Imams in US and Canada jointly declare i…
Imams in US and Canada jointly declare in new fatwa that an attack on either country constitutes an attack on all 10 million Muslims living in North America.
A group of Canadian and U.S. Islamic leaders on Friday issued a fatwa, or religious edict, declaring that an attack by extremists on the two countries would constitute an attack on the 10 million Muslims living in North America.
The 20 imams associated with the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada said this marked the first fatwa by the Muslim clergy declaring attacks on Canada and the U.S. to be attacks on Muslims.
“In our view, these attacks are evil, and Islam requires Muslims to stand up against this evil,” the imams said in their fatwa.
BK, 
abunoor, and 3 others are discussing.
Naeem 10:42 pm on January 10, 2010 Permalink
And then what? Does this mean those 10mil Muslims are justified in attacking, destroying, or occupying any country associated with that attack? I don’t get the point of this ‘fatwa’.
Additionally, aren’t they misusing the term ‘fatwa’ in the same manner some MSM pundits use it – as some loose declaration or stance by a Muslim body? Aren’t fatwas specifically for declaring whether an issue is one of the five rulings (wajib, mandub, mubah, makruh, or haram) in light of Shariah?
How is this anything but a publicity stunt?
Akhmad 7:40 am on January 11, 2010 Permalink
but don’t you think publicity stunts by moderate muslims good?
abunoor 12:14 pm on January 11, 2010 Permalink
Naeem is right on here. I don’t know anything about this group. This position doesn’t stand up to much intellectual scrutiny as an Islamic legal statement or even as a political position.
But it’s not meant to…it’s meant as a publicity stunt…and not one which is directed towards me.
aziz 12:15 pm on January 11, 2010 Permalink
which is entirely appropriate, since most of the pro-jihad fatwas by various Islamist groups are also nothing more than publicity stunts. You can only either fight fire with fire or nothing it seems; water is in scarce supply.
abunoor 12:25 pm on January 11, 2010 Permalink
There is nothing wrong with a publicity stunt but I disagree strongly with the notion that you “fight fire with fire….” If someone is misusing or abusing the term or concept of the fatwa it is absolutely not true that one should do the same but just come up with an opposite verdict. If one cares about the tradition, one should respect it. If one is bothered by other doing something wrong, it is quite bizarre to do the same thing oneself.
They can make an Imams’ declaration or something…they should still try to have it make sense however, as far as I’m concerned….but PR has never been my specialty.
BK 1:28 pm on January 11, 2010 Permalink
It is entirely bizarre and weird that people have trouble with this and find the appropriate response to be vague anti-Americanism.
Tacitly, what I read from Naeem and abunoor by proxy, is that the American government is doing bad things in Muslim countries and so, some Muslims are killing American civilians in response.
And there is nothing to apologise for that.
You people don’t understand Islam!
Credit Nidal Hasan for one thing. Atleast he vented his rage near the right direction. Military, politicians especially.
Tacit approval for the killing of innocent civilians is not Islamic. Those who are complicit are not Muslims. Period.
The problem with the “Ummah” is you have ignorant people who speak as if they have some understanding and authority. You understand nothing.
BK 1:30 pm on January 11, 2010 Permalink
You people and your outrage and your hatred are nothing but neocons of a different stripe.
You make me sick.
abunoor 3:59 pm on January 11, 2010 Permalink
BK,
If your comment is directed towards me, you have badly misunderstood me. I am in no way justifying any killing of civilians by anyone.
BK 4:38 pm on January 11, 2010 Permalink
Naeem:
Abu Noor:
The tit for tat ideology runs deep and I have been on this list for quite a while now. I know who thinks what in general terms.
People who think that “Islam” and the United States government are somehow enemies that are engaged in a war have their head up their ass. Apples and oranges.
The reticence to explain terrorism away from Islam or to isolate terrorists outside of Islam is a common factor. Some are not as obvious as Umar writing about “Brother Nidal.” But the weakness to dispose of terrorists as complete munifiqun is quite apparant.
This means that Islam *IS* nothing but another political system with some hollow, empty rituals performed robotically, five times a day.
