Muslim scholar issues fatwa against terrorism

Again what about your two cents:

If speaking out against these things isn't of any use then why are you constantly repeating yourself against the west or atheists or what you find to be an injustice? Why speak on these forums about your personal opinions since it obviously doesn't mean diddly squat to anyone since you are not a scholar or anyone we really know anything about? I mean its really of no consequence what you think of palestine or anything else.

You also skipped these questions:

What is important is that he is a voice for many muslims in the UK who do not want further fundie radicalization in the country. What's so fucking hard to understand about that?

Also I would like to know why you refer to the twin towers as being buildings that people 'weep' over and do not take into account all those who died during 9/11 (which is why they wept)?

Are you becoming yourself desensitized in the way you accuse others?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

After all he's only competing with:

TALIBAN: RETURN KIDNAPPED AND RAPED HOUSEWIFE OR WE WILL EXECUTE AMERICAN POW

Which one is more binding? Law or fatwa?

It doesn't matter what I think or what the "Muslim scholar" thinks. Both our opinions are equally irrelevant to the outcome

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

YOU ARE DELIBERATELY NOT RESPONDING TO THE POST:

If speaking out against these things isn't of any use then why are you constantly repeating yourself against the west or atheists or what you find to be an injustice? Why speak on these forums about your personal opinions since it obviously doesn't mean diddly squat to anyone since you are not a scholar or anyone we really know anything about? I mean its really of no consequence what you think of palestine or anything else.

You also skipped these questions:

What is important is that he is a voice for many muslims in the UK who do not want further fundie radicalization in the country. What's so fucking hard to understand about that?

Also I would like to know why you refer to the twin towers as being buildings that people 'weep' over and do not take into account all those who died during 9/11 (which is why they wept)?

Are you becoming yourself desensitized in the way you accuse others?

I HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU IT DOESN'T MATTER IF A FATWA ISN'T LAW. WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS AGAINST TERRORISM IN THE UK, THIS IS ABOUT MORE MUSLIMS SPEAKING OUT AGAINST TERRORISM. NOW WHY DO YOU FIND IT IMPOSSIBLE TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTIONS OUTLINED ABOVE AND IN PREVIOUS POSTS?

Its called 'bad faith' posting

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Muslims have been speaking out against terrorism since 1400 years. Its the only crime, apart from murder, which carries a death sentence in Islam.

What effect has it had so far?

 

SAM

If speaking out against these things isn't of any use then why are you constantly repeating yourself against the west or atheists or what you find to be an injustice? Why speak on these forums about your personal opinions since it obviously doesn't mean diddly squat to anyone since you are not a scholar or anyone we really know anything about? I mean its really of no consequence what you think of palestine or anything else.

You also skipped these questions:

What is important is that he is a voice for many muslims in the UK who do not want further fundie radicalization in the country. What's so fucking hard to understand about that?

Also I would like to know why you refer to the twin towers as being buildings that people 'weep' over and do not take into account all those who died during 9/11 (which is why they wept)?

Are you becoming yourself desensitized in the way you accuse others?

 

I didn't say that speaking out against terrorism is wrong. Just that argument from authority in Islam is pretty irrelevant

People will listen to a drag queen rather than a Muslim scholar if that is who they agree with

You are wound up in some other issues, which is why you keep missing this simple point.

 

Well your argument is also pretty irrelevant but we discuss no?

So for the sixth time (this question if for you sam, not directed towards a muslim scholar or cleric. Just your personal opinion):

If speaking out against these things isn't of any use then why are you constantly repeating yourself against the west or atheists or what you find to be an injustice? Why speak on these forums about your personal opinions since it obviously doesn't mean diddly squat to anyone since you are not a scholar or anyone we really know anything about? I mean its really of no consequence what you think of palestine or anything else.

You also skipped these questions:

Also asked you if the bombing in Beslan was a proper 'military' or 'activist' response to the war in Chechnya?


Also I would like to know why you refer to the twin towers as being buildings that people 'weep' over and do not take into account all those who died during 9/11 (which is why they wept)?

Are you becoming yourself desensitized in the way you accuse others?

 

I am speaking as a Muslim. I already know what Islam says about terrorism. In fact, I have said so myself gazillion times on sciforums.

What will be the effect of this fatwa, according to you?

