Poor boys. What shall ever they do with idle hands?

Posted by: mustang65 at August 3, 2007 9:49 AM

Does this mean that all Muslim men are bound by this fatwa? Or can some find a verse in the Qu'ran that contradicts it? Or a "cleric" that disagrees with the fatwa? Since the fatwa is issued by a Shi'a, do Sunnis have to obey it? Or can Sunnis dismiss it as a Shi'a heresy?

That being said, it is a start. Maybe there are moderate Muslim. The proof, however, is in the reaction of other Muslims to this fatwa.

Posted by: tanstaafl at August 3, 2007 10:19 AM

The sunni will not follow a shiite fatwa. And not all shiites will follow it. Fatwas are a dime a dozen and with people who are bred as murdering thugs, don't even think for one minute that 'honor killings' will stop.

Sometimes they issue these fatwas for our 'enjoyment'. It is what we want to hear. (we = non-muslims)

Posted by: R_not at August 3, 2007 10:21 AM

Yeah, yawn, fatwa,- who cares..?

Look at the small print. Look at the traditions. They will do what they always did, fatwa or no fatwa...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 3, 2007 10:26 AM

I doubt that a fatwa can overcome what is seen as honor and duty. Since Islams entire punishment system is based on, severe and prolonged pain, I dont see the involved muslims giving it up, fatwa or no fatwa. Only a secular law with severe penaltys will curb it.

Posted by: duh_swami at August 3, 2007 11:08 AM

Fadlallah, conceivably the moral conscience of anyone?

Posted by: Hugh at August 3, 2007 11:37 AM

How's Faduallah going to change the eternal command of Allah on this matter? And why would anyone listen to him over Allah/Mohammed?

004.015 YUSUFALI: If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.

PICKTHAL: As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).

SHAKIR: And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.

That's allah himself talking.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at August 3, 2007 11:52 AM

How's Faduallah going to change the eternal command of Allah on this matter? And why would anyone listen to him over Allah/Mohammed?

004.015 YUSUFALI: If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way.

PICKTHAL: As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine them to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way (through new legislation).

SHAKIR: And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.

That's allah himself talking.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at August 3, 2007 11:57 AM

During the Ramadan riots of Novemeber 2005, the government denied that there was a religious dimension to the conflict.

Then they sent Muslim organisations to read a fatwa out to calm down the rioters.

This follows the same logic

Posted by: Sebastien at August 3, 2007 12:05 PM

This is a Good Thing. Real morality, seeping in from the enlightened, is creating changes in the Islamic world. Exposing Islam and mocking the backwardness of the Muslim world works.

Posted by: Quijybo at August 3, 2007 12:05 PM

Greetings:

He denounced "honour crimes in which men kill their sisters, daughters or other [female] relatives on the pretext of committing acts against decency and honour."

What if it's not "on the pretext"?

Islamospeak

Posted by: 11B40 at August 3, 2007 12:13 PM

Basically, if you read the koran you will find that mohammed made it near impossible to change what he laid down as laws. He said that if anyone questioned the koran then they are questioning allah and they will go to hell. He didn't even go for discussions about it between religions - he said that the others will go to hell and that is it - no discussion - period.

(even though allah certainly changed its 'mind' often enough or else we wouldn't have abrogated verses - seems as though allah wasn't that infallible.n Maybe the angel Gabriel goofed up when he went from allah's joint to mohammed's digs. Maybe Gabriel took a side step to hades to meet some old friends - hey, the devils were angels at one time - and he forgot the exact words of allah.)

Posted by: R_not at August 3, 2007 12:29 PM

It will take a long time to open up a divide between acceptable behavior and Muhammad's commands, particularly in the Muslim world. Until that happens we have to satisfy ourselves with this sort of fatwa. When the gulf between modern morality and Muhammad grows wider among Muslims, criticism of Islam will find fertile ground in surprising places.

The ultimate problem with reforming Islam is that there is nothing that has softened the harshness of Muhammad's ways for the last 1400 years. The Sahih Hadith and Sharia are as diabolical as the Quran, if not more so. If you read the Old Testament, you will find such outrages as rapists being married to their victims, but both Jewish law and Christianity have softened this sort of thing over time. You'll also find the ancient Hebrews conquering and exterminating people, taking the women and children just like Muhammad commanded, but not a legal system that enshrines this as the correct path for all time.