What Would Mohammad Do?
abunoor 5:08 pm on January 11, 2010 Permalink
BK, We may not be able to sort this out in a comments section, but I’ll try briefly. A fatwa is a statement on a question of Islamic Law. Naeem’s question is an excellent one. You seem to be saying terrorist attacks are bad (agreed!) and this statement (“fatwa”) by the imams is just saying that we are against terrorism and Islam is against terrorism so what kind of backward Islamist loon would have a problem with that? I think it was made clear that if it was just a press release or publicity stunt against terrorism that is what it is.
But the authors of the statement characterized it as a fatwa, which invited scrutiny of the internal logic of the statement as well as its fidelity to the Islamic sources and the Islamic legal tradition.
Naeem’s question is a good one. The authors of this statement did not simply say “Terrorism, or the killing of civilians, is haram” as have hundreds (perhaps thousands) of fatawa in recent years. The statement says “an attack on Canada or the U.S. is an attack on the Muslims of those countries” Hmmm. What does that mean? If it wasn’t an attack on the Muslims of those countries would it be permissible? If it is an attack on the Muslims of those countries does that mean that Muslims can then attack someone who is perpetrating or supporting the attacks? Wouldn’t the logic of the fatwa indicate that an attack (by the U.S. or Canada or anyone else) on Afghanistan be an attack on the “Muslims of Afghanistan”? What would be the implications of that? The underlying logic of the “fatwa” appears to be exactly the same as many of the extremists would use…The U.S. is attacking Muslims and Muslim countries…these attacks should be taken as an attack on all the Muslims of those countries…the response should be retaliatory violence.
To be fair, I am not sure the ‘fatwa’ goes all the way to the third step. I am not sure it really knows or spells out what the consequences are supposed to be.
Anyways, that’s the argument…I am sorry if you find that actually engaging the statement intellectually and not just saying “Yes.Terrorism Bad We love Canada/US We hate terrorists” is offensive to you.. I actually do understand why you would feel that way although I don’t agree. In any event I hope I have clarified my own thoughts.
I am certainly trying to do what I think the Prophet (saw) would do. May Allaah guide me in that and forgive me for my mistakes and shortcomings.
May Allaah reward you for sharing your perspective BK.
aziz 6:21 pm on January 11, 2010 Permalink
AN you managed to completely change my opinion on this as a result of your comment. I think I’ll do a post on this tomorrow.
BK 6:58 pm on January 11, 2010 Permalink
Technical part about Fatwas doesn’t interest me. It would make a nice scholarly brunch.
The audience for this statement is the important factor. It is not, repeat NOT, other muslims who are concerned about by-the-book Sunni Islam.
The audience, I surmise, is completely a western audience. They don’t know fatwa from fana. This is why some of you have called this a publicity stunt. Because it is sure to make the news and designed to answer the question: What are Muslims doing about the radicialization problem within their ranks?
Apparently little. The West have every right to hold as much dread and distaste for so-called Muslims who preach a religion of death to the West (which is widespead) as Muslims have to resent and dread the West for the destruction and pillaging laid on them.
A few, a very few people, such as these Imams, are attempting to bridge the gap and create some peace and dialog.
Are they applauded? Respected? Assisted by the “Ummah?” Of course not. They are criticized by idlers who want to discuss the legal ramifications of a religious edict.
It is truly and completely absurd.
BK 7:01 pm on January 11, 2010 Permalink
Minds change. Facts remain the same.
aziz 7:35 pm on January 11, 2010 Permalink
ah, the silence libel. BK, I’m dreadfully disappointed to hear you recycle it. Especially since US muslims are the ones with the least radicalization in their ranks, compared to their European counterparts.
BK 7:53 pm on January 11, 2010 Permalink
It is libel if it is not true. Having a label for an excuse doesn’t really lend alot of cred in my book.
Most of what we hear at Talk Islam is anti American whining and complaints about Obama not being “real change.”
A question for all your outspoken anti-terror peeps in the hizzie:
Forget about America. When are you gonna change? 1000 years of corruption and deviation. When are you gonna change? Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi, Yemen, etc etc…
Show me some change I can believe in.
abunoor 10:44 am on January 12, 2010 Permalink
BK,
Again, Jazzak Allaahu Khayr for shedding light on your perspective.
