• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Muslim Scholars Issue Fatwa Against Terrorism

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
For those who don't know what a Fatwa is, it is basically a moral holding against something. It means that if people of Islam commit an act that is against the fatwa's teaching then they are immoral and thus will be condemned.
In the statement, called a fatwa, the 18-member Fiqh Council of North America wrote that people who commit terrorism in the name of Islam were "criminals, not `martyrs."'

"There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism," the scholars wrote. "Targeting civilians' life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram -- or forbidden."

Many Muslim leaders overseas have issued similar condemnations in recent weeks, but some have left an opening for violence to be used. British Muslim leaders who denounced the July 7 attacks in London said suicide bombings could still be justified against an occupying power.

The U.S. fatwa did not specifically address suicide bombings in a war, but the scholars barred Muslims from helping anyone "involved in any act of terrorism or violence." The council also declared that Muslims were obligated to help law enforcement officials protect civilians.

"It is the civic and religious duty of Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement authorities," according to the Fiqh Council. The term "fiqh" refers to Islamic legal issues and understanding the faith's religious law.

Source=Cnn.com
What is interesting is that most Muslim scholars go far in condemning attacks against civilians in Europe, and America and the like, but they reserve the right to use matyrdom against Jews, specifically Israel.

I would be curious as to the views of this forum, considering a lot of the general condemnation of the entire religion on the whole for the acts of a few.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
They seem neutral, but Jews are people too! Hitler wanted to get rid of all Jews it seems this ideaology has yet to extinguish in our modern societies today, Muslim or not! Inocent blood spilled for ideas and using "Religion" as a motive to kill others should be condemned! A few doesn't represent the whole!
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Until I see action, I consider this nothing more than "lip service".

This SHOULD be a war of extremist Muslims hijacking the religion against the real Muslims who want to keep the integrity of their religion intact.

Instead, the real Muslims do not do anything to shut up the "squeaky wheel" and let them interpret their religion to a point of perversion. They should be more "insulted" by what's happening than the western culture.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Literally, there is no action of enforcing any rules for any sect of Islam. There was a very interesting piece on NPR about it which basically explained all of it...I think it is being podcasted if you want to check it out. Anyway...this is a war, as you put it between extremism of a religion and those who practice the actual tenets of the religion.

A lot of people here just automatically assume violence is ok in Islam, when one of the five pillars is peace in all situations that are not direct provaction. There are interpretations that say that there is a sixth pillar of jihad, which is the extremist posistion.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
ShamMol said:
Literally, there is no action of enforcing any rules for any sect of Islam. There was a very interesting piece on NPR about it which basically explained all of it...I think it is being podcasted if you want to check it out. Anyway...this is a war, as you put it between extremism of a religion and those who practice the actual tenets of the religion.

A lot of people here just automatically assume violence is ok in Islam, when one of the five pillars is peace in all situations that are not direct provaction. There are interpretations that say that there is a sixth pillar of jihad, which is the extremist posistion.
Agreed...But anyone can change the equation around to make it look like direct provocation existed. In Osama's letter to America, he said that there is no such thing as an "innocent American", because if a politician or an administration is guilty, and the American public voted them in to do something which is wrong, then the public must be considered "guilty" also.
And any other country that has a friendly relationship with America is a collaborator so, by extension, THEY are guilty, too.

See how logic can get twisted to serve their purpose?
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
cnredd said:
Agreed...But anyone can change the equation around to make it look like direct provocation existed. In Osama's letter to America, he said that there is no such thing as an "innocent American", because if a politician or an administration is guilty, and the American public voted them in to do something which is wrong, then the public must be considered "guilty" also.
And any other country that has a friendly relationship with America is a collaborator so, by extension, THEY are guilty, too.

See how logic can get twisted to serve their purpose?
Oh, of course, but it is also a misinterpretation of Islam to the point of extremism. In this they throroughly reject that any civilian is not innocent, but they do leave open the door for soldiers who are occupiers-which actually would be true under the fifth pillar of direct provocation while still making sure that innocent lives are saved.