Why do you think it is important? Why is his voice more significant to Muslims, all of us who already know that Islam is against terrorism?

 

I didn't ask you anything that would bring about those questions. I asked you for your opinion regarding these three questions?

Also asked you if the bombing in Beslan was a proper 'military' or 'activist' response to the war in Chechnya?

Also I would like to know why you refer to the twin towers as being buildings that people 'weep' over and do not take into account all those who died during 9/11 (which is why they wept)?

Are you becoming yourself desensitized in the way you accuse others?

I think its important that the Uk, to muslims and non-muslims living in the UK. The more muslims who live among us speak out against terrorism the less likely it would look as if there is tacit support for such acts. So yes it is important. So now that I have answered that can you please answer those three questions.

 

Those are all irrelevant to the fatwa.

In purely religious terms, there are three major universities which are considered having the scholarship to issue religious opinions on questions asked by Muslims. They tender millions of opinions many of whom contradict each other, as human opinions invariably do. There are 1400 years worth of millions of fatwas in the Islamic world and since we are pretty lackadaisical about authority, you don't even have to be a religious scholar to give an opinion.

In purely religious terms then, a fatwa is a considered opinion based on interpretation of religious texts on any issue of importance to Muslims. In Sunnis, they are not only not binding, they are issued mostly by people not trained in the religious jurisprudence. In Shias, they may be binding, but that depends only on the relationship the Shia Muslim has with the particular scholar and is more along the lines of a teacher/pupil or idol/fan relationship. Which is why I compared it to the opinion of a draq queen on a television show.

I'm not Pakistani or British and I don't even know what the Deobandi university says about this stuff. Most Muslims are like me.

 

And yet Sam I asked you to respond to this (7th time in a row)?

Also asked you if the bombing in Beslan was a proper 'military' or 'activist' response to the war in Chechnya?

Also I would like to know why you refer to the twin towers as being buildings that people 'weep' over and do not take into account all those who died during 9/11 (which is why they wept)?

Are you becoming yourself desensitized in the way you accuse others?

 

What does any of that have to do with the fatwa? Has the scholar talked about this stuff?

I'd like to see the text of the fatwa.

 

Its a response to your post #27:

Sam: How much Americans will weep for two buildings, will they not? How many they will kill, burn, dismember and torture for just two buildings? (post #27)

It also didn't have anything to do with clerics but why quibble.

Hence the following questions:

I would like to know why you refer to the twin towers as being buildings that people 'weep' over and do not take into account all those who died during 9/11 (which is why they wept)?

Are you becoming yourself desensitized in the way you accuse others?

And since you seem to find terrorism to be a valid response to 'oppression' I had to ask you the following:

Do you think the bombing in Beslan was a proper 'military' or 'activist' response to the war in Chechnya?

 

Well I'm not interested in discussing that topic with you; I didn't even realise it was in this thread.

 

No? You don't remember this on page 2?

"Isn't it though? How much Americans will weep for two buildings, will they not? How many they will kill, burn, dismember and torture for just two buildings. And yet, they want their victims of over a century to issue fatwas when they protest their treatment.

How amusing it is really. Just like children throwing a tantrum."

If you didn't want to discuss it why did you post it?

Also these are pretty simple questions, ones that I could have easily have answered. So please, answer them.

 

Like I said, I'm not interested.

What I would be interested in is to see a fatwa by a British cleric against British troops in other countries.

Now that would be interesting if only for the debate.

 

You don't get out much do you?

Disarm Iraq Without War

A Statement from Religious Leaders in the United States and United Kingdom

"Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." (Isaiah 2:4)

As the calls for military action against Iraq continue from our two governments, despite the new opening for U.N weapons inspections, we are compelled by the prophetic vision of peace to speak a word of caution to our governments and our people. We represent a diversity of Christian communities - from the just war traditions to the pacifist tradition. As leaders of these communities in the United States and the United Kingdom, it is our considered judgment that a preemptive war against Iraq, particularly in the current situation would not be justified. Yet we believe Iraq must be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction; and that alternative courses to war should be diligently pursued.

