's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

What's up with fatwa's(13 posts)

What's up with fatwa'sCaptain Morgan
Nov 26, 2002 12:22 PM
A Nigerian governor issued a fatwa on the news reporter who wrote the pageant story. A fatwa is supposedly a Muslim religious edict which allows any Muslim to kill this individual. Seems awefully barbaric to me.
Religious edict?czardonic
Nov 26, 2002 12:38 PM
American Heritage Dictionary defines "fatwa" as "a legal opinion or ruling issued by an Islamic scholar."

Are these truly religious? Or is this more anti-muslim propaganda disguised as "common knowledge". Personally, I don't know.

Do we condemn Christainity based on "religious" opinions issued by "Christian scholars" that advocate the murder of abortion doctors? Seems roughlty equivalent, but in one case we can readily identify fringe lunacy, and in another people find cause to indict a faith shared by 1.2 billion people
Yes, religious edictCaptain Morgan
Nov 26, 2002 12:54 PM
Probably the most famous one was the Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa of Rushdie. He is/was the figurehead of the Islamist Fundamental Revolution. Fatwa's are based on the teachings of the Quran, and it is widely held that supposedly anyone who kills the person will go to heaven. In my opinion, the evidence does not point to fatwa's being "anti-muslim propaganda disguised as common knowledge."

Although I do not follow the religious right, I have not heard of any "Christian scholars that advocate the murder of abortion doctors." Khomeini was their leader, kind of like their Pope. I think there is a big difference between one right-wing zealot shooting up an abortion doctors office on his own and a leader of a country of 65 million inciting murderous behavior.
You'd agree that Khomeni was a crackpot, no?czardonic
Nov 26, 2002 1:28 PM
So, unless you mistakenly believe that the Islamist Fundamental Revolution is the same as Islam, all you have is one crackpot issuing a statement.

Fatwas are legal rulings based on the Qur'aan and the Sunnah, i.e. an interpretation or opinion. Their legitimacy is strictly tied to the legitimacy of the issuer. Any Muslim who beleives that Khomeni was wrong or mistaken is free to ignore his opinion, and hundreds of millions did (or Rushdie is the luckiest man alive). What is this evidence that has you so convinced that these are any more legitimate than the "bible-based" hate speech of Falwell or Pat Robertson?
You'd agree that Khomeni was a crackpot, no?Jon Billheimer
Nov 27, 2002 8:26 AM

Guys like Robertson and Falwell don't generally go around advocating or ordering the assassination or murder of individuals who disagree with their opinions. Fundamentalist Islamic clerics do this routinely. Although muslims are free to respond to a fatwa or not as they see fit, unfortunately there are enough ignorant ones to make them dangerous. Witness the recent goings on in Nigeria. Political correctness aside, in my opinion Islamic culture by modern standards is pretty barbaric.
What about fundamentalist "Christians"?czardonic
Nov 27, 2002 11:15 AM
Don't their rogue "religious" leaders advocate the assassination of individuals who disagree with their opinion on abortion. What about the various "Christian" white supremacist groups who are at self-declared war with secular, liberal America?

Barbarism is not exclusive to Islamic culture. In fact, the middle east is a perfect example of this. In that area of the world, Muslims, Jews and Christians are all implicated in massacres in the last half-century. Based on the behavior of people in the middle east, all three cultures are barbaric by modern standards.

My personal opinion is that the condemnation of 1.2 billion people based on the acts of a handful or rogue fanatics is just another kind of barbarism. De-humanization of the "other" is the first step down an ugly road.
What about fundamentalist "Christians"?Jon Billheimer
Nov 27, 2002 12:04 PM
I really think you're looking at some of these issues through rose coloured glasses and are engaging in a moderate level of hyperbole. To put the whole thing in perspective ask yourself the question, "Would I rather live in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, or the U.S.A.?" I think the answer is pretty obvious.

No one has condemned 1.2 billion muslims, but there are some pretty valid generalizations one can make about the significant portions of the Islamic community that rely on Wahabbism as their fundamental world view.

Although I have no particular regard for Christian fundamentalists I haven't noticed any mass demonstrations and rioting in the streets by members of the Southern Baptist Convention recently.
Wahabism is a minor sect.czardonic
Nov 27, 2002 1:14 PM
If you want to qualify your criticism of Islam by specifying Wahabism, then we have no argument. But the general attitude among Americans and non-muslims in general seems to be that a Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim.

How many of those same people assmue that one can divine the "Christian" world view based on the positions of Sun Myung Moon or pedophile priests? How many look at Catholic/Protestant violence in Northern Ireland and condemn "Christian" culture as barbaric?

Of course I would choose the U.S.A. over Saudi Arabia or Nigeria. Just as I would choose it over Cambodia, Serbia or Central America. Fanatacism and barbarism are not exclusive to Islam. They are the tools of despots of every stripe.
will this source satisfy you?trekkie1
Nov 27, 2002 12:04 PM,3604,848553,00.html
my favorite quotejtolleson
Nov 27, 2002 5:11 PM
from the article:

"The Nigerian embassy in London has dismissed the fatwa as unconstitutional."