Taking all this under consideration, it is not actually impossible to reform Islam, just extremely difficult, because the process has not even begun when compared to other religions. It is much easier for Muslims to simply leave Islam for a more sane system than to reform what they have. Then again, there are people trying, and I believe in their good intentions (like Irshad Manji's Project Ijtihad), and with them the best of luck influencing their co-religionists. Much like criticism of Islam, their ideas can only grow at the expense of traditional Islam.

Posted by: Quijybo at August 3, 2007 12:53 PM

I'm sure other imams will continue to support family "honor." Get a second fatwa as they say.

Posted by: Beagle at August 3, 2007 1:44 PM

Just a comment re. quijybo's remarks above.

Despite its violence, the conquest of Canaan was limited in both space and time. Certain particular practices commanded FOR THAT CONQUEST ONLY, had an expiry date attached, so to speak. Once they had conquered part - not even all! - of Canaan, the people of Israel stayed within their boundaries. Thus far and no further.

There are different OT rules that govern warfare with one's next-door neighbours - and indeed, all the wars recorded in the OT AFTER the time of the conquest of Canaan are wars of self-defence, frequently losing ones!

Neighbours like Edom and Moab are viewed as permanent features: their land is NOT viewed as potential Israelite land. In that, the writers of the OT are realistic and sensible. The Hebrew scriptures are, in fact, totally allergic to the dream of Empire (see story of Tower of Babel, for example).

I note, too, that with regard to captive women, the OT law says that the Israelite soldier who captures a woman in war must leave her alone for a month, first, to mourn for her family. THEN, if he still wants her, he must marry her. The marriage must be a proper marriage and he has no right to sell her; he has to keep her, as a wife, or let her go free.

Rather different from Mohammed, who on at least two occasions raped women while their husbands' dead bodies were still warm, and whose troops made a practice of capturing women, raping them on the day of capture, and selling them as slaves.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at August 3, 2007 6:27 PM

It says something when Hizbullah's Fadlallah is the conscience of the Islamic world. Or at least the Shia part of it.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 4, 2007 2:13 AM

Beirut -- Lebanon's top Shia Muslim cleric Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah issued a fatwa, or religious edict yesterday, banning so-called honour killings as repulsive acts that contradict Islamic law.

First of all... not that it's this guy's fault - even if he is sincere - but the Sunni won't listen to his edicts anyway.

This is part of the ingenious duality of islam.. the Sunni will denounce this man as a Shia infide which proved even more so that honor killings are the way to go..

Their logic is totally nutty but I am beginning to "get it".

What I have yet to figure out is how to counter the spread of this virus called islam mentally.. I do consider it a highly potent mental virus.. and I am NOT alone in this assessment.

What methodology of Psychiatric Science and Practice can be brought to bear against this debilitating mental disorder islam?

If Western Science and Thought is truly superior to this 7th Century death cult which calls itself islam then we MUST be capable of conceiving the intellectual antidote to it.

Simply "outing" islam and telling the truth about it does not strike me as the way to go.

The root of this problem goes much deeper if we are to consider to pursue its eventual demise via the Power of reason and Thought.

Unbridled militarism in the face of this ongoing threat can only work as long as there is large-scale agreement among the populace about the nature of this threat.

One very natural - and essential - aspect of our Democracies is a mutually tolerated or at least accepted diversity of views and opinion.

Quite naturally this will serve to not only slow down our response to the re-emerging challenge presented by islam. The very nature of our open and relativist pluralistic Societies offers an ideal entry point for the uncompromising
and unwaveringly hegemonist creed of islam.

The very fact that the fissions within our very own societies are so remarkably and easily exploitable gives great incentive and motivation to those who'd almost given up all hope to ever regaining the opportunity to conquer their eternal nemesis.. the Golden Hedonistic Free West!

This is so damn Ying and Yang that I am almost ready to go Buddhist!

WHY does God give THEM all the OIL and the resources while all we get is the brains and the spirit of inovation and Science?

Does this strike any of you as ironic as it does me?