Let there be no mistake: We regard Saddam Hussein and his regime in Iraq as a real threat to his own people, neighboring countries, and to the world. His previous use and continued development of weapons of mass destruction is of great concern to us. The question is how to respond to that threat. We believe the Iraqi government has a duty to stop its internal repression, to end its threats to peace, to abandon its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, and to respect the legitimate role of the United Nations in ensuring that it does so. But our nations and the international community must pursue these goals in a manner consistent with moral principles, political wisdom, and international law. As Christians, we seek to be guided by the vision of a world in which nations do not attempt to resolve international problems by making war on other nations. It is a long-held Christian principle that all governments and citizens are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

We therefore urge our governments, especially President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, to pursue alternative means to disarm Iraq of its most destructive weapons. Diplomatic cooperation with the United Nations in renewing rigorously effective and thoroughly comprehensive weapons inspections, linked to the gradual lifting of sanctions, could achieve the disarmament of Iraq without the risks and costs of military attack.

We do not believe that preemptive war with Iraq: is a last resort, could effectively guard against massive civilian casualties, would be waged with adequate international authority, and could predictably create a result proportionate to the cost. And it is not clear that the threat of Saddam Hussein cannot be contained in other, less costly ways. An attack on Iraq could set a precedent for preemptive war, further destabilize the Middle East, and fuel more terrorism. We, therefore, do not believe that war with Iraq can be justified under the principle of a "just war," but would be illegal, unwise, and immoral.

Illegal

Whether we oppose all war, or reluctantly accept it only as a last resort, in this case the U.S. government has not presented an adequate justification for war. Iraq has not attacked or directly threatened the United States, nor is it clear that its weapons of mass destruction pose an immediate and urgent threat to neighboring countries or the world. It has not been credibly implicated in the attacks of September 11. Under international law, including the U.N. Charter, the only circumstance under which individual states may invoke the authority to go to war is in self-defense following an armed attack. In Christian just war doctrine, there are rigorous conditions even for an act of self-defense. Preemptive war by one state against another is not permitted by either law or doctrine. For the United States to initiate military action against Iraq without authorization by the United Nations Security Council would set a dangerous precedent that would threaten the foundations of international security. And under our domestic governance, the U.S. Congress and the U.K. Parliament must also play a key role in authorizing any contemplated military action.

Unwise

The potential social and diplomatic consequences of a war against Iraq make it politically unwise. The U.S. and the U.K. could be acting almost entirely alone. Many nations, including our European allies and most of the Arab world, strongly oppose such a war. To initiate a major war in an area of the world already in great turmoil could destabilize governments and increase political extremism throughout the Middle East and beyond. It would add fuel to the fires of violence that are already consuming the region. It would exacerbate anti-American hatred and produce new recruits for terror attacks against the United States and Israel. A unilateral war would also undermine the continued political cooperation needed for the international campaign to isolate terrorist networks. The U.S. could very well win a battle against Iraq and lose the campaign against terrorism. The potentially dangerous and highly chaotic aftermath of a war with Iraq would require years of occupation, investment, and a high level of international cooperation - none of which have yet to be adequately planned or even considered. And the Iraqi people themselves have an important role in creating nonviolent resistance within their own country with international support.

Immoral

We are particularly concerned by the potential human costs of war. If the military strategy includes massive air attacks and urban warfare in the streets of Baghdad, tens of thousands of innocent civilians could lose their lives. This alone makes such a military attack morally unacceptable. In addition, the people of Iraq continue to suffer severely from the effects of the Gulf War, the resulting decade of sanctions, and the neglect and oppression of a brutal dictator. Rather than inflicting further suffering on them through a costly war, we should assist in rebuilding their country and alleviating their suffering. We also recognize that in any conflict, the casualties among attacking forces could be very high. This potential suffering in our own societies should also lead to prudent caution.

We reaffirm our religious hope for a world in which "nation shall not lift up sword against nation." We pray that our governments will be guided by moral principles, political wisdom, and legal standards, and will step back from their calls for war.

