Muslims That Condemn Terrorism

[Samson]

We started this discussion in another thread, and before it became too far off topic, I thought I'd move it here:

I agree with your third point. But Islam doesn't offer much in defence (or better, prevention) when it is accused of being a religion that encourages death threats. Maybe I'm wrong? Please show me how ignorant I am: Quote Islamic leaders who have condemned violence.

I don't think it would prove anything.

Here are a few fataawa from various Sunni scholars anyway:
Slaying American Civilians in Iraq - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar
Fight Ethics Between Islam and Zionism - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar
War Ethics in Islam - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar
What Does Islam Say about Terrorism? - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar
Jihad and Peace in Islam - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

Let's just take your first example first:

a prominent Azharite scholar, Sheikh `Abdul-Majeed Subh, states:

I condemn in the name of Islam and its laws that any captive be beheaded or humiliated in any way. I do not justify the reaction of the Iraqi individuals concerning beheading the American civilians. If this can be substantiated beyond all doubt, they would be quite wrong,

but I want to say that worse than what they allegedly did is what the Americans have done (and are still doing) in Iraq.

...... considering the motives that led those Iraqi individuals to react in this way, blame is to be placed on the initial actions of the Americans.

Read more: Slaying American Civilians in Iraq - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

This is NOT an example of Islamic leaders who have condemned violence.

It IS an example that appears quite typical, of Islamic leaders qualifying not just violence, but savagery.

Could we possibly imagine the Pope, or the President of the USA declaring that, although they interpret the Christian Bible as clearly saying that BEHEADING MUSLIM PRISONERS is a BAD THING, blame is to be placed on the initial actions of Islam?

 

[Marc39]

Please provide a fatwa specifically condemning violence against Jews.

Take all the time you need.

 

[Samson]

We started this discussion in another thread, and before it became too far off topic, I thought I'd move it here:

I agree with your third point. But Islam doesn't offer much in defence (or better, prevention) when it is accused of being a religion that encourages death threats. Maybe I'm wrong? Please show me how ignorant I am: Quote Islamic leaders who have condemned violence.

I don't think it would prove anything.

Here are a few fataawa from various Sunni scholars anyway:
Slaying American Civilians in Iraq - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar
Fight Ethics Between Islam and Zionism - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar
War Ethics in Islam - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar
What Does Islam Say about Terrorism? - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar
Jihad and Peace in Islam - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

Let's just take your first example first:

a prominent Azharite scholar, Sheikh `Abdul-Majeed Subh, states:

I condemn in the name of Islam and its laws that any captive be beheaded or humiliated in any way. I do not justify the reaction of the Iraqi individuals concerning beheading the American civilians. If this can be substantiated beyond all doubt, they would be quite wrong,

but I want to say that worse than what they allegedly did is what the Americans have done (and are still doing) in Iraq.

...... considering the motives that led those Iraqi individuals to react in this way, blame is to be placed on the initial actions of the Americans.

Read more: Slaying American Civilians in Iraq - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

This is NOT an example of Islamic leaders who have condemned violence.

It IS an example that appears quite typical, of Islamic leaders qualifying not just violence, but savagery.

Could we possibly imagine the Pope, or the President of the USA declaring that, although they interpret the Christian Bible as clearly saying that BEHEADING MUSLIM PRISONERS is a BAD THING, blame is to be placed on the initial actions of Islam?

Which Christian nation did mujahideen recently invade and occupy? If you're looking for condemnations of violence against civilians, you'll find plenty. If you're looking for groveling blanket condemnations of all violence against invaders, you'll be hard pressed to find anything. Almost all notable 'ulema regard the invasion of Iraq as a gross injustice and see resistance as not only a right, but an obligation. The site that I linked you to represents mainstream Islamist thought in the Middle East, so take it for what it is, I guess.

Sheikh `Abdul-Majeed Subh doesn't make any distinction regarding the beheading of Civilian or Military Captives.

I guess I will take it for what it is: "Mainstream Islamist Thought"

But don't act surprised when anyone condemns all Islam for accepting the Beheading of Captives.

