This question is for the “good” Muslims out there-(who I hope are 99 % of the religion):
When Salmon Rushdie wrote a blasphemous book about your religion, a “fatwa” legal decree was issued by the highest level leaders of your religion, ordering the death penalty, for “Defaming Islam”. So why has no fatwa been issued against Bin Laden, for defaming Islam?
I know that there are big differences between Suni and Shiite Islam, and not all Muslims accept the same individuals as the final authority for interepreting Sharia law and issuing fatwas. But if, as moral human beings, and believing Muslims,you claim that you don’t follow Bin Laden’s form of Islam, shouldnt you at least publicly disassociate yourselves from him?
For example:When Catholics were outraged by the sexual perversity of some of their priests,they demanded that the Pope himself intervene.
All Americans are still waiting for you to do the same…
You’re painting a pretty broad brush there, chappachula. For one thing, the fatwas wasn’t issued “by the highest level leaders” of Islam. It was issued by one person, who led one sect of Islam, said faction not always recognized as Islamic by other sects.
BTW, have you publicly distanced yourself from Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Bob Jones, the IRA? Need I go on?
Has even one sect leader issued a fatwa against bin Laden? The issue of whether one sect or another recognizes a fatwah is moot if none of them have issued any such decree.
Reply to Monty:
You say:
“BTW, have you publicly distanced yourself from Oral Roberts, Pat
Robertson, Bob Jones, the IRA? Need I go on?”
But that is exactly my point–yes, I (and most other Americans)have publicly distanced myself from the fantatics you mention–I accept the US Supreme Court on separation of church and state. I accept the US Supreme court’s ruling that terrorists should be punished severely, not glorified.(Timothy McVee, the Unabomber, abortion-clinic bombers, etc).Every society has its fanatics–and sometimes those fanatics do serious damage(The Ku Klux Klan controlled local governments for years). But the test of a society’s ethics come from its highest echelon leaders.Our Supreme court is is our highest authority–and it allows NO tolerance for fanatics . But the Muslim societies of the world who glorify terrorism have failed to meet the basic standard of ethics–i.e. not blowing up innocent people.
Mostly the fatwas issued don’t target ObL for death, but merely condemns the terrorist attacks, as with this one: *“The terrorist acts…considered by Islamic law…[constitute] the crime of ‘hirabah’ (waging war against society),” read a fatwa, or Islamic legal opinion, issued by six Islamic scholars in the Middle East and North America on September 27.
The scholars were Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Grand Islamic Scholar and Chairman of the Sunna and Sira Council, Qatar), Judge Tariq al-Bishri (First Deputy President of the Council d’etat, Egypt), Dr. Muhammad S. al-Awa (Professor of Comparative Law and Shari’a, Egypt), Dr. Haytham al-Khayyat (Islamic Scholar, Syria), Fahmi Houaydi (Islamic Scholar, Egypt), and Sheikh Taha Jabir al-Alawani (Chairman, North America High Council).*
From here: http://www.usa.or.th/news/press/2001/nrot103.htm
The problem, as with all fatwas, is that there is no universality to them ( even there it is always claimed that there is by the folks issuing them ) and damn near anyone who claims any “clerical” standing can issue one. Doesn’t mean it is “valid” ( itself a rather nebulous concept ). But it happens all the time, sometimes not even by the folks that have even the minimal authority required to do so, as with that Nigerian official recently or bin Laden himself.
The higher levels of Iranian Imami Shi’ism, not Islam per se. As you correctly pointed out, nobody really speaks for Islam.
At any rate, I think a lot of the hesitation to target ObL specifically springs from two issues:
More moderate and respinsible clerics tend to be a lot more cautious about ordering “murder fatwas”. To do so, would be to put themselves on the same level as ObL. Because though ObL is indisuptedly guilty as far as I’m concerned, he has carefully set up just enough bullshit plausible deniability that moderates would be far more inclined to bring him to trial, rather than just condemn him to death outright. And…
More troubling and feeding in part into number one, there is a pervasive paranoia in much of the ME in particular that makes simply targetting ObL problematic - i.e., authorities, religious and otherwise, have invested so much in opposing so-called U.S. imperialism and doubting whatever comes out of the west, that condeming ObL without a trial of some sort would likely be seen as “caving in” and could have all sorts of repercussions.
