Fatwa against terrorism

18 comments from readers

Sharif
19 June 2008 at 13:42

Good news, This fatwa against terrorism. I doubt if this fatwa will be quoted , as Mr. Sarwar claims. It comes from a community in a country where Muslims are a minority. Talking of this in a majority Muslim country would be big success. In such countries so many killings are taking place in the name of Islam. Hardly any body is thinking of fighting against, what they call Jihad against infidels. In Pakistan, for example, if terrorists, in name of Islam, kill people, the press says, even the liberal ones, why are you killing Muslims. In other words, it is OK, if not desirable to kill the infidels, but leave Muslims alone. The end of Terrorism and Jihad can only be achieved if Muslims admit that Quranic teachings, at least a part of them, need reformation. The rest is all irrelevant, if not a waste of time. Writers who claim to be liberal, should concentrate on reformation and not on cosmetic operations just to achieve a better image of Islam. There again, under current circumstances, In Muslim countries even suggesting reformation, or deleting a verse in Quran would be tantamount to a fatwa and could shorten your life. Then you have to hide yourself in infidel country. What a religion, and I was born one. O dear, save me from so-called liberals and Mullahs for doing nothing but trying to create a better image.

Southfork
19 June 2008 at 16:49

Courageous and honest reply Sharif. All religions will only be saved by their own liberal minded devotees who refuse to be cowed by the fundamentalists

Sharif
19 June 2008 at 17:45

Thank you Southfork: In my first note I did not mention any specific examples. Problem number one is the status of women.Muslims do not treat women right. According to the Global Gender Gap (GGG) report, the planet's ten-worst offenders are: Yemen, Chad, Pakistan, Nepal, Saudi Arabia, Benin, Morocco, Turkey, Egypt and Oman. Of the ten, nine are Muslim-majority states. At the other end of the spectrum, the planet's best countries for women to live in are: Sweden, Norway, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Philippines, Germany, Denmark, Ireland and Spain. Not even one of the top-ten is a Muslim-majority state

But can Islam ever catch up while the following Qur'anic verses are believed by the vast majority of the Muslim faithful to be the dictated words of God? ...

"Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and beat them." (Qur'an 4:34)

"If any of your women commit a lewd act, and they testify to their guilt, confine them to their houses till death overtakes them." (Qur'an 4:15)

I challenge any Muslim to come forward and admit that yes, such verses must be deleted from Quran?

As you may be able to see from my name, i am a man.

proudlyleft
19 June 2008 at 19:36

Let's be honest, Sharif, every religious scripture in the world contains statements that are as problematic as the ones you quoted from the Quran, though again the translation of the Quran remains controversial in many parts (something both religious Muslims and their Western critics refuse to consider). Again, all religious people (not just Muslims) put faith in some kind of divine revelation: if it is not a book, it is a commandment; if it is not a commandment, it is a miracle etc. It seems to be a bit excessive to expect religious Muslims to start hacking away at the Quran: what they can be expected to do, and what many of them have been doing for decades, is to reinterpret such lines in keeping with current values.

Muslim countries often have a serious problem when it comes to the status of women. There is no doubt about that, and it is something that many Muslims (sometimes even religious ones) are concerned with. But can the matter be simply attributed to the Quran, or are there other social, political and economic factors at play? There is a good argument for the latter option. The tendency to simply blame the Quran for all the ills of Muslim societies and the (often Western/ised) call for religious Muslims to basically repudiate a book that is the essence of their identity (instead of reforming/reinterpreting/re-translating some parts of it) seems to smack of cultural browbeating to me... No wonder some even not-very-religious Muslims react strongly to it.

IndigoJo
19 June 2008 at 23:05

The fatwa may well carry extra weight because it comes from an institution associated with conservative views on religious matters, even if there may be some distance between them and the Taliban and some of the more extreme elements among Pakistani Deobandis. However, it is not the first fatwa to be issued condemning suicide bombings and deliberate attacks on innocent people in jihad; Shaikh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti (who currently lives in Oxford, but is from Malaysia if I remember rightly) issued a fatwa to that effect a few years ago which has also been widely quoted, as have a number of Saudi scholars and others. It would be interesting to put this issue to the major Deobandi religious schools in Pakistan, such as Binoria and Darul-Uloom Karachi.

