Fatwa on terror, what the hell.

[Fragony]

A leading muslim (soefi, have never been violent) cleric has put a Fatwa on terrorism to prevent radicalization among young british muslims, and presented it to the ministry of foreign affairs in the UK. I do not question his good intentions, but this is getting dangerously close to some serious overlapping of religion and state affairs. In the west we have the laws of society, it should be taken for granted. British authority is simply outsourcing it's authority when you think of it, why do they need a fatwa on terrorism.

[Hax]

First off:

1) Fatwa against terror. A fatwa is a binding Islamic jurisdictional advice. The man you are refering to is known as Muhammed Tahir-ul-Qadri and is a Pakistani scholar; it's not the first time he's done this, though, he spoke out against Osama bin Laden right after the events of 9/11.
2) I don't see the problem with presenting it to the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It's a pretty weird choice to give it to the Foreign Affairs ministry and not the Internal Affairs ministry, seeing that what they could do is distribute the fatwa among mosques in Britain and urge imams to listen to this.
3) Then again, what if the Archbishop of Canterbury presented the House of Commons or Parliament with a statement concerning, for example, hooliganism; would you condemn this as well?

If you are to mention the fatwa, you should probably detail what exactly a fatwa means in religious terms. I don't think that ul-Qadri's intention was to ask the British MoFA to make this part of a new law; that would be fairly unrealistic and then he would have sent his fatwa to the wrong people.

This is what the fatwa stated:

Muslim leader issues anti-terror fatwa

Suicide bombers heading to hell, al-Qaeda evil, Pakistani-born scholar says

News agencies

The leader of a global Muslim movement has issued a fatwa, or religious edict, that he calls an absolute condemnation of terrorism.

Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, a former Pakistani lawmaker, says the 600-page fatwa bans suicide bombing "without any excuses, any pretexts, or exceptions."

"They can't claim that their suicide bombings are martyrdom operations and that they become the heroes of the Muslim nation," Qadri told a press conference in London. "“No, they become heroes of hellfire, and they are heading towards hellfire. ”

Qadri also slammed Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, referring to it as an "old evil with a new name" and saying it has not be challenged adequately thus far.

"There is no place for any martyrdom and their act is never, ever to be considered jihad," he said.
Tahir-ul-Qadri has issued similar, shorter decrees, but Tuesday's event in London was publicized by the Quilliam Foundation, a government-funded anti-extremism think tank and drew strong media attention.

The religious scholar is the founder of Minhaj-ul-Quran, a worldwide movement that promotes a nonpolitical, tolerant Islam. The group has hundreds of thousands of followers around the world, most of them in Pakistan or Pakistanis living in other countries.

Associated Press, AFP and Reuters contributed to the report

[Fragony]

I don't care what the Fatma states, that's the point.

[Hax]

I don't care what the Fatma states, that's the point.

No, but then again, you don't think Muslims can do anything right, isn't it?

[Fragony]

No, but then again, you don't think Muslims can do anything right, isn't it?

But one just did, he condemned terrorism. No, this overlapping of state and religion worries me, why does the ministry of foreign affair accept something that condemns something that is illegal by it's own laws.

[The Wizard]

I'd worry a lot more about the overlapping of religious and state affairs in the House of Lords, with its Lords Spiritual, than I would about a single sufi scholar offering a piece of paper to a ministry.

[Subotan]

But one just did, he condemned terrorism. No, this overlapping of state and religion worries me, why does the ministry of foreign affair accept something that condemns something that is illegal by it's own laws.

Um. Why does something being illegal automatically prevent discussion or government action about the crime in question?

I'd worry a lot more about the overlapping of religious and state affairs in the House of Lords, with its Lords Spiritual, than I would about a single sufi scholar offering a piece of paper to a ministry.

Along with the Head of State being Head of the CoE etc.

[Fragony]

Um. Why does something being illegal automatically prevent discussion or government action about the crime in question?

What is there to discuss here

edit: not to say that this isn't deeply appreciated, don't get me wrong.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Frag':

Britain, despite being a secularized state in practice, is technically a theocratized constitutional monarchy with the monarch as both head of state and head of religion (in practice, both roles are titular-only today). Thus, a specifically religious message/connection to government does not contravene British law.

Moreover, the chap in question issued the fatwa at his own discretion. It might have had a far different, and far less appropriate, connotation had he done so at the direct request of, or at the direction of, the British government.

[Beskar]

Unfortunately, it is not like Fragony is going to attempt to understand, he just wanted to rag against Muslims and call everything a conspiracy of the left when you tell him off for essentially hate anything arab-looking.

In the other thread, he compared telling him off for discrimination as wanting to call the 2nd holocaust against the jews and institute Shia-law.

[Centurion1]

Unfortunately, it is not like Fragony is going to attempt to understand, he just wanted to rag against Muslims and call everything a conspiracy of the left when you tell him off for essentially hate anything arab-looking.

In the other thread, he compared telling him off for discrimination as wanting to call the 2nd holocaust against the jews and institute Shia-law.

