Salaam
[size=18]UK Fatwa to Call Bombers Unbelievers, If Proved Muslims[/size]Britain’s top Muslim scholars are drafting a fatwa stripping those behind the grisly London blasts, if proved Muslims, from the right to call themselves Muslims, a leading British newspaper said Sunday, July 10.
[url=http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-07/10/article03.shtml]Islam...
Well 'Ed asked me to stick that on the site. I decided not to.
I disagree vehemently with it. My reasons:
1. Being a muslim is about beliefs, not actions.
2. It is the easy way out.
3. You are ignoring the problem by such 'fatwas'. Its just a convenient ouse. It will have no practical effect apart from them being called kaafirs; it will not prevent any future attrocities, it will not prevent any backlashes.
4. Islam is not a social club where you change rules just to gain acceptance.
What do you think?
I think if it were a fatwa far less Muslim youth would be prey to recruiters and sympathisers and sly bastards.
I disagree. It may have the opposite effect.
politically correct scholars offering a dubious fatwa will not confirm anything apart from the fact that scholars can be bought.
It will lessen the strength of arguments against terrorist actions as the proponents will be politically maligned.
Consider in one of OBL's tapes pre 9/11, a strong image with impact was Shah Fahd (or prince Abdullah) of Saudi Arabia wearing a cross. He was given it by queen Elizabeth.
It may have been a sign of solidarity, but it drove people to join Al qaeda.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Then it ought to be supported by some non-politically correct scholars as well or more fool them! There are deceivers in your midst and you should say so.
Basic Islamic tenet's:
Commit a haraam act, you are a sinner.
Deny the act is haraam; you are a disbeliever.
Therefore, no matter how bad the act is, you are a sinner. you cannot say the person is not muslim, until the individual denies its haraam.
By that very fact any one who claims if the bombers are muslims they no longer are is (IMO) lying.
The right way to go is to distance oneself from these acts, then teach the meanings of Islam. Let the person understand what is Islamic and what is not. Teach the Islamic punishment for terrorism.
Then work toward goals to avoid the anger in the individuals in the first place.
When I was at Uni I noticed the muslims who's views became in any way extreme were those who did not come from an Islamic background. Those who were taught about Islam would avoid the pitfalls; those who only came into contact with Islam at uni through the extreme elements would be more prone tp accepting their ideals.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
The bombers would say that what they did was not haraam. So it's OK to call them disbelievers.
Thats a very large assumption you are undertaking.
When Imam ABu Hanifa was asked wether Yazid (the man responsible for the murder for the Prophet's
grandson and family) was muslim, he adopted silence.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
And statements declaring them sinners are also clarification. In fact that's clearer than saying in the absence of a fatwa that they cannot be Muslim when they say they are.
Yes the 'fatwa' should call them sinners. Noone will have any beef with that. Its accurate, requires no assumptions and does not malign the mufti's in any way.
However they also need to launch an education drive with the fatwa, both for muslims and for non muslims.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
'They'?
You telling 'em that?
Not really.
Young men are recruited because they are uncertain of their identity and easily lead. They may not even be aware of religious debate and scholarship.
The Achenese have faced hardship but they're not all becoming terrorists because traditional Islam is intact there and the Bali bomber crowd weren't able to make inroads there.
salaf,
Your last paragraph supports a fatwa, no?
It wouldn't make a difference either way.
Fatwas are only effective if you're aware of them and you respect the scholars giving them because ulimately they are just opinion.
The promenant Wahhabi Shaykh Bin Baz gave a fatwa strongly condemning terrorism and suicide bombings a long time before 9/11 and the terrorists just declared that he wasn't a muslim. If they're not willing to listen to him then I doubt they're gonna respect whoevers proposing this fatwa.
It's not at all about who terrorists listen to, it's everyone else.
I was refering to your point
In this sense a fatwa would be of no use. Kids who become terrorists aren't religiously connected anyway generaly. They're middle class muslims who have an identity crisis and then get drawn in by these qutbi salafi types. Before they became militant they wouldn't know what traditional scholars were saying and afterwards they wouldn't care because they believe only their group is right.
... and there's no fatwa saying otherwise.
And you accuse others of vagueness?
The only real purpose behind any 'fatwa' would be as a step of reassurance to others that there are good muslims.
However even this should not be needed.
I agree with what Salaf has wrote. I had not fully considered the issue before.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
In what sense?
That the fatwas will have no impact until the individuals are made aware of the facts.
They also need to have respect for the source though, so you need people who they look up to to make the situation.
Previously I never considered they may not be aware.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Admin,
I see your logic. It made sense when you applied it yesterday, that your behaviour is not just for show. You have gotten hung up on it here. The fatwa is a real fatwa, not a show fatwa. Presently there isn't one as any kind of counter to what Salaf was talking about (which was what I meant, Salaf). You're right that I'm a non-Muslim and that doesn't look good but it wasn't my point. In any event what you wrote in the next post perplexes me. You just said you agreed with Salaf, who says a fatwa isn't effective and then you suggested a fatwa issued by someone respectable would be effective, if I understood.
I meant if a fatwa is issued it must be credible, and have credibe sources.
It may still not be a deterrent though.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Cool, because that's what I meant too. Plus if the fatwa is consistent with Islam, which nobody here is objecting to, it makes no sense not to pass it by way of legal clarification, and the suggestion is the time is now or overdue for taking a stand. I realise rereading the thread I shouldn't contribute further on this topic.
I think if such a fatwa was passed then it would drastically reduce the chance of other muslims following in their footsteps. I'm all for it.
I'm not saying this because then the muslims in Britain will have some heat taken off them.
Its just that I vehemently condemn their acts and do not see them as Muslims.
Btw... is such a fatwa ok to pass in Islam-doesn't there have to be a consensus between the scholars before it is passed?
I do not believe it would make any difference, apart from ease inter community relations.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
You're completely right.
If they make takfir on Bin Baz then I doubt very much they're gonna care what some hanafi imams think.
Salaams
I don't agree with the fatwa. A muslim is always a muslim if you say the shahada.
100,
It might help terrorism but if the attack on Iraq and palestine stop then that will help a lot.
Wassalam
"Purity is half of faith.......Prayer is the light...patience is illumination; and the Quran is an argument for or against you. Everyone starts his day and is a vendor of his soul, either freeing it or bringing about its ruin." Muslim
Bin Baz? was he that saudi one who made the dodgy fatwa allowing the Gulf war 1?
Or have I got it wrong?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Yeah he was the grand mufti of wahhabism for quite some time before he died in 2000.
Thats kind of the root of the wahhabi split.
I remember hearing an African American wahhabi say that in the 80s all the wahhabis in america were united and went to the same conferences. Then after Bin Baz gave that fatwa some of them began to think "hmmm maybe Sayyed Qutb was right after all"
It kind of seems that this fatwa has been passed.
But it says that the bombers cannot be considered martyrs, instead of saying that they cannot be considered Muslims.
Also the MCB doesn't appear to be referring to this as a 'fatwa' or even 'ruling', but as a 'declaration' and 'statement'.
mcb.org.uk/15th July Ulama.doc
[b]
UK Muslims issue bombings fatwa[/b]
More than 500 British Muslim religious leaders and scholars have issued a fatwa in response to the London bombs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4694441.stm
wasalaam