 

[Marc39]

I guess I will take it for what it is: "Mainstream Islamist Thought"

But don't act surprised when anyone condemns all Islam for accepting the Beheading of Captives.

Except, mainstream Muslims are not flying airplanes into buildings and turning themselves into suicide monkeys.

Mainstream Muslims are not practicing Islam. They are practicing some kind of Westernized, sanitized secular hybrid faith.

In fact, bin Laden and his crew are practicing traditional Islam that calls for the murder of the infidel.

 

[Freeman]

Please provide a fatwa specifically condemning violence against Jews.

Take all the time you need.

it's your task to provide fatwa which call to kill pacifist jews!

why Iranians don't massacre their persian jews?

 

[QUENTIN]

Beheading someone is no more or less barbaric than dropping a bomb on their house while they sleep.

It's appropriate to condemn violence, period, but it's inappropriate to pretend the reactionary violence of insurgents is somehow worse than the instigating violence of those who invade and occupy their sovereign land.

As a teacher, when a fight breaks out at school, we reprimand both students and usually send them home, but we give a longer suspension and hold more at fault the kid who threw the first punch.

It's just that on a larger scale and there's no rational reason to have a problem with it.

 

[Marc39]

Please provide a fatwa specifically condemning violence against Jews.

Take all the time you need.

it's your task to provide fatwa which call to kill pacifist jews!

why Iranians don't massacre their persian jews?

Psycho, there IS NO fatwa prohibiting the murder of Jews.

Now, go back into your coma, shit-for-brains.

 

[Marc39]

Beheading someone is no more or less barbaric than dropping a bomb on their house while they sleep.

It's appropriate to condemn violence, period, but it's inappropriate to pretend the reactionary violence of insurgents is somehow worse than the instigating violence of those who invade and occupy their sovereign land.

As a teacher, when a fight breaks out at school, we reprimand both students and usually send them home, but we give a longer suspension and hold more at fault the kid who threw the first punch.

It's just that on a larger scale and there's no rational reason to have a problem with it.

Dropping a bomb on the houses of terrorists is entirely appropriate. Your lesson for the day, teach.

 

[Samson]

Beheading someone is no more or less barbaric than dropping a bomb on their house while they sleep.

REALLY?

Then why don't we do it?

 

[QUENTIN]

Dropping a bomb on the houses of terrorists is entirely appropriate. Your lesson for the day, teach.

The vast majority of people whose homes, neighborhoods, businesses, person, etc. we have bombed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan are not terrorists.

The majority of people killed are civilians. This isn't a secret, we used intentionally excessive force in the invasion, remember "Shock and Awe"?

Our predator drone attacks kill at least 10 civilians for every legitimate target. Those killed were murdered, and it's murder whether it's from an expensive and sophisticated bomb or a rusty hacksaw.

Neither are morally defensible in the slightest. To claim the bombing is more defensible or less egregious when at the least, those killing soldiers are targeting military targets (doesn't apply to civilians they kidnap obviously) of people who have invaded and occupied their country is absurd.

Beheading someone is no more or less barbaric than dropping a bomb on their house while they sleep.

REALLY?

Then why don't we do it?

We don't need to. That's kind of a dumb question. That's like asking why don't we use guerrilla tactics or suicide bombers? We have more efficient methods that keep our people safer while they kill the natives of the country we've attacked.

When you have billions of dollars, highly advanced weaponry, advanced training, and other such advantages, you don't need to resort to trying to grab one guy and behead him, you can just wipe him (and often his neighbors or family) out in an air strike.

The Battle of Algiers, about a similar conflict in the Algerian War, addresses this well in an exchange with a local insurgent.

Journalist: M. Ben M'Hidi, don't you think it's a bit cowardly to use women's baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people?

Ben M'Hidi: And doesn't it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets.

If they had the bombers, tanks, and billions, and we were a guerilla faction made up of farmers, business people, and low-skill laborers, we'd be planting roadside bombs and cutting off their heads too. It's the nature of guerrilla warfare against a militarily superior enemy.