Frankly if you have to be anti-West, I’d far rather see fatwas like this one:
*“In the expatriate countries, particularly the Western countries, (Muslim) scholars and intellectuals there must launch an educational campaign to enlighten the people _ with wisdom and good advice _ about the cultural Islamic lines that are based on compassion, love, civilization, rationality, openness on scientific discoveries and dialogue with other cultures and tides,” Fadlallah said in his fatwa.
He urged Muslim cultural and intellectual organizations to encourage dialogue between Islam and other religions and to try to explain “Islam’s genuine image which the (intelligence) agencies of some states are trying to distort.”
"…Muslim movements must study how to avoid any means of mad violence, which is not justified religiously, in confronting the aggression,”*
From here ( worth reading the whole article, it’s short ) : http://www.lebanonwire.com/0210/02102811DS.asp
Rabidly anti-American cleric. But that’s a brand of anti-Americanism ( the one articulated above, not necessarily everything having to do with this guy, who has deep ties to Hizbullah ) I can live with.
Hmmm…Let’s see… Here : *an edict calling for bin Laden’s death had been issued by Takfiris, a breakaway faction of Islamic Jihad with cells in Britain, Africa and the Middle East. *
Or here : : *Maulana Dehelvi, president of Anjuman Nihaj-e-Rasool, a socio-political organisation which has been fighting Islamic fundamentalism in Jammu and Kashmir, has said he would issue a ‘fatwa’ (decree) against bin Laden if he does not give up his declared ‘jehad’ against India. *
And according to this page : *Yes. A lot have. Many have. See, it hasn’t gotten much publicity, unfortunately. But I think there was one fatwa signed by 45 of the leading, most respected religious scholars against bin Laden, not only criticizing what he said, but pointing out that he does not have the qualifications to issue fatwas *
More importantly, if I remember correctly, the grand mufti of Cairo, who’s a leading authority in the muslim world, has clearly condemned the terrorist acts, though I don’t think he issued a fatwa.
You quote:
“Here : an edict calling for bin Laden’s death had been issued by Takfiris,”
I read the link–and the only reason they issued a fatwa against Bin Laden is because he “is diverting resources away from other jihad groups”.
In other words, this fatwa FULLY SUPPORTS TERRORISM, and yet you try to use it to show that it condemns Bin Laden!!
I am sure that there are many “theoretical” statements out there signed by respectable , “ivory tower” professors of Arabic literature that condemn Bin Laden–but my question still stands as a PRACTICAL issue: are there actual, practicing clerical leaders with millions of followers (who actively carry out that leader’s decrees) who have declared Bin Laden to be evil?
Whoever issued the fatwa against Salmon Rushdie had enough practical political power to force Rushdie into hiding. Is there any Islamic leader today who has practical political power over his followers, who can convince me and all Americans that Islam really believes in peace?
For centuries, the Catholic church believed the Crusades, the Inquisition and torture of non-believers was legitimate. But not today! Is there any Muslim leader who will publicly declare that jihad is as outdated as the Inquisition?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by chappachula *
**Clairobscur–You’ve got to be kidding!
How did I try to use it to show that it condemns Bin Laden for being a terrorist? I was only responding to Doghouse Reilly who was insinuating that nobody ever issued a fatwa against Bin Laden.
And the second one was issued by an organization which oppose fundementalists. Strangely enough, you reacted to the first one, but apparently ignored the other.
Actually, I just googled “fatwa against Bin Laden”, as Doghouse or yourself could have easily done. But both of you seem to be more driven by prejudices than interested in informing yourselves. I’m not interested in making a time-consuming research for links. You can easily do it, if you’re really interested in an actual answer to your OP.