October 10, 2002

United States
Philip A. Amerson
President
The Claremont School of Theology

David Beckmann
President
Bread for the World

Peter Borgdorff
Executive Director of Ministries
Christian Reformed Church in North America

Ronald Brugler
President
The Swedenborgian Church

John A. Buehrens
Past President
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

Tony Campolo
Professor Emeritus
Eastern University

John Bryson Chane
Bishop
Episcopal Diocese of Washington

Pat Clark
National Coordinator
Fellowship of Reconcilation

Canice Connors, OFM.Conv.
President,
Conference of Major Superiors of Men

John P. Crossley
Director, School of Religion
University of Southern California

Robert Edgar
General Secretary
National Council of Churches

Joseph A. Fiorenza
Bishop
Catholic Diocese of Galveston - Houston

Jim Forest
Secretary
Orthodox Peace Fellowship

Robert Franklin
President
Interdenominational Theological Center

Linda C. Fuller
Co-Founder and President
Habitat for Humanity

Millard Fuller
Founder and President
Habitat for Humanity

Michael J. Gorman, Ph.D.
Dean
The Ecumenical Institute of Theology
St. Mary's Seminary & University

Wesley Granberg-Michaelson
General Secretary
Reformed Church in America

Richard L. Hamm
General Minister and President
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the U.S. and Canada

Stan Hastey
Executive Director
The Alliance of Baptists

Thomas L. Hoyt, Jr.
Bishop, Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
President-elect, National Council of Churches

William C. Imes, President
Bangor Theological Seminary

Thomas H. Jeavons
General Secretary, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)

Holly H. Johnson
President
Blanton-Peale Institute of Psychology and Religion

Norman J. Kansfield
President
New Brunswick Theological Seminary

Michael Mata
Director
Urban Leadership Institute

Felton Edwin May
Bishop, Baltimore-Washington Conference United Methodist Church

A. Roy Medley
General Secretary,
American Baptist Churches USA

John W. Oliver
Coordinator
Orthodox Peace Fellowship in North America

Glenn Palmberg
President
Evangelical Covenant Church

Robert M. Parham
Executive Director
Baptist Center for Ethics

Judy Mills Reimer
General Secretary
Church of the Brethren General Board

David Robinson
National Coordinator
Pax Christi USA

Cheryl J. Sanders
Professor of Christian Ethics
Howard University School of Divinity
Senior Pastor, Third Street Church of God

William J. Shaw
President
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.

Carole Shinnick, SSND
Executive Director
Leadership Conference of Women Religious

Ronald G. Sider
President
Evangelicals for Social Action

Glen Stassen
Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics
Fuller Theological Seminary

Walter F. Sullivan,
Bishop-President of Pax Christi USA
Bishop, Catholic Diocese of Richmond

Joe Volk
Executive Secretary
Friends Committee on National Legislation

Jim Wallis
Executive Director/Editor
Sojourners

Barbara G. Wheeler
President
Auburn Theological Seminary

Mary Ann Zollmann, BVM
President
Leadership Conference of Women Religious

United Kingdom

Peter Price
Bishop Of Bath and Wells

Michael Langrish
Bishop of Exeter

Stephen Venner
Bishop of Dover

Michael Dunelm
Bishop of Durham

Michael Scott-Joynt
Bishop of Winchester

Colin Bennetts
Bishop of Coventry

Keiran Conry
Bishop of Arundel and Brighton (RC)

Peter Selby
Bishop of Worcester and Bishop to HM Prisons, Church of England

Jonathan Bailey
Bishop of Derby

John Perry
Bishop of Chelmsford

John Hind
Bishop of Chichester

Tim Stevens
Bishop of Leicester

Keith Sutton
Bishop of Lichfield

John Saxbee
Bishop of Lincoln

Anthony Pierce
Bishop of Swansea & Brecon

John Gladwin
Bishop of Guilford

Christopher Herbert
Bishop of St. Albans

John Stewart Davies
Bishop of St Asaph.

The Rt Rev'd Dr Barry Morgan
Bishop of Llandaff

Most Rev Andrew Bruce Cameron
Bishop of Aberdeen and Orkney
Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church

Michael Hare Duke
Retired Bishop of St Andrews

Maurice Taylor
Bishop of Galloway, Scotland (RC)

Alan D McDonald
Convener, Church and Nation Committee
Church of Scotland

Dr Nigel Goring Wright
President of the Baptist Union of Great Britain

C Rosemary H Castagner
Clerk
Ireland Yearly Meeting's Committee

Canon Andrew White
Coventry Cathedral Reconciliation Centre

Pat Gaffney
General Secretary
Pax Christi UK

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.US-UK_statement

To name a few.

 

Just like I thought. Not a single fatwa.

 

Not part of the christian ideological system. They also don't have 'jihads'

 

So not a single British cleric has written a fatwa against British troops in other countries? Not even one?