam in practice. Islamic law certainly does command warfare against disbelievers and it teaches that Muslims are to rule over disbelievers. Classical Muslim scholars divided the world between belief and disbelief, with one prevailing over the other (I won't tell which one the Muslim scholars were rooting for).

Thankfully, due to infighting between 'Islamic' empires, Muslims often shirked on their responsibilities of waging perpetual warfare against disbelievers. I can quote Muslim scholars, who quote other Muslim scholars, who say that there is a scholarly 'consensus' to wage war against disbelievers. Even the article Berrin was keen on posting pointed this fact out, when the author admitted that the majority of early Muslim scholars viewed that Jihad was a perpetual obligation for the Ummah to wage - the minority seemed to view Jihad as commendable, but not necessarily an obligation.

Perhaps a Muslim will highlight the minority view, for whatever reason, and spin this view into something that it is not - it is not a denunciation to wage war. It is not a condemnation against offensive warfare. The minority position seemed to tread on caution, not on pacifism.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 05, 2010
Interesting, thanks for that viewpoint.
RobbyG
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
Posts: 5927
Location: ---

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 06, 2010
How thrustworthy are these scholars and their interpretations of the Jihad as written in the Quran?

Through an examination of the Koran, other Islamic texts and the example of the prophet Muhammad, this documentary argues, through a sober and methodical presentation, that violence against non-Muslims is and has always been an integral aspect of Islam. Features interviews with noted experts on Islam including Robert Spencer, Serge Trifkovic, Bar Ye'or, Abdullah Al-Araby, and former terrorist Walid Shoebat.


Any thoughts on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQS_Wy8M ... ature=fvwp

I am trying to determine whether Geert Wilders has a point (or not) in that the Quran can be seen as a ideological threat to other religions and non-believers, if and when an Islamic country/union would ever obtain economic power once again, like the Ottoman or the Persian empire.
There are so many views from scholars out there on the worldwide net, so I'm in the dark when it comes to translations and correct interpretations of that holy book.

I noticed that Walid Shoebat was missing from the above video, so I found this with Fox News. I was amazed by these two former terrorist confessions about Jihad even though its an interview with Fox news...
RobbyG
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
Posts: 5927
Location: ---

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 06, 2010
Thanks rob, I'll take a look.

The wikipedia article on Jihad has a lengthy, but very informative section on Jihad in the Koran and sayings of Muhammad and his followers.

Some highlights:

The beginnings of Jihad are traced back to the words and actions of Muhammad and the Qu’ran.[29] This word of Allah explicitly encourages the use of Jihad against non-Muslims.[30] Sura 25, verse 52 states: “Therefore, do not obey the disbelievers, and strive against them with this, a great striving.”[31] It was, therefore, the duty of all Muslims to strive against those who did not believe in Allah and took offensive action against Muslims.


It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war..."[34]


Which takes as its basis the quranic verse 9:29

“ Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued..


Not equal are those of the believers who sit [at home] without any [genuine] excuse and those who strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has given preference by a degree to those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit [at home]. [In reality], for each, Allah has made a good promise and [in reality] Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight above those who sit [at home] by a huge reward. Degrees of [higher] grades from Him and forgiveness and mercy. And Allah is Ever Forgiving, Most Merciful.
—Qur'an , [Qur'an 4:95]


O you who believe! when you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, then turn not your backs to them. And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day-- unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company-- then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah's wrath, and his abode is hell; and an evil destination shall it be.
—Qur'an , [Qur'an 8:15]


I also found that a chapter of David Cook's book is available online:

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10213/10213.ch01.php
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

  • Reply
Re: Fatwa against Terrorism Mar 06, 2010
RobbyG wrote:How thrustworthy are these scholars and their interpretations of the Jihad as written in the Quran?

Through an examination of the Koran, other Islamic texts and the example of the prophet Muhammad, this documentary argues, through a sober and methodical presentation, that violence against non-Muslims is and has always been an integral aspect of Islam. Features interviews with noted experts on Islam including Robert Spencer, Serge Trifkovic, Bar Ye'or, Abdullah Al-Araby, and former terrorist Walid Shoebat.


Any thoughts on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQS_Wy8M ... ature=fvwp

I am trying to determine whether Geert Wilders has a point (or not) in that the Quran can be seen as a ideological threat to other religions and non-believers, if and when an Islamic country/union would ever obtain economic power once again, like the Ottoman or the Persian empire.
There are so many views from scholars out there on the worldwide net, so I'm in the dark when it comes to translations and correct interpretations of that holy book.

I noticed that Walid Shoebat was missing from the above video, so I found this with Fox News. I was amazed by these two former terrorist confessions about Jihad even though its an interview with Fox news...


Well, if it's on Fox news, then it must not be trusted. Everyone knows that the BBC is the most trusted name in news.
event horizon
UAE, Dubai Forums Lord of the posts
User avatar
Posts: 5503

posting in Dubai Politics TalkForum Rules

Return to Dubai Politics Talk


cron