I knew there has been many fatwas against Bin Laden, and many condemnations of the terrorist attacks by proeminent muslim clerics and scholars. Because I read several times references to such fatwas/condemnations in…you know, the medias. It’s no secret, and easy to notice (except if you don’t want to notice, of course). Concerning the fatwas, of course, they can be issued for reasons you don’t like. And actually, fatwas calling for the death of Bin Laden would very likely be issued by people you probably wouldn’t want to be associated with. Because they would likely t be quite extremist themselves…
Where did I refer to “professors of arabic litterature”? I mentionned the grand mufti of Cairo. He’s not exactly your average muslim shmoe. What more do you want?
As for clerical leaders with millions of followers actively carrying out the leader’s decree, you’re searching for a pope, apparently. There’s no such thing in Islam.
Sure he had. He was a head of state.
Anyway, even if some fringe group issued a fatwa against me, I would consider that as a serious threat. You don’t necessarily need a lot of political power to force someone into hiding.
So, you want someone who is a religious authority and a political leader. Ok…the king of Morocco is also “commander of the faithful”. He did condemn the attacks. Does it satisfy you? I would bet it won’t.
yes, I could do a google search for fatwas–but my real question is one that can’t be answered by reading legal texts. It’s a question that needs to be answered by someone from the “inside”, of Muslim culture. (For example, reading legal texts of Soviet law in 1960 would make an “outsider” think Communism was a great system, guarranteeing prosperity and equality for all. Only an “insider” who actually lives in that system would know how repressive it was.)
I know that there is no pope in Islam–but there are lots of Muslim countries with powerful clerical leaders, and no first ammendment rights. Those leaders could clamp down on the fanatics, just like they clamp down on western human rights groups. Egypt’s political leader (= dictator),i.e.president-for-life Mubarak, knows that the Islamic fundamentalists challenge his power, so he is pretty quick to jail them. That is par for the course for a third world dictator. He persecutes for political reasons. Apparently,the religious leaders, including the mufti of Cairo, dont receive enough respect within their society to declare the fanatics to be infidels, and SWAY THE MAJORITY of their supporters.Any religious leader can issue a statement promising no violence, just like politicians promise to end poverty. But the value of a leader’s proclamation comes from his abilitiy to lead people into acting according to the proclamation.
My question is one , not of politics, but of morality, for those Muslims who want to avoid the coming war of civilizations.And I need an “insider’s” point of view.If I could go to any mosque in the world for the end of Ramadan prayers, would I be able to hear the imam giving a sermon in Arabic, to Arabic-speaking believers, (not bland English translations designed for public consumption) urging believers to give up violent jihad? And if I was lucky enough to hear such a liberal imam, would he be the only one in town? Would he be able to honestly convince to me that the vast majority of believing Muslims do NOT want to see another September 11?
Then, I’m not qualified to answer. I would add that most probably, different muslim people, living in different places, following different brands of Islam, and having different worldview would give very different answers.
It’s not the same thing at all, precisely because there’s no central authority in Islam. The “law” is the Koran and the Haddiths. How to interpret it is left to the scholars/clerics/judges. And each of them can interpret it in different ways. And there’s not even any authority who can tell who is allowed to interpret the Koran and who isn’t.
So, esssentially anybody can claim to have the authority to issue fatwas (though some people’s claim stand on a way more solid ground than others…say the grand mufti of Cairo in my previous post as opposed to a self-proclaimed scholar who spent a couple of years in some unheard of Koranic school), and he can say anything he pleases in said fatwa. Actually, I suspect that less valid one’s claim are, the more likely he is to issue fatwas of “political” nature, and the more outrageous they are likely to be (that would include a fatwa condemning Bin Laden to death as opposed, for instance, to a public call for his trial or a public condemnation of his actions).