Again, that doesn't excuse the actions of either side, but to pretend it makes them more vile and barbaric than we are is to do just that, pretend.

 

[QUENTIN]

By the way...

Nearly every major American (and many, many foreign) Muslim group issues an official condemnation of every major terrorist attack. They're just not aired on Fox News or talked about on USMB.

Statements by Muslim leaders condemning terrorism

Why are there no condemnations from Muslim sources against terrorists?

A common complaint among non-Muslims is that Muslim religious authorities do not condemn terrorist attacks. The complaints often surface in letters to the editors of newspapers, on phone-in radio shows, in Internet mailing lists, forums, etc.

Actually, there are lots of fatwas and other statements issued which condemn attacks on innocent civilians. Unfortunately, they are largely ignored by newspapers, television news, radio news and other media outlets.

Overview:

The problem is not that condemnations do not exist; it is that they are not well publicized in the media. Allie Shah wrote in the Star Tribune in Minnneapolis, MN:

"The fact is that many prominent American Muslim groups have clearly and publicly denounced acts of terror in the name of Islam as barbaric, heinous and just plain wrong. Though they religiously send out press releases and e-mail statements after every attack, somehow their message doesn't seem to penetrate."

Two of the largest Muslim groups in the U.S. -- the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) regularly issue statements. However, they rarely appear in local newspapers, on TV or radio.

Allie Shaw continues:

"Last fall, CAIR launched a national petition drive as part of a campaign by Muslims called 'Not in the Name of Islam.' To date, nearly 700,000 Muslims have signed the petition condemning terrorism committed in the name of Islam, and many newspapers have covered the petition drive. As part of the same campaign, CAIR also created and paid for public service announcements set to air on television stations nationwide....."

"If all that wasn't enough, last Thursday the Fiqh Council of North America issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, against terrorism and extremism. Endorsed by more than 100 U.S. Muslim authorities, the fatwa boldly and unequivocally forbids terrorism and admonishes those who commit terrorist attacks....."

"The lengthy fatwa continues with references to the Qur'an that support the ruling. It may not be enough to dissuade a minority of extremists hellbent on destruction, but it is the right thing to do."

"In the meantime, we will continue to react with the same shock and dismay and, yes, anger, at the misguided people who continue to show no regard for human life. And we'll continue to speak out against terrorism in the hopes that someone is listening."

There's a lot more at that site about how frequently, seriously, and uniformly almost all Muslim organizations (especially the two biggest ones) are about condemning all acts of terrorism carried out by people who claim to be Muslim. It's simply a lack of awareness, not a lack of the condemnations, that leads certain people to believe Muslims don't speak out against terrorism.

 

[Samson]

Again, that doesn't excuse the actions of either side, but to pretend it makes them more vile and barbaric than we are is to do just that, pretend.

Actually, no one has pretended to make anyone "more vile and barbaric." (unless Marc39 has witlessly derailed the topic with his typically moronic remarks that I happily choose to ignore)

The point of this thread is to find, "Muslims that Condemn Terrorism:"

Not "Muslims that Condemn Terrorism, except in certain circumstances where it may be justified.

 

[QUENTIN]

Marc 39, Samson:

UK Muslim leader to issue fatwa against Jihad

UK Muslim leader to issue fatwa against Jihad
By JONNY PAUL, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
02/03/2010 00:05

Ruling is most comprehensive theological refutation of Islamist terrorism.

LONDON – A revered mainstream Muslim scholar is set to announce in London on Tuesday a fatwa (Muslim ruling) against terrorism and suicide bombing in the name of Islam.

Sheikh Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri, a widely recognized and respected authority on Islamic jurisprudence, will issue a comprehensive fatwa prohibiting terrorism and suicide bombing at a press conference in Westminster, central London.

The Pakistani-born Dr. Qadri has authored an unprecedented, 600-page fatwa on why suicide bombings and terrorism are un-Islamic and scripturally forbidden. The ruling is the most comprehensive theological refutation of Islamist terrorism to date.

