There’s been little or no reporting in the Western press of a statement made by 170 Islamic leaders, meeting under the auspices of the King of Jordan in Amman on the 6th of July. The statement’s significance is two-fold - the scholars, who come from both Shi’ite and Sunni schools - affirm that only religious scholars from the eight recognised Islamic Schools of Jurisprudence may issue fatwas or binding religious rulings. This deprives statements made by Osama Bin Laden of any religious legitimacy. The second implication of the statement is that recognised Islamic leaders condemn and distance Islam as a religion from the atrocities committed by Political Islamists. As the King of Jordan said:
As a start, let us confess that we, Muslims, have not always fulfilled our obligations towards our religion and towards ourselves. Some Muslims, or those who promulgate “Islamic” slogans, have defamed Islam and Muslims, and harmed Muslims, intentionally or non-intentionally.
The divisions between the children of the Ummah, acts of violence and terrorism practiced by some groups and organizations, what is going on in Iraq, Pakistan and other Muslim countries in the form of accusations of apostasy and the killing of Muslims in the name of Islam, do not correspond to the principles and spirit of Islam, and Islam disavows them. Such practices generate turmoil and corruption on earth, because they give justification to non-Muslims to judge Islam according to acts that Islam disavows, and subsequently interfere in Muslims’ affairs.
Elsewhere: I’d like to draw attention to this excellent post on Qur’anic interpretation at Dervish.
“There‚Äôs been little or no reporting in the Western press of a statement made by 170 Islamic leaders, meeting under the auspices of the King of Jordan in Amman on the 6th of July.’
That might be directly related to bombs going off in London on the 7th of July. But, I agree, it certainly merits broader analysis.
This is good. But, as it doesn’t fit the Islam = evil thesis, it won’t do much to silence the witch-burning cries of certain quarters of the commentariat of either this country, or the US or UK.
Erm, some of Islam’s practitioners are probably the only people left in the world who really would burn witches. Thank God “certain quarters of the commentariat” in “this country…the US [and] UK” put an end to all that in Afghanistan. Right?
Meanwhile, in Weribee, young Muslims line up to stab their sharpened pencils into an image of Jesus.
But, anyway, on with the denialism…
Yeah, C.L., and authoritative Islamic leaders express concern:
Your mission seems to be to over-generalise one news report at a time. No-one has denied that there are disturbing and extreme forms of Political Islamism - and statements such as the Assan statement should contribute to ensuring that it’s clear that such intolerance and cult-like withdrawal as reported in the article to which you linked is seen rightly as not Islamic.
The odd thing - having followed a lot of what’s been written in the press post 7/7 - is Australia appears to be the country where all sorts of rabid anti-Islam sentiment has been flushed out of the woodwork. It’s a big contrast with most sentiment in the UK - the country where these issues are perhaps more real than here in light of recent tragic events.
Of course, the right-wing of the Australian blogosphere is just proceeding on its usual track. It seems absolutely nothing will change the opinion of the C.L.’s of the world about Islam.
I’d add to that there has been a very welcome recognition on the part of Islamic leaders in the UK and Australia that it’s necessary to respond to extremism in the midst of communities, and to draw some lines. It’s sad that these very positive developments meet only grudging responses, and sometimes outright rejection, from RWDBs.
Shhh - CL is busy stabbing his own pencil.
I can’t speak for other people - RWDBS or not. I can say that over the course of a year my view changed from one of ridiculing right-wing fears about the threat of Islamic terrorism to being a strong critic of Islam itself as the ultimate context for understanding the phenomenon of Islamist terrorism. I did so reluctantly but I’ll revert to my former sanguineness if and when I believe there is the culture-change I believe is necessary for reasoned co-existence. Probably the equivalent of an Islamic Council of Trent would impress me - nothing less. On abuse of women and rejection of our way of life, I am and will remain immoveable. On many issues, Muslims have to either change or stay in more felicitous milieux.
I’ll try and avoid commenting on these issues here if I can restrain myself Mark because I don’t want to cause you or your readers offence. But my views are informed, reasonable, founded on formidable evidence and I’m not changing them unless… Islam is a religion, not a race - as such it is fair game for ruthless sociological, anthropological and cultural criticism. This is what the left used to believe and used to do. I suspect it ceased doing so re Islam because ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ and the left likes preposterous causes. Tyranny’s OK for the modern left - that’s the worst part for me. I respected those ‘change the mof——- world’ types of yore.
C.L., I’m always puzzled by your equation of pointing out that Islam as such is not the problem and support for tyranny. Is this some sort of subtle way of reviving the “you support Saddam” charge? Otherwise, it makes no sense to me.
