Fatwa on terror, what the hell.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[al Roumi]

Louis and Fragony, you both have a peculiar perspective on this.

It is Al-Qaida's interpretation of Islam (the Qu'ran & Sura) which legitimises their war. This Fatwa undermines Al-Qaida's interpretation of Islam by providing a theological counter-argument. Whether it has any weight or reach is another matter.

The tactics Al-Qaida uses: terrorism, are the same any small group uses in an asymetric war -or in trying to provoke one. They do not have the resources for conventional warfare, but would more than likely escalate to it if they did have such resources. The overwhelming majority of Muslims are not members or supporters of Al-Qaida, if they were the west would be at war with them all -yet we are not. Despite this, for some reason Frag's has a hard time seeing a difference between a Muslim and a terrorist.

Islam means surrender. A believing Muslim is meant to surrender himself to his religion and live by its precepts and rules, otherwise he is not a Muslim (believer). I know regrettably little about Christianity beyond that gleaned from an upbringing in a broadly christian society (UK), but western society certainly isn't governed or ruled by religious guidance -this is a central pilar of the enlightenment and our current western societies (as Frag's and Louis point out). I have to admit i don't know whether the Bible actually provides a legal framework for societies (beyond the 10 commandments), but this is something the Qu'ran and the Sura provide to Muslims: Sharia law. Hence why Muslims have a desire to live by it...

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.

Fragony/Louis, surely you are aware that terrorism, in any form, is not something a government can simply stop or mitigate by passing a law? Laws don't actually stop people murdering, drink driving, stealing or even dropping litter!

I struggle to see how anyone bar a Muslim could embrace this Fatwa Louis. In the context of your post, to think one actually has a say over one's life or death is amusing to say the least. If terrorism is about an individual's beliefs and his justification for killing civilians, to be blind to the personal motivations which lead him to or away from terrorism, be they theological or other, is also rather disengenious, to say the least.

[HoreTore]

I have to admit i don't know whether the Bible actually provides a legal framework for societies (beyond the 10 commandments), but this is something the Qu'ran and the Sura provide to Muslims: Sharia law. Hence why Muslims have a desire to live by it...

It does. The way christianity was spread here(in the north) wasn't through evangelizing or something like that; it was by converting the ruler who then changed his pagan system of laws to the christian system of laws.