Anyway, I am interested to see some reaction to this from the middle east. There are some councils there I am sure that disagree with it, but I am also pretty sure taht a lot would agree.
 

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I wouldn’t consider a suicide bomber (in Iraq for instance) a terrorist if he targeted American Soldiers. He would certainly be an illegal combatant and should not enjoy any of the rights/privileges of the Geneva Convention.

I agree with their having left out the part about using suicide bombs against occupying forces.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
^Well, I see him as fighting for his country, unlike actual terrorists, so I believe that would make them actual combatants entitled and garunteed the rights of the geneva convention.

I think this was a very wise interpretation, mainly for the fact they distinguished the difference between what is righteous and what is damning. Killing any civilian....no (whack with newspaper). Killing soldiers...if you must.

And any person who is not Iraqi and battling in Iraq should get the title enemy combatant, but not Iraqis because techincally they aren't doing anything illegal except fighting an occupying force. However, I beleive that all people should be treated humanly and the rights that are garunteed to soldiers under Geneva should be applied to these enemy combatants.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want these people attacking our troops, but I just realize that there is a difference between fighting an occupying force and terrorism. I accept that they would fight against an occupying force's soldiers, but I do not accept other nations' peoples coming in and fighting for the fight against Americans, not for the reason that they are occupying, but for the reason they are Americans.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
No offense to either...I've seen you two prove your worth...but I see the last two post as minor bickering....You can "catagorize" them anyway you want...I call them " enemies of humanity"...all rights are stripped...they have forfeited them...
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ShamMol said:
^Well, I see him as fighting for his country, unlike actual terrorists, so I believe that would make them actual combatants entitled and garunteed the rights of the geneva convention.

I think this was a very wise interpretation, mainly for the fact they distinguished the difference between what is righteous and what is damning. Killing any civilian....no (whack with newspaper). Killing soldiers...if you must.

And any person who is not Iraqi and battling in Iraq should get the title enemy combatant, but not Iraqis because techincally they aren't doing anything illegal except fighting an occupying force. However, I beleive that all people should be treated humanly and the rights that are garunteed to soldiers under Geneva should be applied to these enemy combatants.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want these people attacking our troops, but I just realize that there is a difference between fighting an occupying force and terrorism. I accept that they would fight against an occupying force's soldiers, but I do not accept other nations' peoples coming in and fighting for the fight against Americans, not for the reason that they are occupying, but for the reason they are Americans.
What you conveniently leave out is that there is a democratically elected government in Iraq. Many of the Iraqis that are fighting their own government do it with those from outside the country. This isn't revolution, this is insurrection.

As the Iraqi security forces, police and military take more responsibility the government of Iraq will become more potent against the terrorists. I think that people that bomb indescriminantly, murder the wives and children of police or military personnel and participate in drive by shootings are terrorists. Am I wrong?
:duel :cool:
 

epr64

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
cnredd said:
Agreed...But anyone can change the equation around to make it look like direct provocation existed. In Osama's letter to America, he said that there is no such thing as an "innocent American", because if a politician or an administration is guilty, and the American public voted them in to do something which is wrong, then the public must be considered "guilty" also.
And any other country that has a friendly relationship with America is a collaborator so, by extension, THEY are guilty, too.

See how logic can get twisted to serve their purpose?
Yup. What I also see is that the BA considered everyone who didn't want to participate to what the world saw as an illegal and useless war as ennemies, and started a smear campaign against them.

This is a two-way lane, cnredd.

The difference is that terrorists always said so (RAF, IRA, ETA, Brigade Rosso, etc..), while states usually had a better judgement. It seems not to be true any more. Sad.

Y
 

epr64

Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
240
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
gordontravels said:
What you conveniently leave out is that there is a democratically elected government in Iraq. Many of the Iraqis that are fighting their own government do it with those from outside the country. This isn't revolution, this is insurrection.

As the Iraqi security forces, police and military take more responsibility the government of Iraq will become more potent against the terrorists. I think that people that bomb indescriminantly, murder the wives and children of police or military personnel and participate in drive by shootings are terrorists. Am I wrong?
:duel :cool:
Well, you could say the same in France during WWII. They murdered innocent people (not a lot, for sure). But they bombed trains, murdered collaborators, etc...