Honestly I believe, because Frag is speaking about Muslims as he so often does, we assume it is to rage against them racially, ethnically, whatever the hell he does.

What i believe he is doing actually is creating a new topic on Secularism in Europe and using this story as a catalyst to start discussion.

[HoreTore]

Child abuse is illegal as hell.

I still want the Pope to state that child abuse gives you a one-way ticket to hell(or something along those lines).

[Beskar]

Honestly I believe, because Frag is speaking about Muslims as he so often does, we assume it is to rage against them racially, ethnically, whatever the hell he does.

What i believe he is doing actually is creating a new topic on Secularism in Europe and using this story as a catalyst to start discussion.

Nah, his personal anecdotes about his hiring practises, his little riot-fun, etc, that Tribesman kept bringing up shows it isn't because he wants to do a topic on secularism.

[Centurion1]

Nah, his personal anecdotes about his hiring practises, his little riot-fun, etc, that Tribesman kept bringing up shows it isn't because he wants to do a topic on secularism.

What about tribes, i'm sorry i don't understand what you just stated.

[Centurion1]

Child abuse is illegal as hell.

I still want the Pope to state that child abuse gives you a one-way ticket to hell(or something along those lines).

Logical argument. Some matters even if stated by a religious person are still secular. Like terrorism is bad.

[CrossLOPER]

Nah, his personal anecdotes about his hiring practises...

Yeah lol.

[Brenus]

Finally one is doing it. Finally one of the Hight Cleric is doing what the Muslic High Clerics, the thinkers of the Islamic Religion should have done.

If you kill innocent you go to hell.
He has the courage to say to all the potential killers they are killers. There is no mistake, no “I wouldn’t do it but they got a point”.
They, if they use the name of Islam and are true believers, will go to hell and won’t have the virgins (or the grapes, depending on the translation)

[Fragony]

Finally one is doing it. Finally one of the Hight Cleric is doing what the Muslic High Clerics, the thinkers of the Islamic Religion should have done.

Sure, all the praise in the world, but no praise for the praise, and certainly no praise for the English government who gladly accepts (asked for?) it. This man is a soefi by the way, soefi's have always been peaceful. His religious authority is marginal, as is the British authority it seems.

Nah, his personal anecdotes about his hiring practises, his little riot-fun, etc, that Tribesman kept bringing up shows it isn't because he wants to do a topic on secularism.

That is a single post I made after Van Gogh was murdered, I was angry and wasn't thinking clearly, as I explained, I have taken my hands of it soooo many times. You weren't there at the time, Tribes never posted links but he must have known the PM-button. Don't make me angry, it isn't a very smart thing to do.

What about tribes, i'm sorry i don't understand what you just stated.

Stupid post I made 6 years ago when I was very very angry, been his doomsday-device-argument until his departure. I guess he also kept a network of cheerleaders of the radar, Beskar being one of them, spreading your poison over PM how cowardly.

[Beskar]

That is a single post I made after Van Gogh was murdered, I was angry and wasn't thinking clearly, as I explained, I have taken my hands of it soooo many times. You weren't there at the time, Tribes never posted links but he must have known the PM-button. Don't make me angry, it isn't a very smart thing to do.

It wasn't a single post, I mentioned multiple things. I remember you saying during the first time I went into the backroom, about how you throw-away and bin any job applications of anyone having a vaguely arabic looking name. So if a dutch guy was simply named Imar or another arabic sounding name with no links to Islam, you said you would bin it as "better safe than sorry". Then in the other thread yesterday.. well.. let's say even CA was surprised at the depths you went.

It seems everytime the Muslims or Islam or 'Arab' comes up, you put on an armband and foam at the mouth.

[Fragony]

It wasn't a single post, I mentioned multiple things. I remember you saying during the first time I went into the backroom, about how you throw-away and bin any job applications of anyone having a vaguely arabic looking name. So if a dutch guy was simply named Imar or another arabic sounding name with no links to Islam, you said you would bin it as "better safe than sorry". Then in the other thread yesterday.. well.. let's say even CA was surprised at the depths you went.

It seems everytime the Muslims or Islam or 'Arab' comes up, you put on an armband and foam at the mouth.

Yeah if I have the choice between a Polish and an Arab I go for the Polish, unlike you I am talking from experience, and unlike you I had customers who want you to get the job done. Polish work their asses off, and Arabs don't like manual labor they see it as humiliating, not my fault. And I know Tribes signaled you in, some of the things you bring up are before your time here. I have changed a lot over the years, yeah I have been pretty far on the right but I said adieu to it years ago. It won't get me on the barricades for the marxist cause any soon, but stop treating me unfairly. CA has arguments of his own he isn't Tribes parrot and has always treated me with respect even if I might amaze him, you don't show me that courtesy.Yes the left is facilitation the radical islam, it's an unholy alliance of the enemies of the west, multiculturalism is destruction, it's sabotage, yes I believe that. So shoot me, that's what your kind does after all, democracy as long as you agree. You know nothing of me, you don't know what my life looks like, who I interact with, just another bored rich kid who thinks he knows what he's talking about. Ich es&Uberfail.