If you agree that they should have not used the term fatwa, then we agree. I never objected to making a statement against the killing of civilians, nor would I object to a fatwa stating that the killing of civilians is haram.
Do I misunderstand your last comment? As one of the people in the Hizzie, why would I forget about America? That’s where I live. I have actually never even been to any of the countries you mention although they love the people of those lands both as members of the human family and as brothers and sisters in Islam. I follow their plight as best I can and occasionally I comment on it, I even donate money to charities and sponsor orphans in those lands, but do I think anyone in those countries is waiting for me to tell them what to do or that they somehow need a pep talk or morality lesson from me. No, I don’t think so.
As for my own change I am doing some of what I can, really. If you knew me, you’d know that, really. This is some of why these discussions can sometimes waste time that we wouldn’t have to waste if we actually lived with each other.
I understand the emotional power and focusing of the issues that comes with personalizing things. But sometimes its not really helpful, especially when you don’t know the other person.
Allaah knows best.
abunoor 10:45 am on January 12, 2010 Permalink
should be “I” love the people of those lands…
BK 11:27 am on January 12, 2010 Permalink
We are agreed that Fatwa is not important and that the Imams were only probably trying to lend some importance to their opinions by assigning the moniker, “Fatwa.” Aziz’s piece affirms, it is their right to do so. If it raises problems, so do many legal rulings based on Divine scripture.
Re: forget about America. You miss the point either in practice or in rhetorical device.
My point there is this: America does many bad things around the world. Greedy, corrupt men and women from this country spill blood and pit brother against brother to profit from the misery.
No question and no debate.
This “fatwa” is not about that. It is about publically being accountable for what goes on in the mosque and in the house of Muslims.
I doesn’t matter that American government is corrupt and abusive. That is not under discussion. It is always the excuse and the distraction, when you criticize Muslim countries and Islamic extremists, to blame Bush, Obama and the West.
That will not move the cause of Muslims forward. Sidestepping the issue will not lead to empowerment. Muslims have to improve the condition and practice of Islam and Americans have to change America. As Muslim-Americans, we are in the position to speak on both causes and improve our own condition as Muslims and Americans.
For me, that means spiritual purity and knowledge and political ethics and morals, respectively.
BK 11:32 am on January 12, 2010 Permalink
Nor do I think or advocate that Muslim countries need or deserve a pep talk from the west.
I only observe, that the people here who think of themselves as representing those countries and their interests should stop wasting their time criticizing the west.
Look at the condition of those countries and their people!
Get back to us in the West about what we need to do, in your opinion, when you have your own problems resolved.
Otherwise, expect deaf ears.
BK 11:34 am on January 12, 2010 Permalink
Finally, it is not a tactic to personalize things. The message of Umar Lee and people of that ilk is infuriating to me.
The emotion is raw and real. Helpful or not. I find that attitude unbearable.
BK 11:37 am on January 12, 2010 Permalink
Had I the power, I would make all his dreams come true and deport his ass today.
abunoor 11:49 am on January 12, 2010 Permalink
Does anyone here think that they “represent” Pakistan, Iran, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, or any other Muslim country?
BK, I tried to indicate from the beginning that I understood the underlying emotional thrust of your comments/arguments. I am not telling you to abandon that, but it the presence and even righteousness of such is not a reason to refuse to listen to constructive criticism or improve the arguments that you make. Neither is your dislike for Umar Lee.
By the way, I don’t excuse anything wrong that Umar has said and I let him know privately and publicly when I disagree with him, but I think if you’ve read the full range of his work and certainly if you knew him,you’d realize that his take on these issues is more complex and idiosyncratic than one might guess from the way you are characterizing it here.
Certainly it would be wrong to think of Umar as an example of the “everything wrong with the Muslim world and the Muslims is the fault of the US/the West” crowd.
BK 12:06 pm on January 12, 2010 Permalink
I don’t dislike Umar Lee. I dislike his attitude. It is ungrateful and irresponsible. He really SHOULD leave the US. Who is to say he is not the next Nidal Hassan? Maybe Anwar al-Awlaki will infect his brain as well…
There are plenty of people who speak sympathetically about the “Muslim world” and critically about the United States and the West. Come on, Abunoor. Let’s not nitpick.