History is written by the victor. Nazi Germany was defeated, so the French resistants are no terrorists. What will happen in Iraq is still to be seen.

I think the fatwa is quite balanced. Military: legitimate. Civilians: illegitimate. Unfortunately enough, this fatwa was issued in the US, not in Iraq. THAT'S the place where issuing such a fatwa.

Just my 0.02€
Y
 

gordontravels

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
758
Reaction score
1
Location
in the middle of America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
epr64 said:
Well, you could say the same in France during WWII. They murdered innocent people (not a lot, for sure). But they bombed trains, murdered collaborators, etc...

History is written by the victor. Nazi Germany was defeated, so the French resistants are no terrorists. What will happen in Iraq is still to be seen.

I think the fatwa is quite balanced. Military: legitimate. Civilians: illegitimate. Unfortunately enough, this fatwa was issued in the US, not in Iraq. THAT'S the place where issuing such a fatwa.

Just my 0.02€Y
Please let me ask the question before I do as I really want and comment.

Are you telling me that the Army and Police of Iraq are as the Nazi? Are you saying that the terrorists attacking them are like the French Resistance? That is my question.

I have been a scholar of WWII since the late 60's and I have never heard anyone, not anyone try to connect the French Underground who laid the foundation for the D Day Invasion accused of being a terrorist organization except maybe the German Nazis. Yet you say it could be said?

When Nazi Germany was occupying France the French Resistance bombed trains. Are you saying these were passenger trains? Or were they Military Trains? Are you saying that Marshall Law wasn't in effect by the Nazis in France? I would love to read your sources. I don't need links.

You think French people that collaborated with the Nazis were murdered? Not executed? If you gave Osama information to help him take down the World Trade Center who would you be? What would you expect? In an all out war such as WWII where those people collaborating were responsible for entire buildings of people being summarily shot, men, women and children; what do you think should have been done to the collaborators since it was the Nazi that were in charge? What?

Just give me the reference material for your information on the terrorism accomplished by the French Resistance such as "Inside the Third Reich" written by Hitler's Minister of Armorments and considered the second in command toward the end of the war, Albert Speer, not a victor.

Or how about "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William L. Shirer that was based upon fact from both sides and not a victor's standpoint. Shirer actually lived in Berlin up until 3 days before the Germans began WWII on 8-31-39.

How about the French Jews that were..... oh that's right, they are dead aren't they? Please look for a book titled "The Final Solution". That "solution" came shortly after the Wanasee Conference. Remember that?

Who the hell are you and where did this come from? There are only a few avenues for you. You uphold the Nazis and agree with them. You have an axe to grind against the French Resistance. OR You have no grasp of history and want to put up some arguement against the War in Iraq. I can see being against the War in Iraq but labeling the French Resistance terrorists? You are so wrong it actually makes me sick.

Is there something else?
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GPS_Flex said:
I wouldn’t consider a suicide bomber (in Iraq for instance) a terrorist if he targeted American Soldiers. He would certainly be an illegal combatant and should not enjoy any of the rights/privileges of the Geneva Convention.

I agree with their having left out the part about using suicide bombs against occupying forces.
Well if thats the case then the genava convention does not apply to him. Which allows a lot more leeway in intergiation. Course then you have to deal with AI and the ACLU:moon: And at times there more dangerous then the actual terrorist
The fact is if you walk among a crowd of people with the intentions of killing someone. Dressed to blend, not wearing a uniform or affiliated with a organized millitary. Coming from another country, Finding targets with no regaurds for civilian casualties. Specially when there are no offensives being mounted by the soldiers or it's millitaries.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My real question is why did it take so long. Why did it take so long for these scholars to say this is wrong. Shouldn't the targeting and killing of innocent civilians been wrong 30 years ago. It took them a long time to decide that blowing up a group of children grabbing candy was evil.
 