If it weren't for the oil.. islam would have been finished...

Our very own CONSCIENCES aided them!

We could have very well defended the oil wells we [through our companies] had discovered and activated for exploitation...

Yet Our very own commonly shared Heritage of the Enlightenment is what made us step back and try to find a non-violent compromise instead.

never thinking ahead, of course. [as I, a barely adolescent German youth did while never daring to relate these thoughts to anyone for fear of being not only a racist but even worse - a Nazi.]

Yet i did think those thoughts back then.. and I wondered WHY are there so many Lybians and others from weird countries that hate Israel who are studying Nuclear Sciences in my hometown in Germany.. It made NO SENSE to me at the time.. Now even less so.. see A.Q. Khan for example.

Were we that arrogant that maye we thought that no matter what they learn from us.. they'd never be able to build it?

I know Germany isn't supposed to have a nuclear weapon, but we have one of course.. it can be assembled in a matter of minutes when needed.. only our post-War treaties don't allow us the fully assembled version. And obviously we can't test.

But trust me.. we have them ready in under 20 minutes should the emergency ever arise..

Given the guvmints we've been under these last 20 years or so I am no longer so sure that we'd actually make use of this emergency capability - even if it were our very last straw.

These days a nuclear-capable Japan and Germany are actually beginning to seem desirable in the near future.

The thing is.. what if Germany were to fall into the hands of an islamic-run government [much like England and France] that would have little regard for prior Constitutional balances and restraints?

Japan is far more removed from this threat than any of the major Nations of Europe at this time.

I find it quite surprising that these very real and chilling scenarios seem to have so very little impact on the policy-making of the contemporary leadership of the United States.

Shortsighted pandering to duplicitous Nations like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, to name but the two most stunning examples of willful ignorance of National Self-interest, does nothing to further the long-term strategic goals of American nor of European National Security.

In my view this pandering does everything to undermine our commonly shared security interests, for one. Furthermore, this has allowed our common enemy a most formidale foothold within all of our Western Societies.. The prolific and very insightful writings of one Hugh Fitzgerald should provide ample proof of this.. both via his wide array of anecdotal evidence as much as his many detailed references to the direct correlation of islamist behavior to islamic text.

Since I am beholden to make my case without a powerful and mighty crutch as provided by the Mssrs. Spencer and Hugh, I will try to make my case completely on my own.

IF.. American policy objective is to maintain American security.. then it would STAND to Reason.. [not that this would take much brains beyond simple logic to figure out].. that you would NOT consider it in your strategic interest should the nuclear arsenals of Britain or France - and the somewhat denied and secret German ones - fall into islamic hands one day.

Yet the USA is actively encouraging a moslem state in Kosovo/Bosnia.. the USA keeps pushing for Turkey to get into the EU.. over the known objections of the majorit of populations of each and every present member state!

When Austria **dared** to block.. they were vilified and called Nazis and worse, if there is anything worse you could call them.

So WHY would the USA so seemingly ignore their very own Security Objectives? Even if they might be playing with those of their European Allies?

There is room for two possible explanations here.

Either the USA is REALLY THAT dumb.. and Bush is a great way to sell that one.. that they would REALLY think they can bring democracy to the Nations of islam.. and to an islamic Nation of Bosnia and Kosovo carved right out of the heart of one of America's most steadfast and loyal ally - Serbia.

Makes no sense to me.

Or.. they are playing some kind of a macchiavellian geo-strategical game of trying to undermine and destabilize a potentially nascent and competitive Europe.. You know.. behind the scenes kind of stuff... kind of like supporting the Taliban versus Russia back in the late 70s and early 80s. Damn.. I was just a kid back then and I could NEVER figure out WHY the Americans would give weapns and training to a bunch of islamist militants.. we had Khomeini and Bin Laden and their ilk on TV almost every night and - just like Adolf Hitler - they were clearly stating their attitudes and their intenions for us.

There is of course a third scnario.. one that virtually NOONE believes.. LOL.. WE are BRINGING DEMOCRACY to the downtrodden peoples of the oil-rich Middle East.

Hail to the chief!

Posted by: Allahfanculo at August 4, 2007 4:55 AM