BTW: two of the countries Sharif mentioned are not Muslim-majority countries - Benin and Nepal. It is interesting to note that Moldova comes fairly high on that list despite its reputation as a source of trafficked women; it is worthwhile to note that it measures only inequality, not the quality of life that men or women enjoy.

Vladimir Val
20 June 2008 at 01:58

Any one who studied the life of Mohammad and the beginning of Islam knows that Mr. Ziauddin Sardar’s statement of "In Islam, creating social discord or disorder, breach of peace, rioting, bloodshed, pillage or plunder and killing of innocent persons anywhere in the world are all considered most inhuman crimes” is a big fat unadulterated lie.

Around 620 AD Mohammad entered into a treaty of non-aggression with the citizens of Mecca. The treaty was to be for a period of several years but as soon as Mohammad felt strong enough, he broke the treaty and plundered Mecca, killing all in his way. This act set a president for the Koran. Mohammad made it clear that Muslims were commanded to make treaties that they had no intention of keeping, if it was to the advantage of the Muslims. This is deceit and it was a breach of peace, blood was shed, he and his men pillaged and plundered, and they killed innocents. This brought another “law” to the Koran. At that time it was considered by all that houses of worship were no place for blood shed. Mohammad added an addendum to that; unless the inhabitance “resisted”. This meant that if one raised a hand to defend them selves, they could be slaughtered; as they were.

There is no Imam who condemns the slaying of infidels. Infidels are not innocent by the shear fact that they have not submitted to Islam.

hopeandfear
20 June 2008 at 07:12

Dear, if you analyze wrong history, then you will come to wrong conclusions. The above mentioned treaty was broken by citizens of Mecca. And, I think they even refused to settle the matter. Also review the history before this treaty (how meccans oppressed the muslims); Actually when he entered mecca, he announced peace to all except the terrorists (six people were ordered to bring to justice). So, I kindly request you to refer history from authentic sources (Michel H. Hart, Encyclopedia, wikipedia, etc...)

Sharif
20 June 2008 at 08:38

It is difficult to discuss anything if you start to accuse others of quoting wrong sources, as hopeandfear has done. Hope and fear? Is that not motto for a faith?. I have read in some books that Bokhari also mentions this episode that vladimirval quotes. I have read a book called 'Why I am not a Muslim' by an author who because of Fear, does not use his real name. He also mentions such attacks by Mohammed. Before he conquered Mecca, his main source of income was , attacking caravans with goods and subsequently distributing the loot. A lion's share he took for himself. Before a war started he used to tell his followers. "If you win, you will own their property and their women". Women? Yes, Muslims were allowed to have sexual relations with women of defeated enemies.

lawdude
20 June 2008 at 18:14

There is so much mis-information contained in these comments that it will take a fairly long essay to refute them, which is why these ideas continue to be repeated till they become part of the social lexicon.

Neither Shariff or Vladimir seriously address the story which is the Deobandi fatwa and conference against violence. It is clear from these Deobandi scholars that this reputable body of Islamic scholars assert that violence and killing in the name of Islamic is un-Islamic and unsupportable.

Instead of addressing this issue, Vladimir merely makes up facts and distorts Islamic history while defaming the Prophet Muhammad. There was no treaty between the Muslims and the Meccans in 620. If you cannot have an honest debate, then at least admit your ideologically driven agenda.

With respect to Shariff's comments, quoting Ibn Warraq clearly show's his apostate and hostile tendencies. There is no sense debating those who derive their income and livelihood on writing books that attack Islam, defame the Prophet Muhammad, and reject the Quran as an authentic book of religious inspiration.

Both Vladimir and Shariff's intentions are clearly to continue old colonial stereotypes and ignore the positive efforts of some Muslims. Simply dismissing the efforts of an extremely influential conservative Islamic institution with followers in the millions in India, Pakistan, Europe, South Africa, and North America, and digressing into irrelevant issues like women is not an argument.

