This is the sort of thing that has the power to cloud men’s minds. In “Saving Islam from itself,” a Washington Times column (thanks to Diana West), Islamic apologist Akbar Ahmed and the Middle East Broadcasting Center’s Susan Bradford write approvingly of CAIR’s fatwa against terrorism without ever noting the fatwa’s gargantuan loophole: it condemns attacks against innocents without ever saying whether or not American or British or Israeli civilians are innocent — and their innocence has been challenged by more than one Islamic jihadist.
That’s what gives this op-ed the power to cloud men’s minds. Casual readers and those unacquainted with the jihadist denial that various non-Muslim civilians are innocent will see this fatwa and op-ed as positive signs of moderation in the Islamic world. Yet because of the loophole, they are nothing of the kind, and do nothing to address and refute the jihadist ideology. Thus that ideology will continue to spread among Muslims. Is that what Ahmed and Bradford want?
Muslim groups on both sides of the Atlantic have categorically condemned suicide attacks made in the name of Islam, leading us to ask why have they taken so long to address the issue and what needs to be done henceforth to build on this new momentum and craft a peaceful conclusion to the war on terrorism.
Following the London attacks, Britain’s largest Muslim groups issued a fatwa condemning suicide missions. Muslim groups in the United States and around the world have followed suit. As noted by Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, terrorism is not consistent with Islam, and “those who try to commit acts of terror in the name of Islam try to misinterpret and misuse certain issues in Islamic jurisprudence and have no authority or qualification except their anger.” Their anger is rooted in perceived injustices against Islam, such as the occupation of the Arabian peninsula, the disregard of Muslim civilian life throughout the war on Iraq and the perceived indifference to the Muslim plight in areas such as Kashmir, Chechnya, and throughout the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The anti-Muslim rhetoric, which has saturated public discourse, has left the impression that Islam and its followers are being targeted for annihilation. The reaction from the Muslim community has been to strike out in violence to defend its survival and restore its honor and restore dignity.
Often the rhetoric of radical imams, which is highly politicized and deeply rooted in prejudice, is cited as the true face of Islam. However, unlike Christianity and Judaism, in which religious leaders interpret the holy texts for the faithful, imams lead Friday prayer services. The Koran is instead interpreted by Islamic scholars, whom Muslims look to for guidance “” thus instilling the recent fatwas with added significance.
As Mr. Awad said, “these legal scholars come to say that we are the authority on this subject, and we are the ones who determine how to interpret Islam. Therefore, (no) person in the globe can quote the Quran or the traditions of the Prophet to justify the harming and the killing of innocent people.” As noted by Salam al-Marayati, the executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, “our children need to be very clear on these matters. There should be no confusion and no ambiguities. As we stand together tall as leaders of established Muslim-American organizations, this is a message to our future generations and to our children that this notion that suicide bombing or terrorism has any room in Islam is rejected outright.”
Fine, Salam. Then you should have no problem clearing up the remaining ambiguities. I expect you will get right on that.