mustafa

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Location
malaysia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
ShamMol said:
What is interesting is that most Muslim scholars go far in condemning attacks against civilians in Europe, and America and the like, but they reserve the right to use matyrdom against Jews, specifically Israel.
First of all , u should show a discrepancy between Jew and Israel , i think they would condemn these attacks even if they targeted innocents jews who dont live in Israel , bear in mind that there is jews who live peacefully in Egypt , an arab muslim country .... but when it comes to Israel , the Israelis are invaders to muslim and arabs , they invaded a holy place ( Al Aqsa mosque ) and i dont know if u know this but when jews\israelis first came to palestine , they killed thousands maybe millions of muslim men , women and even children without mercy , they committed horrible crimes against muslims and they still do that ... palestine is a muslim land , particulary arab land so what palesenians do is part of resisting the occupation .... from what i can see , people these days look at Israel in the present , and they think why those " terrorists" are killing innocent , pure Israelis but they dont see what Israel has done to them in the past, they dont see how much pain and destruction they brought on muslims ... so that why they dont condemn the "suicide" bombings on Israelis ........
 

mustafa

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Location
malaysia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
stsburns said:
Inocent blood spilled for ideas and using "Religion" as a motive to kill others should be condemned! A few doesn't represent the whole!
Did you say the same thing when Israeli soldier shot an innocent child and killed him between his father arms , Do u say the same thing when Israelis are killing innocent women and children on daily basis and tear down their houses .... Muslim only target jews in Israel , and do you know why ? not because they are jews but because they are Israelis , because they are Zions who occupied their land and killed their innocent people .....
 

Surenderer

Active member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
469
Reaction score
0
Calm2Chaos said:
My real question is why did it take so long. Why did it take so long for these scholars to say this is wrong. Shouldn't the targeting and killing of innocent civilians been wrong 30 years ago. It took them a long time to decide that blowing up a group of children grabbing candy was evil.




Been happening for a long time....


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


Funny you say that though you guys sure seem to think that targetting innocents was ok in Hiroshima :doh....check that thread if you dont believe me
 
Last edited:

mustafa

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Location
malaysia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
cnredd said:
This SHOULD be a war of extremist Muslims hijacking the religion against the real Muslims who want to keep the integrity of their religion intact.
:respekt: and :agree with you 100%

cnredd said:
Instead, the real Muslims do not do anything to shut up the "squeaky wheel"
There is many many scholars that have condemn these attacks , and the majority of muslims are against it , what more do you want them to do ?

cnredd said:
and let them interpret their religion to a point of perversion. They should be more "insulted" by what's happening than the western culture.

:applaud , i'm am really thankfull that there is americans who think this way and i do feel insulted by what they claim to be Islam .......:respekt:
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I keep hearing people saying we are and occupation force in Iraq.........That is patently untrue..........And occupation force is one that occupies a country with no plans to withdraw.............If the government of Iraq asked us to leave we would start pulling out our troops immediately............
 

mustafa

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2005
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Location
malaysia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Surenderer said:
Funny you say that though you guys sure seem to think that targetting innocents was ok in Hiroshima :doh....check that thread if you dont believe me
Bull’s eye :2razz:
I cant wait for him to reply to that :D
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
mustafa said:
:respekt: and :agree with you 100%



There is many many scholars that have condemn these attacks , and the majority of muslims are against it , what more do you want them to do ?




:applaud , i'm am really thankfull that there is americans who think this way and i do feel insulted by what they claim to be Islam .......:respekt:
I will tell you what they can do.............They know who the terrorists are here in the U.S. They should tell the authorities so they can be arrested.....

It is a step in the right direction what they have said but it is not near enough.............
 

Surenderer

Active member
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
469
Reaction score
0
Navy Pride said:
I keep hearing people saying we are and occupation force in Iraq.........That is patently untrue..........And occupation force is one that occupies a country with no plans to withdraw.............If the government of Iraq asked us to leave we would start pulling out our troops immediately............



Then why the permanent bases?



peace
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Surenderer said:
Then why the permanent bases?



peace
I know of no permanent bases in Iraq at this point.........
 
Top Bottom