The Council of Trent isn’t the best analogy, I’d have thought - since it reprensented a hardening of theological lines. But perhaps you mean the centralisation. That is one of the problems modern Islam has - the absence of authoritative religious leaders who can pronounce definitively on the interpretation of the faith. That’s why this statement is a good thing, among other reasons.
I would have thought it perfectly clear that I AM saying Islam as such is the problem. The tyranny I refer to is that perpetrated by the Islamic scholars and Imams and clerical wannabes from Saudi Arabia to Iran to Indonesia. The result is the abuse of women, the hanging of gays and a thousand other enormities which the left is simply not interested in acknowledging or lamenting. Hardly a word from progressives, for example, about those two boys hanged in Iran recently for being gay.
My reference to Trent is about an impetus towards collegial - or, at least, fraternal - co-operation writ worldwide, not to any other potential analogies. Choose whichever other Council or secular equivalent you like. The ad hoc regional statements - always issued post-atrocity - don’t have much oomph or efficacy. If school children are defacing pictures of Jesus in freaking Werribee, I’m sure the reality in King Hussein’s Jordan and elsewhere doesn’t accord with that noble gentleman’s welcome but questionably potent pitch.
And ‘Bill Poster’ is the lamest Scoobypseudonym yet! You crazy kids!
C.L., the statement was issued on July 6 (the London bombings, as Geoff noted above, took place a day later), and King Abdullah first called for the conference in mid 2004 - it’s no small achievement to get authoritative people from such disparate and in many cases hostile schools together.
Have you got a link for this Iran incident? Of course, I would condemn it.
I missed your comments on the other post as I had to go to work, Mark. I agree this statement is a big step and much to be welcomed. Whether it will have any effect on fanatics like Butt is probably open to question. As the interview revealed, he seems to regard moderates and statements by moderates as either dishonest or time-serving or apostate or a combination of any or all of the above.
You might object that he is a sole fanatic and they are 170 Islamic luminaries speaking with the blessing (if that’s the word) of the King of Jordan. I wonder how much that will matter. It only takes a few fanatics, or even just one. My memory is shocking, but I do seem to recall that at the time Khomeini issued the fatwa against Salman Rushdie the most authoritative Islamic forum at that time - in Cairo, I think? - said he had no right to issue it and did not have the due authority. Made no difference to the Ayatollah or to those who sought to carry out his directive, which I believe still remains in force.
I hope that you’re right but I fear that you’re wrong. Sorry if that’s a grudging response.
CL agree with your analysis on Islam but not Afghanistan.
There are still ‘leaders’ there who have been known to splash the odd lot of acid in women’s faces et al because they were not upholding Islam the proper way
Rob, but the difference is that the Iranians are Shi’ites and any forum in Cairo (where there are indeed authoritative theological schools within Universities) were Sunnis. This statement is remarkable in that it brings both together.
The importance of the King of Jordan is that his family is the Hashemites ie they have a direct line of decent from Mohommad.
Queen Noor’s (who was the American who married the previous King) book ‘A Leap of Faith’ is a very enlightening book showing the inertia of that part of the world.
This statement from the current King should be seen in that light.
The book also shows the diplomatic role that the Kings opf Jordan have played throughout the middle east - quite impressive.
”…from Saudi Arabia to Iran to Indonesia. The result is the abuse of women, the hanging of gays and a thousand other enormities which the left is simply not interested in…”
So they hang gays and ”abuse women” in Indonesia do they CL? Never seen the open ‘transvestite’ streets in Indonesia?
The left would be interested but there’s not much point in getting angry about fiction—
(I’ve got it, lefties unite, we need our own conspicuous indignation over nothing !!!)
It seems C.L. wasn’t giving us the whole story about these executions.
See the comments on this thread at JQ’s, and particularly this one.
Try reading the press. I was referring to the hanging of gays in wonderful Islamic Iran. Non-fictional story and pictures here. And you’ve presumably heard of poofter-bashing and torture victim, Anwar Ibrahim. What about last week’s Islamic decree in Indonesia against Muslims marrying non-Muslims?
Sure, lefties unite. But what you need is an intellectual kick in the arse.
Take a chill pill, C.L.
And for once in your life, read before your comment. The story referred to on JQ’s thread and raised by observa is the one in Iran.
And what about the Catholic Church’s decrees discouraging marriage of Catholics to non-Catholics?
See also the discussion from me on the thread I’ve linked to.
The vehemence of your comments seems to be in direct proportion to their disengenousness.
I was unaware of that charge, Mark. But if you want to argue childishly that I deliberately kept it from readers, that’s your business. For my part, it makes no difference. In fact, such generalised charges are commonly used in the Islamic world as cover for precisely these sort of lynchings. You’re now supporting the pre-sentence lashing and public hanging of homosexuals so as to avoid criticising the Religion of Peace.