When you are ready to have an honest discussion, then we can discuss the true merits of these latest efforts to combat violence.

maniseharan
21 June 2008 at 03:28

Great news. This message only comes from the muslims in minority group and this were to be directed toward countries where majority live then three quarter of the battle is won.

Sharif
21 June 2008 at 09:57

Lawdude: You obviously like your words so much that you posted them twice. There are some points in your post, which are inaccurate. You say I did not go into Deobandi verdict. If you read my 1st post I said: Good news, this verdict on terrorism. Then you say anybody who reads Ibn warraq, is prejudiced anyway. Really? May I remind you again that you read my 2nd post. There you will see my quotations from Quran. Yes, If you now claim that anybody reading quran is not neutral, it would be another matter. So I quote quran, and you dot contract those quotations, which means they were accurate. So there.

You then turn your anger by saying that Muslims are not killing Muslims anywhere in Muslim countries. (I was referring to majority Muslim countries). All I can say is you should read the papers in detail. I am quoting a Pakistani paper from today (Daily Times, Lahore), which shows how we are handling this phenomenon:

"Another boy has been sentenced to death and fine for blasphemy by a sessions court in Sialkot. The verdict came as the court was surrounded by zealots who want people immolated to their fanaticism. Like dozens of cases in the past, the judge had to hand out the maximum punishment to save his own life."

In Egypt, Iraq, Iran. Pakistan and other countries are full of such rot. Women being killed for not wearing Hijab, women talking to another man, Men caught drinking and mosques being bombed by unknown zealots for no other reason than a faith in another sect. The list is long. I come from pakistan, and saying that intentions are clearly to continue old European colonial stereotypes, is a lie and should be taken by any other man of gentlemanly nature.

I have tried to reply to your assertions. If you want to carry on with discussion, may I suggest that you read before contradicting me. I know, in Islam anybody criticizing Islam gets another treatment, Like this boy in pakistan. But we are west and also i write like Ibn Warraq, you can't get me. thank you. Refrain yourself to arguments. Salman rushdi, Ms Ali and many more are hiding from 'tolerant' followers of your faith.

aflatoon
21 June 2008 at 11:25

i just wonder what constitutes trrorism.please define trrorism.i know nobody will make a defination acceptable to all.attacking a weak n one of the most backward countries in the present world in the name of fighting trrorism is not an act of terrorism.if afghanistan had not been attacked by the neocons the world should not have seen so much horror,death,destruction,maiming n torure.in the name of fighting terrorism the acts of torturing the enemy or suspected enemy fighters like hanging them by the wrist in uncomfortable positions ,water boarding n keeping locked in places like guantanamo bay ,in secret prisons the us is itself perpetuating acts of terror.but no body is bothered by these acts of inhuman proportions.attacking iran in the hollow claim of wmd is itself an act of terror.these acts are continuing.no body is bothered about somalia n ethiopians attacking n ransacking it.the world has for gotten a small place like chechnya whidh is being vandalised n plundered by russia.for the last decade or so.

mr sardar i request u to kindly first define terrorism n then talk about it.the muslims have been at the receiving end oth euroans n now americans for almost a decade.now they are doing something abhorrable n unpardonable acts.but do think about the causes my dear sir.the falasinees are being humiliated,maimed n killed by the occupiers of their lands ;this act is being supported by the so called allies.there is so much injustice n acrimony prevailing in the present world that any sane voice will not be heard.branding a set of people as terrorists is itselaf agross injustice.are the chechnyans fighting for their freedom terrorists then why not the tibetans .i have not seen them being branded as terrorists.what about the sim fein;they were never christened terrorist.so als with the basque folks who are known as seperatists.

plese sit down n think what the world has undergone in the name of democracy n secularism.who is responsible for this.who is supplying arms n deadly weapons to israel to attack israel.the matter is being complicated by holier than thou attitude.in the 9 th century itself europe n america has done so much killing n bloodshed that it will take a lot to write about these gory acts.till a few decades back s.africa was ruled by the shamsful aparthied supported by all the champions of humanity n preachers of kindnes.the west has itself been a victim of its double standards;what justice it will deliver to this strife torn world whidh is mainly their own creation.

