02 Jun 08
A Muslim Indian seminary which is said to have inspired the Taliban has issued a fatwa against terrorism, insisting that Islam is a religion of peace.
Senior clerics from the 150-year-old Darul Uloom Deoband issued the edict saying they wished to wipe out terrorism. "Islam rejects all kinds of unjust violence, breach of peace, bloodshed, murder and plunder and does not allow it in any form," said the rector, Habibur Rehman, to the cheers of thousands of students. Many held placards saying "Islam means peace", while others chanted.
"The religion of Islam has come to wipe out all kinds of terrorism and to spread the message of global peace," Mr Rehman added.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/muslim-seminary-issues-fatwa-against-terrorism-838162.html
How important is this news?
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt's just as idiotic as Bush's war on terrorism.
A Muslim Indian seminary which is said to have inspired the Taliban has issued a fatwa against terrorism, insisting that Islam is a religion of peace.
Senior clerics from the 150-year-old Darul Uloom Deoband issued the edict saying they wished to wipe out terrorism. "Islam rejects all kinds of unjust violence, breach of peace, bloodshed, murder and ...[text shortened]... /muslim-seminary-issues-fatwa-against-terrorism-838162.html
How important is this news?
02 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirA fatwa is a ruling, like a judicial opinion, it is not a declaration of war. This is why the fatwa is characterized in the article as "a move to speak out against terrorism". Surely that is welcome news.
Well, because a war on terrorism is the same as a war on drugs or on anything other thing which can't be won by wars.
And a Fatwa is exactly the same.
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by shavixmir"A fatwā, in the Islamic faith is a religious opinion on Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar" -- not 'the same as a war'. Not even you are immune to the sort of knee-jerk response produced by the Western media.
Well, because a war on terrorism is the same as a war on drugs or on anything other thing which can't be won by wars.
And a Fatwa is exactly the same.
Here we have an influential centre of Islamic education saying that terrorism is wrong. Surely they are sending out the right message?
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageJudicial opinion, judicial schmopinion.
"A fatwā, in the Islamic faith is a religious opinion on Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar" -- not 'the same as a war'. Not even you are immune to the sort of knee-jerk response produced by the Western media.
Here we have an influential centre of Islamic education saying that terrorism is wrong. Surely they are sending out the right message?
How can you declare drugs, terrorism, disease or whatever "wrong"?
That's what I'm saying.
Whether you declare war on terrorism, whether you judicially call it wrong or whether you jump up and down and call terrorists thugs... it's all utter nonsense.
And no. I do not think that all terrorism is bad.
Terrorism is sometimes the only method to fight a larger and more aggressive army.
Any act of rebellion can be classified, by the empowering forces, as terrorism (as was George Washington by the English and the French resistance by the Nazis). To simply condemn terrorism, is giving the powers that be extra rights to absuse people.
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by shavixmirDrugs, terrorism and disease are not the same thing, although they may occur in the same person.
Judicial opinion, judicial schmopinion.
How can you declare drugs, terrorism, disease or whatever "wrong"?
People in India are getting rather tired of bombs going off in their cities. I imagine people in Iraq are too.
Of course you can't prevent violence with words, but you can influence attitudes. How many times have you read complaints that 'moderate Muslims' are 'not outspoken enough'. Well, here you have a clear message from an important Islamic institution that could foster peaceful attitudes among people who could well swing the other way -- exactly what the people planting the bombs want. Luckily Indians aren't as impressionable and naive as Usaneans.
You don't want Muslims around the world adopting the Palestinian approach. You don't want terrorism, state or free-enterprise, to spread. A Muslim version of satyagraha would be a nice thing.
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by shavixmirI am assuming that 'terrorism' here is intended to refer the deliberate targeting of civilians or non-combatants.
Judicial opinion, judicial schmopinion.
How can you declare drugs, terrorism, disease or whatever "wrong"?
That's what I'm saying.
Whether you declare war on terrorism, whether you judicially call it wrong or whether you jump up and down and call terrorists thugs... it's all utter nonsense.
And no. I do not think that all terrorism is bad.
Terr ...[text shortened]... ). To simply condemn terrorism, is giving the powers that be extra rights to absuse people.
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by shavixmirThey're not in the same category though. Drug are inanimate objects - it's what is done with them that may or may not be a good thing. Disease is something we don't have any choice about. But terrorism is human action, and can be judged just as well as any other human action.
Judicial opinion, judicial schmopinion.
How can you declare drugs, terrorism, disease or whatever "wrong"?
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by bbarrSo, say rebels are hiding in a civilian populated area, is the use of force "okay"?
'Deliberate' here means something in the vicinity of 'the intentional attempt to bring about'.
The fine line of intentional and indiscriminate definately crosses the borders defined by the UN's charter on human rights (no generalised punishment).
Yet we can judge "terrorism" to be bad (in every instance), but our own actions are accountable?
Me thinks not.
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by shavixmirNot if the force is deliberately aimed at the civilian population. I'm confused as to why you're having difficulty with this notion.
So, say rebels are hiding in a civilian populated area, is the use of force "okay"?
The fine line of intentional and indiscriminate definately crosses the borders defined by the UN's charter on human rights (no generalised punishment).
Yet we can judge "terrorism" to be bad (in every instance), but our own actions are accountable?
Me thinks not.