That’s truly disgraceful.
It’s intriguing, isn’t it, how so many RWDBs become so incensed about homophobia when it’s practised by the wrong people. Also more than a little amusing - and disturbing - to see that Observa frequents http://www.gayorbit.net. Strange bedfellows indeed.
It’s nigh on impossible to have a civilised discussion with you on this topic, C.L. I am not defending it, I am condemning it. In the strongest possible terms. I hope, as I said to observa, that you join me in condemning the homophobia of US Christians, and the disgraceful refusal of George W. Bush to take steps to specifically target hate crimes. I’m glad that THE RIGHT are so much in favour now of the abolition of capital punishment, and the protection and advancement of women’s and gay rights. I look forward to their condemnation of violations of such rights without fear or favour.
I didn’t intend to imply that you’d deliberately withheld information.
However, the fact that you hadn’t done anything more than grab one link out of the ether is characteristic of your style of argument on these matters.
Style of argument? Peter weighs in implying it didn’t happen; then you imply I left out charges of rape so as to - what? - boost the poignancy of the story? I did find that offensive, all melodrama aside. You and I both condemn the death penalty so you should have realised such charges were irrelevant to me. Outrage! in London claims the boys were tortured so the rape charge is suspect.
I withdraw the stupid comment about you supporting such an enormity.
Well, thank you for that, C.L.
I wasn’t intending to imply that you withheld information, as I’ve remarked.
Some news: King Fahd of Saudi Arabia has died. No surprise there, as he’s been incapacitated since his stroke several years ago. His half-brother Abdullah, who’s been acting as regent, now succeeds him.
”Peter weighs in implying it didn‚Äôt happen…”
CL, I was making the point, perhaps not so well, that not only do you fail to differentiate between the beliefs/actions of Islamic believers all over BUT you also fail to differentiate between Islamic nations. You are therefore consistent on that score.
In the one sentence, you accuse Indonesia of the same stuff that Iran does. Other people read this site as sources of information, so your explicit statements effectively ”tarring with the same brush” should not be allowed through to the wicketkeeper. I am not implying that Iranians or others are incapable of human rights abuses, Indonesia is (relative to Iran), a secular society, tolerates many religions and has many blemishes, many of which I have personally experienced. But they don’t execute gays.
It would help if you differentiated occasionally instead of grossly generalising.
Fair enough Peter.
The statement by the various Islamic leaders includes this; “Equally, it is not possible to declare as apostates any group of Muslims who believes in Allah the Mighty and Sublime and His Messenger (may Peace and Blessings be upon him) and the pillars of faith, and respects the pillars of Islam and does not deny any necessary article of religion.”
Martydom, jihad and other variations of the theme all form part of the “articles of religion” in both Sunni and Shia streams.
Tantawi has played a significant role in the continued insurgency in Iraq ” on 22 February 2003 Dr Mohammad Sayyed al-Tantawi, the Shaikh of Al-Azhar in Egypt, said: “It is a religious duty to side with Iraq against any aggression to befall it”. He added that resisting unjustifiable military attacks on Islamic countries is “Jihad and an Islamic duty”.(39) On 5 April 2003 Dr al-Tantawi stated at a press conference in Cairo: “Whoever wants to head for Iraq to support the Iraqi people, the door is open, and I say the door for Jihad is open until the day of judgment… Whoever wants to go to fight alongside the Iraqi people, I welcome him… I tell [him] go with peace and I wish you well. We do not prevent anyone from going to help those who are facing injustice
Source: Amnesty International http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=82875A2E5E28FB7880256FF70042A155
Debkafile report that “In new fatwa marking Israel‚Äôs pull-back, senior Egyptian imam Tantawi rules: no Muslim fighter who blows himself up may be declared a martyr or reach Paradise — unless he fights in Palestine.
DEBKAfile’s military sources: No Egyptian-Israeli breakthrough on Philadelphi.
August 1, 2005, 10:58 PM (GMT+02:00)
Sheikh Said Tantawi of the Azhar religious center is Egypt’s senior religious authority and a close associate of president Hosni Mubarak. DEBKAfile’s military sources reveal that the new radical Islamic decree issued by an influential Egyptian figure to justify Palestinian terror shocked Israel’s high command.
Our sources affirm that nothing was finalized in Maj-Gen. Amos Gilead’s talks in Cairo Monday, August 1, for Egyptian border police to be deployed on the Philadelphi strip in place of Israel units. Cairo is still trying to use Israel’s disengagement from Gaza as a lever to bring its troops close up to the Egyptian-Israel border on other sectors too.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=445
Political Islamists show no sign of letting up
Sorry, html did not work, these items were quoted
What’s your point, Rog?
