The Economist has shown little sign of comprehending the realities of Islamic terrorism in the past, so it was somewhat refreshing to see these paragraphs in the self-important old rag (thanks to Ali Dashti for the link):
Even so, the sheer nastiness of jihadist violence has begun to generate a powerful groundswell of angry Muslim opposition. The coincidence of the anniversary of September 11th 2001 with the horrific slaughter of schoolchildren at Beslan provoked a chorus of condemnation. This was not only against terrorism, but also against the clerics whose extremist interpretations support that terrorism.Why, demands a former Kuwaiti minister writing in the Saudi daily Al Sharq al Awsat, have we not heard a single fatwa against Osama bin Laden, when Muslims fell over themselves to condemn Salman Rushdie for writing a “vapid” novel? Who has done more damage to Islam? Muslims must no longer remain silent, declares an editorial in the Egyptian weekly Rose al-Yusef; our fear of speaking out has become the terrorists' fifth column.
But The Economist still cannot and probably will not answer its own question: why has there been no fatwa against Osama? That would lead it to a most un-PC consideration of Islamic theology, law, traditions, and history, and to the point I keep making that few, if any, want to admit: that Osama's theology represents a broad tradition in Islam, and must be acknowledged as such before anything truly effective can be done to contain it. There can be no revisionism of the Qur'an and Sunnah until the need for such revisionism is acknowledged. Otherwise new terrorists will continue to stream out of mosques and madrassas, and the dhimmis and multiculturalists at The Economist will wring their hands in puzzlement.
why has there been no fatwa against Osama?
Dear Robert,
Why are you showing this although I've clearly given you a fatwa passed by high Saudi religious scholars against Usama Ibn Laden and his likes?
Again for those who are interested:
http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/downloads/pdf/GSC020003.pdf
Now who is decieving who?
For more statements against terrorism by high Saudi religious officials:
http://www.fatwa-online.com/index.htm
The disingenuous attempt just above to have us believe that the two links show a "fatwa" against Bin Laden is transparent. Sheik Bin Baz's remark, which when made was clearly the result of pressure from the Saudi government, mentions three people -- Bin Laden, and two terrorist leaders within Saudi Arabia, whose terrorism was aimed solely at the Saudi rulers. The second is much the same. So what we have here are not really "fatwas" against Bin Laden, but statements extracted by pressure from the Saudi rulers which are designed to protect them, and only them, not Infidels generally. Just look again at the Bin Baz statement about the three things demanded of Muslims -- the second one is obedience to the ruler. We know what that is all about.
If those two links offered were intended as evidence that there have been "fatwas" denouncing Bin Laden for any of his attacks on Infidels -- that is, on anyone other than the Saudi rulers -- it not only fails to convince, but highlights exactly what Robert Spencer was saying. For if there had been, anywhere in the world, over the past three years since 9/11/2001, a single fatwa issued denouncing Bin Laden precisely for his attacks on Infidels, had there before that, in the past 40 years of terrorism (and more), been a single fatwa deploring the terrorism directed at Israelis, had there been any protest against such behavior by Muslims anywhere in the West -- there has not been one, not one -- instead of all those crocodile-tear taqiyyah-and-kitman partipations in "interfaith rallies" that took place in September 2001.
Obedience of the ruler is not just a statement grasped from the air but an obligation stated in the the Quran, Hugh.
"O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority." (4:59)
Further on, this Quranic verse has been empathized by the Prophets, saying:"It is obligatory upon a Muslim to listen (to the ruler) and obey whether he likes it or not, except when he is ordered to do a sinful thing; in such case, there is no obligation to listen or to obey.''
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].
And in:
"One who withdraws his hand from obedience (to the Amir) will find no argument (in his defense) when he stands before Allah on the Day of Resurrection; and one who dies without having sworn allegiance will die the death of one belonging to the Days of Ignorance.''
[Muslim].
So I'm sorry to disappoint you, Hugh; it's not a religious fabricated statement by the Saudi government but a clear Quranic obligation.
Secondly, not only Saudi scholars condemned the attack but also others:
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
Just look under the heading:
"Specific Muslim Scholars"
And last: Israel is the one who is terrorizing most non-Muslims hold this view:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2129.shtml
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2003-12/18/article03.shtml
bugmenot~ then should not every single muslim who has come across Bin Laden in the past 3 years, made the effort to follow thru with those fatwas? Or are they all apostates now? Once again, the burden of proof is upon You. How is Hugh wrong when dozens, if not hundreds, if not Thousands of muslims have encountered Bin Laden in the last few years, and he is still running loose? Someone's ignoring their Koranic obligations...
Saying someone to be an apostate is a case for the judgje however like you've noted; they should have known better and follow the Quran (i.e. most important source for Muslims and believing in it is a requirement).
As I may quote:
“And who does more wrong than he who is reminded of the Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of his Lord, then turns aside therefrom? Verily, We shall exact retribution from the Mujrimoon (criminals, disbelievers, polytheists, sinners)”
[al-Sajdah 32:22]
The question is: are people, like Bin Lade, doing the right thing according to Islam(see my evidence)? If no, why are people still using them as a source of representation?
The reader who thinks I am unaware that obedience to the ruler is not part of Qur'an and hadith almost wilfully misses my point. Of course this idea is in Qur'an and hadith, and it is one of the problems that keeps despots in power all over the Muslim world. What I pointed out was that the remarks extorted by the Saudi government from Bin Baz and others were intended to shore up the government, not really to stop terrorism directed at Infidels. The very reminder by Bin Baz that one must obey the ruler is transparent -- this comment is not against terrorism, has nothing to do with the World Trade Center, or Beslan, or anything but attacks withiin Saudi Arabia, designed to weaken the regime.