The fatwa will also be posted on the Internet and in English, making it readily accessible. It will also set an important precedent and allow other scholars to similarly condemn the ideas behind terrorism.

Dr. Qadri has used texts in the Koran and other Islamic writings to argue that suicide and other terrorist attacks are “absolutely against the teachings ofIslam” and that “Islam does not permit such acts on any excuse, reason or pretext.”

The fatwa condemns suicide bombers as destined for hell, refuting the claim used by Islamists that such terrorists will earn paradise after death.

“Today’s tragedy is that terrorists, murderers, mischief-mongers and rioters try to prove their criminal, rebellious, tyrannous, brutal and blasphemous activities as a right and a justified reaction to foreign aggression under the garb of defense of Islam and national interests,” he says about suicide bombing.

“It can in no way be permissible to keep foreign delegates under unlawful custody and murder them and other peaceful non-Muslim citizens in retaliation for interference, unjust activities and aggressive advances of their countries,” Qadri said, asserting, “The one who does has no relation to Islam.”

Dr. Qadri is the founder of the international Minhaj-ul-Quran movement. Supporters say his fatwa is significant because he is issuing it himself and his movement, a major grass-roots global organization, has hundreds of thousands of followers in South Asia and the UK.

The move has been welcomed by the Quilliam Foundation, a London-based anti-extremism think-tank led by former Islamists.

“This fatwa has the potential to be a highly significant step towards eradicating Islamist terrorism,” a Quilliam spokesperson said. “Fatwas by Wahhabi-influenced clerics and Islamist ideologues initiated modern terrorism against civilians. Terrorist groups such as al-Qaida continue to justify their mass killings with self-serving readings of religious scripture.

“Fatwas that demolish and expose such theological innovations will consign Islamist terrorism to the dustbin of history.”

London’s Centre for Social Cohesion think-tank has also welcomed the initiative.

CSC director Douglas Murray believes that in recent years, and since the July 2005 terrorist attack in London, Muslim leaders have failed to unequivocally condemn violence committed in the name of Islam.

“A sentence that may to many people seem clear, such as ‘There can be no justification for the killing of innocent people’ is filled with caveats – what is an ‘innocent’ person? Who decides who is or is not ‘innocent’?

“Too many Muslim religious figures sound as if they are condemning violence when in fact they are merely condemning violence in certain situations, against certain people,” he said.

Murray said the fatwa takes away the caveats and will have far-reaching consequences. However he said it won’t stop Islamic terrorism instantaneously.

“Dr. ul-Qadri is respected for his ability to cross some of the notable sectarian boundaries that abound in the Islamic faith as in all others. Even Muslims who might dislike him will not be able to dismiss him out of hand.

“Yet even if the contents of this fatwa are what people have long hoped for, it will not, of course, stop Islamic terrorism straight away. A single fatwa will not change the level of denial and lack of self-criticism inherent in so much of modern Islam. Nor will it stop every fevered young radical eager to kill and maim. But the trickle-down effect is important. The most violent interpretations of Islam have indeed trickled down to terrorists via learned scholars,” he said.

 

[mikey481516]

Beheading someone is no more or less barbaric than dropping a bomb on their house while they sleep.

It's appropriate to condemn violence, period, but it's inappropriate to pretend the reactionary violence of insurgents is somehow worse than the instigating violence of those who invade and occupy their sovereign land.

As a teacher, when a fight breaks out at school, we reprimand both students and usually send them home, but we give a longer suspension and hold more at fault the kid who threw the first punch.

It's just that on a larger scale and there's no rational reason to have a problem with it.

Dropping a bomb on the houses of terrorists is entirely appropriate. Your lesson for the day, teach.

What if said 'terrorist' has a family? Still appropriate? Just curious as to what you think

 

[QUENTIN]

The point of this thread is to find, "Muslims that Condemn Terrorism:"

Not "Muslims that Condemn Terrorism, except in certain circumstances where it may be justified.

And that's quite easy to do since it's so common. A google search could have found you an abundance.