Under whose interpretation, yours?
Moderate muslims take a stand against terrorism and this is your response. Good going, buddy.
Okay, rog, that’s one religious leader spreading hate. There are many many more who are condemning this stuff. Your comment suggests that all Muslims listen to this guy. That’s like saying all Christians listen to the Jensens, or Hillsong.
Yusuf al-Qaradawi is a senior cleric and one of the signatories to the “Jordan statement”. He also promotes jihad “The American presence in the region is not at all accepted from all the Arab peoples, and for sure clashes will occur, and the one who dies while attacking the American bases is a true martyr….etc
http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do?id=82875A2E5E28FB7880256FF70042A155
He is also the cleric whose is facing deportation from the UK. His political/religious group the “Muslim Brotherhood” has been banned from Egypt (along with his preaching),and he is banned from the US for praising palestinian suicide bombers as “martydom of acts of God”
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/43397.html
In light of his and others’ history its hard to see how the Jordan Statement carries any integrity.
Yes, that clears it up. One bloke’s view, not stated in the declaration made in Amman, cancels those of the other 169.
RWDB play #2743, I believe.
Do you judge all Christians by this mob, rog?
Mark given the evidence I think your opinion “The second implication of the statement is that recognised Islamic leaders condemn and distance Islam as a religion from the atrocities committed by Political Islamists.” has no basis and is incorrect .
See my comment above, rog, and Fyodor’s.
Its a shame that after all this time they are still unable to properly address the issue of violence to non muslims and civilians alike.
Joseph Lumbard, an American Muslim and special advisor to Jordan’s King Abdullah on interfaith affairs, insists that addressing the religious factors is the most important way to uproot violence by simply referring to only one thing: Islam.
    
¬†¬†¬†¬†”It is clearly unacceptable in Islam’s dictates of law to kill non-combatants,” he said, adding that the fatwa issued by the scholars in Amman might “put doubt in the minds” of militants that listen to the edicts issued by those going against the dictates of Islamic law.
    
¬†¬†¬†¬†He told journalists the conference and the final fatwa (statement) was “just a first step…the religious component needs to be addressed on a religious basis, and this is what this conference is doing.”
    
¬†¬†¬†¬†But Lumbard acknowledged that more work and effort needed to be made on all fronts — political, social and economic — and to combine all these efforts to address the totality of the problem of violence.
http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050706-015513-7757r
You’re a glass-half-empty kinda guy, aren’t you, Rogmeister? A real “up” person.
I’m not sure what you are talking about F but I am less than convinced that the Jordanian Statement has any depth when some of the signatories are recognised political islamists.
No doubt you will find some personal defect in me to rebut my opinion.
“No doubt you will find some personal defect in me to rebut my opinion.”
Nah, I’m going to ignore it. Really what I should have done in the first place, but Allah loves a trier.
Anwar Ibrahim was the victim of a vicious smear campaign by those in power at the time. He is free, and has given speeches here in Sydney, Australia. He is doing a lot of work at the grass-roots level, and still maintains a lot of support from the Malaysian people.
Which part of Indonesia are we talking about? Some of my best friends here are non-Muslim, from Muslim familes. Some are actively Christian - becoming Christian in Indonesia with a Muslim family. Some are/have intermarried between religions with no problems.
We have to remember that there are extremist groups rife in Indonesia and Malaysia - but they are confined to certain areas of the respective countries. Many other Muslim scholars have actively fought against their views.
I think people who are willing to follow a religion that believes killing
christians and jews will show how great they are. should be forgiven for their mis-lead attitudes and opinions. no matter how wrong they are. we should all look to God who sent his son Jesus. Allah had no son to pay for our sins……. why then dont they beilive the simple message that God so loved the world that he sent his son to die for us so that we will have eternal life. All he asked is that we love our neighbors as our selves and love him with all our hearts mind soul and strenght…… where is the hate in that?
I agree with the Christian message of “love your neighbour”. Unfortunately the Christian message also includes “love God before your neighbour”, which to an atheist or agnostic is meaningless. I say, just stick to “love your neighbour” and forget God. Besides, the message of love is not unique to Christianity. Many cultures before Christianity had the Golden Rule of not hurting others, or reciprocating kindness, e.g., the Hammurabi code. Pittacus said the Golden Rule about 800 BCE, Pythagoras is said to have said it about 550 BCE, Rabbi Hillel said it about 100 BCE. So did Buddha. So did Mohammed.
Faith makes you a Christian, but good works makes you a good Christian.