The same is true for the second link provided by the poster, so eager to make us believe that fatwas have been issued against terrorism. Nonsense. The only opinions offered are those carefully crafted for the internal Saudi audience, even with two named Saudi terrorists mentioned first (and Bin Laden added at the end), and designed to end attacks within Saudi Arabia. The only Infidels whom the Saudis care about are those who, in being killed within Saudi Arabia, may by their deaths drive away the foreign workers on whom, 31 years after OPEC provided for the largest transfer of wealth in human history, the Saudi economy and state still depend almost completely. What in god's name, one wonders, have the Saudi rulers done with all that money -- trillions of dollars have gone to the OPEC oil states, and Saudi Arabia alone must have pocked, simply by sitting on top of oil, 1-3 trillion. Where did it all go?
Were I a Saudi, I would certainly wish to know. But the problem in any Muslim state is that all disenchantment or dissent is crushed, and the phrase about "obedience to the ruler" used to silence critics. And what is still worse, from the Infidel point of view, is that the entire lexicon, and hence the entire world-view, derives only from Islam. Thus, an intolerably corrupt ruler is not denounced for being "corrupt" but for being an "Infidel" -- for that is the only way to get around that "obedience to the (Muslim) ruler" problem. Hence, everything is still seen in terms of Believer and Infidel.
The naive hope of some in Washington that somehow normal politics will take over in Iraq, supplanting the belief-system of Islam that has that country in thrall, as it does all Muslim countries except those that have from without (the Central Asian republics which, to one degree or another, had Islam suppressed by the Soviets, allowing for the rise of secularists, or Turkey, where the job was done from within, by Ataturk and like-minded Turks, yearning to be free from the shackles of Islam while remaining "Muslim" in limited ways), will soon be shown to be folly.
Islam remains the problem -- not least for Muslims themselves who would like better rulers, but cannot get around the Islamic doctrines concerning obedience to authority.
No one in the Muslim world is going to start putting that celebrated, if fatuous, bumpersticker on any cars travelling from Riyadh to Jeddah, or from Amman to Damascus: "Question authority."
Hugh, I'm not missing the point but you're trying to solve the puzzle according to your whims and desires.
I've given you fatwa's from numerous scholars including non-Saudi's. Further on, I've given you a link (http://www.fatwa-online.com) which proves my point that even right after 9/11 the Saudi scholars condemned them although they weren't a direct victim.
So how can you say that the fatwa's wich were passed before any attack in SA were only to prevent weakening of the regime. Further on, little did the world know that Muhaddith Al-albaani, who is recieving a lot of respect in SA, already cleared the 'jihadi' issue before his death (1999):
http://www.spubs.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=IBD17&articleID=IBD170004&articlePages=1
It's not surprising that most people don't know this, Hugh.
The facts are, Hugh, they don't have any basis on Islam, so why are you defending them?
Would you not like to say that Islam has no basis for these actions, as the sources are clearly saying?
By the way, Hugh:
What does Islam says about killing children?
http://www.salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=10&Topic=3959
Don't be fooled, Hugh, like may have been fooled already.
My dear "bugmenot":
As Hugh has pointed out, the message from Bin Baz is only about obeying rulers. While endeavoring to forbid Osama's and Al-Qaeda's actions against the Saudi government, it says nothing about his actions toward "infidel" states such as the U.S.
As for the statements against killing children, I applaud them. But there are many Islamic authorities who declare that killing children who are aiding the war effort is justified, that there are no civilians in Israel, etc. I have quoted some of these many times: notably the Shafi'i manual Umdat al-Salik and the jurist Mawardi. Until there is a REFUTATION of their arguments, their arguments will continue to be effective. Your sources have not refuted them, but ignored them.
I am all for reform in Islam, but this reform cannot be carried out by ignoring radical arguments, but by refuting them. Otherwise the radicals will continue to recruit effectively on the basis of the Islamic authorities they accept.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
"bugmenot" - to extend the comment of both Hugh and RS, I am waiting for Muslims to refute violent jihad in principle. However, as empty words are the same as empty promises, I further wait for not only the refutation of this tenet, but for Muslims to ferret out and turn in bombers and their enablers. You can imagine that I have the proverbial snowball's chance of seeing this happen. Thus, I will neither hold my breath nor believe that Muslims are sincere in their condemnation of the violence.
The Heart of Islam [ITS BLACK HEART OF STONE AND CRUELTY] is surely Allah's Messenger, Prophet Muhammed. As this man was a pedophile, thief, torturer, murderer, deceiver and rapist; it is difficult to see how all the white washing and sanitizing in the world can redeem his image. Or his messages of hate, incitement to death and violence of Non Muslims.
bugmenot
As my Grandmother use to say, “The proof is in the pudding.” What she was referring to was, everything sounds great in theory, but how does it work in the real world. You (and many others) may say that Islam is a religion of peace, that it prohibits the killing of children, that Osama Bin Laden has a fatwa against him and all the rest of those wonderful things. But it simply does not matter what you think or say if Islam in practice does kill children, is the major source of terrorism in the world and the majority of Muslims support Osama and his aims. Unless and until all these major faults of Islam are corrected, voluntarily or by force if need be, then you can expect more and more criticism and sanctions against your ‘religion’. Learn to deal with it.
bugmenot,
What do you think of ahmediyas or qaidanis ?
Baz and others condemn the killing of fellow Muslims--although they don't seem to be too concerned when kaffirs are killed.
I'm available at intellect@spymac.com
The heart of Islam is a cold one made of stone, and one that must and will cease to beat.
"bugmenot" runs like a typical muslim coward.
He's probably under the AUTHORITY of Osama bin Laden and he's OBEYING his leader by trying to DECEIVE us with typical muslim propanganda.
Bukhari:V4B52N268 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘War is deceit.’”