As for how authoritative these fatwas are, it’s up to the believer, of course depending on the actual moral authority the cleric has, on how widely he’s recognized as an authorized interpreter, on the legal and political situation in the country where the believer is living, on the sect he belongs to, and finally on his personnal opinion. But a hundred of crackpots recognizing the authority of a self proclaimed “authority” is enough for a “fatwa” to have dreadful consequences.
For all these reasons, I would personnally not pay much attention to the fatwas, when they’re clearly of a political nature and/or issued by people with a big axe to grind. I would pay more attention to what the mainstream clerics/believers state publically than to these supposedly “legally binding” decrees. IOW, I think the question asked in your OP isn’t very relevant.
Not really. There are lots of muslim countries with influential religious leaders, and there are lots of muslim countries with political leaders very involved (quite often out of nesessity) in religious issues. But these persons aren’t the same ones. For instance, the Saudi crown prince certainly mess up a lot with religious issues, but he’s not a religious authority. The only counter-example I can think of is the Ayatollah Khamenei in Iran. Possibly also the Sudanese leaders, but I’ve no clue about their qualifications from a religious point of view.
You’re mistaken. Yes, Mubarak definitely clamp down on fundamentalists and extremists. But he also needs the support of the mainstream influential clerics, and he compromises a lot with them. They have an actual moral, and even legal, authority in Egyptia. The government and the clerics quite often walk hand in hand. And the latter did declare the fanatics to be mistaken. As for the extent egyptian muslims respect them and take into consideration their statements, I wouldn’t know.
I agree.
Unfortunately, there are extremely few muslim people posting on this board. And when there are, they’re likely to live in a western country. So, IMO, you won’t find much in the way of “insider’s point of view” here, especially not from people living in muslim countries. I’m affraid you’ll have to rely on the medias, books, etc…or alternatively buy a plane ticket for the middle-east. There are message boards in english which cater for muslims people out there, though. You could want to try these.
Assuming that the imam was interested on this day in preaching about this issue (it’s not like it’s the only issue clerics are concerned with and preaching about), you would probably be able to hear anything ranging from not really disguised condoning to outright condemnation. Actually you could probably hear both even in western countries, if you searched hard enough. But if you want to know what %age of clerics would condemn extremism and what %age would condone it, I doubt you’ll be able to find an accurate answer.
Also, since people are rarely involved in a violent jihad, there’s usually no need to urge them to give it up. I doubt protestant preachers often urge their parishionners to give up bombing abortion clinics. Your average muslim cleric is certainly much more involved in various ordinary, local, everyday life issues than in making statements about Bin Laden. I strongly doubt there are many people asking them : “Do you think I should crash a plane in some building?”
I guess you’re the only one able to convince yourself. Even if you met such a cleric, you would probably still think : but what do the majority of other muslims actually think in such and such country? The only way to go if you’re really interested in knowing is probably to read a lot of things on this issue, to meet muslim people and ask them about their coreligionaries and about their country of origin, etc… and then make an educated guess.
This question is akin to asking someone to prove a negative. Essentially you’re asking why the peaceful, non-violent Muslims have not issued a Fatwa calling for war against, or the death of Osama bin Laden. It’s easy for a violent, extremist faction to issue a fatwa against the US and its culture, but to expect peaceful Muslims who regard all life as sacred to issue similar fatwas against even an extremist is a bit unreasonable. A good number of moderate Islamic groups HAVE issued fatwas denouncing bin Laden’s actions and countering the fatwa he is trying to use to justify his activities. To expect them to stoop to his level and issue fatwas calling for his death or the death of his supporters is a bit unrealistic. These are not extreme people, they’re not militant and the structure of Islam doesn’t allow for “clamping down”. They HAVE taken action which clearly denounces these actions and those responsible, but if they did more, as you seem to want, they would be in violation of the interpretation of Islam they hold(Islam as a religion of peace) and it would be unreasonable to expect them to do so.