sorry for this bitter outburst.but i have not seen any problem solved in my lifetime either by the super powers or their hand maid the impotent uno.waging war on other lands is not going to help.today also 4 soldiers are reported to have been killed in afghanistan.u may brand it as an act of terror but please dont forget there is a war going on .in war the enemy is not hugged or kissed.moreover what ever may be said the nato or calition forces what ever misnomer u apply to it are the invading or occupying powers.no amount of fatwas is going to help.the americans have landed in a wrong place.afghanistan is not columbia.pl remember this.arm twisting the maliki govt into long term agreement n keeping their forces in iraq till etrnity is not going to help eother.go on seeing the result.even if u get some tutored fatwa they are not going to change the seriousness of the situation.in the end i will say lwt justice prevail.stop your double standards. aflatoon india.

Ahmad
21 June 2008 at 12:10

The Deobandis' fatwa is a welcome move, but it will be interesting to see how this is actually implemented. For instance, what is the Deobandis' stance about other groups in Islam with whom it has historically had very hostile relations, to the point it has even fired up their members to attack other Muslims and mosques? The Deobandis' hatred for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, for instance, has motivated some Deobandi radicals to persecute Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan. Since the Ahmadis live by the motto 'Love for All, Hatred for None' - which should be the banner promoted by all in Islam in fact - they have never retaliated. In addition, do not the Deobandis believe that Jesus will one day descend weilding a sword and threaten to slaughter any man or woman that rejects Islam? Where will this fatwa be then? Perhaps in light of the bad press the Deobandis have received lately (the Times ran a special feature exposing the extremist views of its UK head, Shaykh Riyadhul Haq), the fatwa appears to be a PR stunt. But I hope I'm proved wrong and that this really does signal the start of their move back towards true Islam.

Sharif
22 June 2008 at 08:17

Ahmad's input is welcome. Ahmadis are being persecuted in Pakistan, but also in other Islamic countries. Saudis, Kuwaitis and many others do not allow them to enter their country. In Pakistan, where there are estimated to be a couple of million Ahmadis, is the treatment inhuman. I wonder if any scholar of Islam , throws some light on this subject.

After having said that, I must correct Ahmad that to claim that Ahmadis "Love for all. Hatred for none" is just a slogan, nothing more. Agmad knows that. I know a couple who stopped paying the monthly contribution to the sect and they were not only thrown out of the group, but considered kafirs. Another woman whose husband used to beat her up (here in the west), went to their Imam and she was told not to leave her husband and carry on trying in the hope that he may change. She decided a divorce and was later excommunicated. There was a time when you saw a Burqa clad woman, you knew the woman belong to this sect. The status of women in their sect is worse than many other Muslim cultures. This 'love for others' does not include even their close relatives, since when they die, Ahmadis refuse to join the last prayers (Janaza) for him or her. When Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan died, Sir Zafrullah refused to give the last respects ti him because 'He (JInnah)is not Muslim' in their eyes. I must also say something positive about their faith. This is the only sect which declared Jihad as unislamic, as Mirza Sahib said, Jihad is not needed to today's world. How i agree with him.

Ahmad
23 June 2008 at 18:58

Sharif, I have been an Ahmadi Muslim all my life, and God is my Witness that the slogan sums up the Ahmadiyya Jama'at in a nutshell. The isolated cases you cite are not based on true facts. Yes, there are some members who do not pay their chanda (subscription) either at all or according to the prescribed rate, but this does not preclude them from being Ahmadi Muslims. I personally know of some members who do not pay anything, but they continue to participate in our events unchallenged. The people you cite I presume were those who may have conducted themselves in a manner not worthy of our traditions, and because of their unacceptable and indeed unIslamic behaviour effectively cut themselves off from the Jama'at. In any case the Jama'at is no need of people's fees - I would refer you to our Khalifa's sermon of 13th June (go to http://www.alislam.org/archives/ and look under 'Archived Sermons')