In addition to the links already providing noting some of the largest Muslim organizations, with hundreds of thousands of members, and cleric, with hundreds of thousands of followers, who have officially and unequivocally condemned terrorism, there's also many of the most influential clerics and scholars in the Muslim world.

The most powerful clerics in the Middle East are Grand Ayatollah Khameini (Iran), Grand Ayatollah Ali Husaini Sistani (Iraq), Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi (Egypt), Sheikh Ali Goma'a (Egypt), and Hodjaefendi Fethullah Gullen (Turkey). They have all publicly and vigorously condemned terrorism (9/11, Al Qaeda, and its off shoots specifically), extremism, offensive violence, and the killing of innocents, declaring fatwas against such behavior.

The 500 most influential Muslims in the world

I'd ask you to find substantial Christian leaders (I assume you're referring to religious leaders, not just random joes as there are so obviously lots of everyday Muslims who condemn terrorism full stop) who condemn killing civilians not just "Christian leaders who condemn killing civilians, except in certain circumstances where it may be justified." And the same from Jewish leaders.

Sure they definitely exist, but the mainstream Christian and Jewish churches, like the mainstream Muslim churches, find ways to justify war for nationalist reasons in the name of "defense." There's nothing unique to Islam about it. And to differentiate based on the method of murder - beheading or suicide bomb versus assault rifle or predator drone - is the height of inanity and distinction without difference. What matters is who truly condemns the murder of innocent people, and across the three major monotheistic religions, you'll find lots of those who do but a majority who try to weasel around it.

 

[QUENTIN]

I see you thanked the post about CAIR. USMB has a whole, whole lot of racists who start these kind of threads rhetorically, merely in the effort to point out how subhuman those sand-******* are and dealing with them has led me to be somewhat defensive in my interactions on the subject.

If you truly started it in earnest looking for important Muslims and Muslim organizations that have condemned terrorism, then cool. I'm always happier to have a discussion than an argument.

 

[Samson]

I see you thanked the post about CAIR. USMB has a whole, whole lot of racists who start these kind of threads rhetorically, merely in the effort to point out how subhuman those sand-******* are and dealing with them has led me to be somewhat defensive in my interactions on the subject.

If you truly started it in earnest looking for important Muslims and Muslim organizations that have condemned terrorism, then cool. I'm always happier to have a discussion than an argument.

No, I'm actually not baiting you, and appreciate the sources you gave.

As you see in the OP, Kalam gave an example that seemed flawed, but that he described as being "mainstream."

 

[Kalam]

Mainstream within Islamist thought, yes, and I agree with them completely in this case.

 

[ekrem]

If you live in USA because of "western lifestyle"...
In Germany, Greece etc. there are also Islamophobists. But I can assure, Islamobobists have no sovereignty regarding public opinion. Those are tollerant socities, with many more like Scandinavians. Brits are also cool, but I was in London only once, so do not have too much experience with Brits.
I never travelled to USA, but I think you wont miss anything in those countries if you are into that ""Western Lifestyle".
With posession of English skills, combined with a normal to good education certificate, you will adapt fast into the "bread-feeding"-cycle for your family.

Greek Thracia for example is majority native Muslim population.
If you live in West Turkey, you will also not miss "Western world". Istanbul is 12-16 Million people with districts for the Iman-like and districs for the Pimp-like.

Islamophobia is a crime against humanity, and there is no authority and absolutely no reason for anyone putting you under constant general suspicion for what you are.

 

[Marc39]

I see you thanked the post about CAIR. USMB has a whole, whole lot of racists who start these kind of threads rhetorically, merely in the effort to point out how subhuman those sand-******* are and dealing with them has led me to be somewhat defensive in my interactions on the subject.

If you truly started it in earnest looking for important Muslims and Muslim organizations that have condemned terrorism, then cool. I'm always happier to have a discussion than an argument.

CAIR is certainly not an advocate for the abolition of terrorism. CAIR is affiliated with the Islamic Association for Palestine which was started by Hamas, a terrorist group.