Claim that Islamic leaders don't speak out against Islamic radicals - True or False?

I’ve seen the claim asserted that Muslim leaders, as a rule, do not speak out forcefully against religious radicals of their own faith who advocate using violence (and do) to achieve their ends.

Obviously a claim like this has to be tested against the actions and behavior of other religious leaders if members of their faith use violence. Does this claim that’s it’s crickets in the Mosque in response to Islamic terrorist acts have any legs? Are Muslim leaders less likely to speak out against the more radical elements of their faith than other religious leaders relative to their own more radical or violent elements?

Well Islam has no clergy, so no its not.

If that reply were any more obtuse, it’d have to be a straight line.
There are still leaders within Islam. It’s not as top down as the Catholic Church and the hierarchy can be fluid, depending on the particular segment, but there are still leaders.

That is idiotic in the extreme. Who exactly is an “Islamic leader”? Does Nawaz Sharif for instance have any political, religious or moral authority to speak for Morrocans? Sisi for Uzbeks? King Abdullah for Indonesians? HRH Agha Khan for non Ismailis and non Pakistanis?

“Islamic leaders” or “leaders in Islam” presupposes that you have individuals who are followed world over or by a majority or even a large plurality.Which is not the case.

Certainly some speak out against it; they’re ignored of course since that doesn’t fit the evil-Islamic-horde narrative. That said I’ve no idea if “Muslim leaders” are less likely to speak out than those of other religions; I’ve certainly never heard of even an attempt to do a study on the matter, if such a thing is possible.

Absolutely false.

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That last piece is particularly useful.

I should have been more clear but I was actually referring more to local or community Muslim leaders not global leaders.

You’re wrong in so many ways

there are leaders in the Islamic world who are respected

Individual mosques do have leaders

“Sermons” at mosques can be co-ordinated (in some places)

Some countries do have govt depts / authorities that oversee Muslem affairs

It would be good if you understood what you are commenting on before you opened your mouth

He understands what he’s commenting on, he’s a Pakistani Muslim. He just wants to pretend that there is no such thing as Islamic leaders. He goes weird when Islam gets brought up. Or when women wear pants: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=518297

Since the Charlie Hebdo shootings I have heard many Muslim clerics on TV denouncing such violence. Anyone who thinks mainstream Muslims (including clerics) don’t denounce violence either isn’t paying attention or doesn’t want to believe the facts.

Please name one Islamic leader I am pretending to to ignore. One “Islamic” leader who commands a following in a plurality (never mind totality, or majority) of the muslim world and is listened to, followed, respected etc etc.

As for your personal potshots, well I am weird, period not just about Islamic issues and as for pantsuits, they are an abomination unto God and should be all be collected and launched into the sun. If only I could convince my sister to stop wearing them, but she has not listened to me since she was born and has apparently missed the memo about being oppressed and bashful

Local or community Muslim leaders aren’t particularly likely to make the news, and I don’t really see why it’s relevant to limit it to them. I’m pretty sure that they’re out there, I just don’t know how to look for them.

What a silly position to take. I identify as a non-denominational Christian. As such, by your definition of “leader” there is no recognized leader of non-denominational Christianity. Our church is completely self supporting, no outside authority tells our staff what to do. But to say that because there is no one who leads “a plurality” of non-denominational Christians means there are no well known and/or influential Christians (of any denomination) who would/could speak out against an attempted anihilation of non-Christians is just wrong. The same holds true in the world of Islam.

That said, it is my perception that the “lunatic fringe” of any group gets far more media coverage than the centrist majority.

The following is just my observations, could be wrong but I’m not a fan of religion generally:

In the mosques they’re more concerned with talking about how badly muslims are “persecuted” than with criticising other muslims (which is a big no no anyway).

Eg whilst they may make the right noises, if pushed, about 12 people getting shot in France, they care more about muslims getting bombed in Iraq/Syria

Islam has something of a victim complex and they will find anything to blame except Islam itself (which is from God and is perfect):

  • if their economies are poor then it’s because they are exploited by the west

  • if there are despotic regimes in the middle east then it’s because they are propped up by America

  • there’s the Palestinians of course

  • if women are oppressed in muslim countries then it’s because those countries are not Islamic enough

Whilst most muslims may not want to live under Islamic State jurisdiction themselves they still see them as fellow muslims fighting against the Shia govt in Syria and the Shia majority in Iraq. And at least Islamic State are religious and good muslims.

Msulims don’t mind a bit of violence and death by the sword as long as it’s not them doing the dying

As I say, just personal observations

I am not in any way qualified to comment on the religious aspects of the thread, but I have to side with AK84 on the pantsuits thing. I mean, even the name sounds extra redundant. What makes a suit if it doesn’t have any pants? :slight_smile:

Condemnations of terrorists groups from mainstream Islamic organizations and leaders (in the local sense, though some figures have a degree of transnational influence like al-Qaradawi or Zakir Naik aka Dr. Parrot) as well as governments in Muslim-majority countries and their paid clergy, etc. are plentiful and forceful. And why wouldn’t these people condemn terrorism? Al-Qaeda and ISIS hate these groups and leaders and actively fight against them; it’s not like terrorists are allies of mainstream Muslim leaders, they are competing for power in their communities.

However, mainstream condemnations of terrorism in Western forums are often complicated by various factors: worry that they will be judged by the same brush; a concern to keep focus on their primary political issues; antipathy and a lack of sympathy for the victims; etc. This wishy-washiness is taken advantage of by outside critics. But it’s really a political dance at heart, since it portrays terrorism as the only incidence of violence emerging from Islamic communities and determines the goodness of Muslim groups and leaders based on whether they vociferously condemn terrorism to the satisfaction of Western observers, when in fact terrorism of the type seen in Paris is a relatively minor problem for most Muslim communities and is dwarfed by the structural violence perpetuated by those mainstream organizations, leaders, and governments.

Now that ^ makes perfect sense.

In all fairness, his complaint seems to be against pantsuits. Which I think is something that is largely considered an ugly fashion in most cultures.:wink:

Zakir Naik is a major muslim leader? Errrr…fair cop actually.:(. He is against extremism and quite vocal about it. One of his few redeeming features.

Also, most political leaders world over are abject cowards and they don’t take major positions on anything if they can help it. More to the point, to put it bluntly, people (of all stripes) don’t really care that much about what happens to foreigners half a world away.