As for the treatment of women, if it really was that bad, why do the thousands of our female members, young and old, continue to make enormous sacrifices for the cause of Islam (building of mosques, etc) and demonstrate utmost love for our Khalifas? There is no comparison in the selfless dedication and commitment to the mission of the Promised Messiah of our ladies, and the casual 'services' given by other Muslim women who think donating spare change to the odd dawah project here and there is what Islam requires! Again, the case you cite of domestic abuse needs looking at properly - not knowing your sources I don't think we are obliged to respond to things about which you have no proof. But let it be made clear - the Ahmadiyya Jama'at does not condone any mistreatment or abuse of anyone, not least women, who hold an extremely honoured position in our community. I would also invite you to our mosques, Jalsas, etc, to see the extent of this honour.

Regarding Sir Zafrullah Khan Sahib, you have misquoted him and thereby misrepresented us. Correct, he did not join the funeral prayer - as it was led by an anti-Ahmadi mullah who abused Mirza Ghulam Ahmad - but when asked about his non-participation in the Janaza, he responded with words to the effect that 'You can either consider this a case of a Kafir not joining the Janazah of a Muslim, or a Muslim not joining the Janazah of a Kafir'. 'Kafir' and 'non-Muslim' are different. One can be a Muslim but still be a Kafir (as the Prophet Muhammad said, a Muslim who does not offer his daily prayers is a Kafir - the word Muslim was still used in the hadith for the Kafir). Kafir means one who covers the truth. However, a non-Muslim is one who does not believe in Islam. Sir Zafrullah Khan Sahib used the term 'Kafir' in the context of someone (i.e. M Ali Jinnah) who did not believe in the Promised Messiah, but never used the term non-Muslim.

Another point of correction - Mirza Ghulam Ahmad only prohibited physical Jihad for this age, not the ongoing spiritual and moral Jihad of self-purification and self-correction.

Stan Rosenthal
24 June 2008 at 17:23

Aflatoon, there is a very simple definition of terrorism that clearly distinguishes it from other forms of violence. It is a form of violence that is intended to create terror by DELIBERATELY targetting innocent civilians in places where by all the standards of civilised behaviour they would consider themselves to be safe, like market places, restaurants, buses, mosques, synagogues, churches, queues for work, football fans celebrating the victory of Iraq etc, etc, Not to mention the car bombers who put children in their cars to escape detection!

javK
25 June 2008 at 01:22

I don't think this fatwa adds much to the current debate - next to no muslim has a problem with innocent civilians let alone killing them.

The problem is the not so innocent ones, who come to our lands, undertake military training, get armed to the teeth with weapons, and parade around and want to be termed civilans when the locals decide to have a pop at them - eg Israel. Here is the not so palatable (to the west) use of violence which some see as freedome fighters and others terrorists...

The article below is quite a good analysis addressing a number of the issues above...

http://islamic-considerations.blogspot.com/

Sharif
25 June 2008 at 07:57

Stan Rosenthal: your definition of terrorism is not off the mark. What Aflatoon was saying is simply this: Everybody talks of terror and they mean the Muslims killing others and he wants to equate USA wars as terror and thereby justify the Islamic terror. Ask Aflatoon this: When Muhammad attacked Mecca was it also terror? When he also attacked many other countries after he became powerful, what would he define such acts? Muslims carried on with Muhammad's 'conquer' policy much after his death. That is why they say that Islam was spread with a sword. At one time they reached Europe. Many Muslims feel 'proud' to narrate the story of Tariq who crossed Africa and took over Gibraltar and then Spain. Were these people heros or terrorists? The fact is we have had all our 'black' history where subjugating other weaker nations was considered part of the game. Now it is America, but America does not colonize other countries. they have self interest, but they let people elect their countries, something very uncommon in Muslim countries. If you are going to a mosque in Cairo or Karachi and a bomber bombs the place, you can say, well, this is not terror, it is in reply to American 'terror'. What a logic. If Van Gogh is killed in the streets of Amsterdam, just because he dared criticize Islam, that is also in reply to USA. Aflatoon, you believe in that?