[KukriKhan]

Gentlemen: the topic proposed by the opening post is the principle of the separation of church and state, and its observance in the UK.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I don't understand the beef. Here we have a Muslim Cleric giving a religious opinion concerning Islamic law to provide guidance to the faithful. He's standing up to the militant/radical intepretation that claims terror/suicide and killing innocents is acceptable. I would think we'd applaud the man. Isn't this what we want? We need more moderate Muslims to publicly and vociferously reject those that commit acts of terror and slaughter on innocent people in the name of Islam or any other religion.

It's the only way to marginalize the militants and it has to come from within the Muslim community.

[Fixiwee]

Unfortunately, it is not like Fragony is going to attempt to understand, he just wanted to rag against Muslims and call everything a conspiracy of the left when you tell him off for essentially hate anything arab-looking.

In the other thread, he compared telling him off for discrimination as wanting to call the 2nd holocaust against the jews and institute Shia-law.

I could not help but to smile at this post.

[Fragony]

I don't understand the beef. Here we have a Muslim Cleric giving a religious opinion concerning Islamic law to provide guidance to the faithful.

Presenting it to the government, why does the British government need the backing of muslim clerics for what should be obvious to everyone. There is only one law active in the west and that is democratic law, if you need a muslim cleric to tell some that to some then some must be in the wrong place.

[Furunculus]

Finally one is doing it. Finally one of the Hight Cleric is doing what the Muslic High Clerics, the thinkers of the Islamic Religion should have done.

If you kill innocent you go to hell.
He has the courage to say to all the potential killers they are killers. There is no mistake, no “I wouldn’t do it but they got a point”.
They, if they use the name of Islam and are true believers, will go to hell and won’t have the virgins (or the grapes, depending on the translation)

i with Brenus here, a good move, and about time!

[bobbin]

Presenting it to the government, why does the British government need the backing of muslim clerics for what should be obvious to everyone. There is only one law active in the west and that is democratic law, if you need a muslim cleric to tell some that to some then some must be in the wrong place.

Its no different than to what church leaders did in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, this man should be applauded for what he's done. In presenting it to the government all he's doing is saying "we're against these people too".

Also how else do you expect to combat religious extremism other than with religion?

[Fragony]

Its no different than to what church leaders did in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, this man should be applauded for what he's done. In presenting it to the government all he's doing is saying "we're against these people too".

Also how else do you expect to combat religious extremism other than with religion?

Public statement fine why accept it as a government, now the public statement is that the British government isn't in control. Nothing but praise for this man but no praise for the praise. You can't rule the muslims through the Islam and that's what they are trying to do. English law is well enough equipped to deal with radicalism, this outsourcing of law, because that's what it is, doesn't need to exist.

Also how else do you expect to combat religious extremism other than with religion?

If they have gotten astray that far, gun -> neck

Otherwise nothing they are free to believe what they want.

[Louis VI the Fat]

We've all been clamouring for moderate Islam to speak out. Which this Fatwa does. So far, so good. This man is trying to make the peace, is striving towards a peaceful world. Bless him and all that.


The Fragony / Wilders point is, and that's the challenge raised here, that:

It is not religion that decides whether it is okay to kill people on their way to work. The law decides, and nobody else. It is not a fatwa that decides it isn't allowed, no more than a fatwa could allow it.

To accept otherwise, would mean an acceptance that theological Islamic dispute decides over your life and death. To embrace this fatwa is to make oneself subservient to Islam, to thank an Islamic scholar for what should be self explanatory in the first place: that you are entitled not to be killed. It relegates your entitlement to life to the hands of Islamic theology.
And in the end, you'll wake up on your knees every morning and thank Allah.

[Subotan]

It's very nice to think that, but whole point of Islamist terrorism is that it stands against secular law in an attempt to implement a code of law based on Islamic theology. Saying "That goes against our principles" is pointless, because Islamists refuse to fight on our terms, hence, terrorism. Statements such as the above theologian made are important because they show that the Islam which Islamists claim to be fighting for is in fact totally compatible with Western society. It's akin to fighting fire with fire, or in this case, fatwa with fatwa.

[Hosakawa Tito]

We've all been clamouring for moderate Islam to speak out. Which this Fatwa does. So far, so good. This man is trying to make the peace, is striving towards a peaceful world. Bless him and all that.


The Fragony / Wilders point is, and that's the challenge raised here, that:

It is not religion that decides whether it is okay to kill people on their way to work. The law decides, and nobody else. It is not a fatwa that decides it isn't allowed, no more than a fatwa could allow it.

To accept otherwise, would mean an acceptance that theological Islamic dispute decides over your life and death. To embrace this fatwa is to make oneself subservient to Islam, to thank an Islamic scholar for what should be self explanatory in the first place: that you are entitled not to be killed. It relegates your entitlement to life to the hands of Islamic theology.
And in the end, you'll wake up on your knees every morning and thank Allah.

I really don't care how the believers of Islam arrive at the epiphany that terrorism & suicide attacks of innocents goes against the teachings of their religious faith. As long as they believe it and speak out against such acts.