I'm sure we can all feel much better about this now.
more on the fatwadaz I
Nov 29, 2002 8:39 AM
From the Guardian (Nigerian)

Apparently, only the top guys can issue the kill order and not just anybody, does that make it OK?

MOSLEM leaders, according to a prominent Islamic group in Nigeria, Jama'atu Nasril Islam, (JNI) are yet to take a position on fatwa (death sentence) on any citizen of the country.

In reaction to last week sectarian crisis in Kaduna and Abuja, and the fatwa passed on a female journalist by the Zamfara State government, the group asked Moslems to ignore the order.

The dominant Islamic body, through its Rapid Response Committee in a statement yesterday, declared the state government's action as a nullity because only the Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Muhammadu Maccido, the sole recognised spiritual leader of Moslems in Nigeria could issue the order.

It further explained that even the Sultan must consult with the Nigeria Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) and JNI, which he heads, before issuing such a decree.

The group said, "it wanted to alert the Moslem Ummah that the only bodies that can issue fatwa is the Jama'atu Nasril Islam (JNI) and the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (SCIA), both of which are being headed by his eminence the Sultan of Sokoto and the recognised spiritual leader of the Moslems in the country. The fatwa committee of that body has been directed by the Sultan in his letter of November 22, 2002 to meet and look into the issue for consideration and decision.

"The fatwa committee, which comprises members from all the 36 states of the federation and Abuja, shall soon meet. The Zamfara State government has no authority to issue fatwa and the fatwa issued by it should be ignored.

"Also, individuals issuing personal opinions that are likely to cause breach of peace should stop. The issue of the journalist and the paper involved which published it shall be determined later though their apology is noted," the group stated.

The group also blamed the escalation of the riots on security, noting that the line between the date of the publication and the outbreak of the protests, was enough for the government to save the situation.

It said: "The Jama'atu Nasril Islam deeply regrets the incidence which took place in Kaduna and Abuja, where lives were lost and property worth millions of naira were destroyed. The JNI felt so disappointed for the negligence exercised by the authorities, which delayed prompt action against the blasphemous and provocative publication against the person of the Holy Prophet knowing truly well the sensitivity and gravity of such an action to the Moslems the world over.

"The provocative story was published on Saturday November 16, 2002 while the incident took place on Wednesday 20th and Friday, 22nd of the same month in Kaduna and Abuja respectively, a period sufficient enough for the authority to take necessary and appropriate action.

"The Jama'atu Nasril Islam is, therefore, urging the local leaders of both Islam and Christianity to take urgent steps to enlighten their followers on the tenets of their religions, both of which do not condone any act of thuggery and vandalism, killing and maiming of lives.

"The Jama'atu Nasril Islam holds these irresponsible journalist liable for creating animosity all over the federation. We further urge the governments, both state and federal to take measures to alleviate the poverty and lack of jobs which made some youths resort to causing trouble, instability and threat to security," the group added.

But the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Ekiti State chapter has blamed the riots on the enemies of democracy.

In a statement yesterday, CAN alleged that some people want to destabilise the country for selfish interest.

It accused the perpetrators of sectarian crisis of hiding under an article in a national newspaper to unleash terror on innocent Nigerians and churches, which have nothing to do with the
Back from vacation - follow-up commentCaptain Morgan
Dec 1, 2002 8:47 AM
I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving. I think there were some great posts here.

I think the main question is how pervasive this is throughout the Muslim community. I believe it is pervasive, while I know czardonic believes it is relatively confined. While it might be a small percentage of the total Muslim population, it is still an extremely large number.

Also, I believe that if it truly is a small percentage of Muslims, I think the Muslim community has done very little to distance themselves from the evil factions. This is either due to the fact that they sympathize with their views or they are afraid of them.

As long as you have (supposedly modern thinking) Middle East college students on "60 minutes" saying that the World Trade Center bombings were a plot by Israel, and as long as you have U.S. Muslim F.B.I. agents refusing to investigate "brother Muslims," and as long as you have "clerics" in just about every third world and civilized nation speaking out in favor of fundamentalism/al-Qaida/UBL, then the reputation of all 1.2 billion Muslim community will continue to suffer.
"Muslim community"?czardonic
Dec 2, 2002 10:55 AM
Why should Muslims be forced to "distance" themselves from their lunatic fringes to our satisfaction? Do we expect the Christian community to take an official stance on every abuse cover-up, abortion clinic bombing, anthrax threat, or picket of a Mathew Sheppard memorial? Of course not. The first reason is that "Christian community" is a misnomer. There are innumerable Christain sects, most of which have no direct connection of communication with each other. Most Americans are Christian, and even those who are not know that it is ludicrous to ask a Catholic to apologise for the attitudes of a Baptist.

Islam is the same way. There are different interpretations of the faith and communities built around those interpretations. Why should a Sufi, Shi'a or Sunni apologize for the actions of a Wahabbi? The notion of a "Muslim community" slavishly devoted to a single, fundamentalist doctrine is (perhaps unintentionally) racist, plain and simple.

The dearth of moderate Muslim voices comes down to marketing. Controversy and fear (and evidence of the "other's" baseness and treachery) sell more magazines and newspapers, and attract more eyeballs.