BK 12:18 pm on January 12, 2010 Permalink
If you want a test, let me talk some extreme shit about Pakistan and see if blood doesn’t boil.
Believe me, it would. I don’t, even though there is MUCH to say, because I know people are connected to these countries and the problems there are too obvious to harp on.
I don’t know if you are being purposely naive or just taking the piss out…
abunoor 1:15 pm on January 12, 2010 Permalink
BK, I think my question still stands for others and my comment that our discussion is no longer productive stands as well.
But I think I am going to put “Purposively Naive Nitpicker” on my business card right after “Unrepentant Fenian Islamist”
abunoor 1:15 pm on January 12, 2010 Permalink
sorry should be “Purposely Naive Nitpicker”
abunoor 12:12 pm on January 12, 2010 Permalink
Not trying to nitpick, just trying to really understand what you’re saying, what I’m saying, whether, and where we differ. Ok, maybe it’s the same thing.
Anyways, if you feel that way, it’s time to move on. Thanks for the discussion.
Naeem 11:17 pm on January 11, 2010 Permalink
AbuNoor summarized my stance quite nicely.
As for BK, I don’t believe that ends justify the means. If we are going to alter the radicalized elements in our midst, we need to do so in the most effective way possible. We should do so with rational arguments gleaned from Islamic texts and our 1400yr tradition.
What we don’t need is the ‘fight fire with fire’ tactic. We don’t a media blitz, PR stunts, pseudo-fatwas, Islam-is-peace marches, and so on. While those exercises may boost us in the eyes of the West, they do little (or even belittle us) in the eyes of the Muslim world. And in the end, THEY are our intended audience.
Real change will only come by addressing them and their grievances, legitimate or otherwise. Not by appeasing the sensibilities of our non-Muslim neighbors. Sure, that may be necessary from a short-term PR stance, but focusing on the concerns of the West will never bring the real change in the Muslim world you talk of.
BK 12:21 am on January 12, 2010 Permalink
What you are saying is the terrorism will stop when the West stops. Which will be never. One side or the other will die.
Change comes from within. You don’t change by holding the “other” hostage. You change by a willful act within. You create your own standard to live by AND THEN you ask others to meet that same standard.
Muslims can repeatedly denounce Anwar Al-Awlaki (something that foils the “silence libel” since it never happened) in one breath and the Bush Administration in the same breath and call them BOTH terrorists.
The problem, Naeem, is YOU DONT WANT TO CHANGE. You want me to change so you don’t have to. It is a BS position,.
Naeem 12:51 am on January 12, 2010 Permalink
“What you are saying is the terrorism will stop when the West stops.”
That’s not at all what I said. Rather, here is my statement:
“If we are going to alter the radicalized elements in our midst, we need to do so in the most effective way possible. We should do so with rational arguments gleaned from Islamic texts and our 1400yr tradition.”
How am I laying the onus of change solely on the west here?
At the same time, I don’t believe our focus should strictly be on the Muslim extremists. We should be equally vocal in denouncing the extremist elements from all sides. Or is that not allowed?
“You change by a willful act within. You create your own standard to live by AND THEN you ask others to meet that same standard.”
That is but one way to bring about change. Dare I question how our beloved Prophet (saw) brought about change? I don’t believe he restricted himself to the Ghandi/MLK approach you seem to be suggesting.
BK 1:21 am on January 12, 2010 Permalink
HA! Quintessential example.
A lot of derelicts think of Prophet Mohammad as some hypocrite that lusted after women and children and preached morals to nimrods.
We know that his character was spotless and his transformation surpasses all human beings. If he married nine wives, I don’t have to concern myself with base suggestions from critics. I know he did it for the right reasons because I believe he was innately and internally moral and good. I don’t even need to know the details. I am happy to follow his example because I know he is a product of what he preaches. A product of God.
People who are unwilling to change but look to others to do the change, dare *I* say, restrict themselves to hypocrisy.
aziz 9:03 am on January 12, 2010 Permalink
Here’s my post at COB on the matter:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2010/01/canadian-and-american-imams-is.html
BK 10:41 am on January 12, 2010 Permalink
There are legal and ethical problems with many fatwas. Since there is no central entity save Allah, no supreme court, people are free to accept the intentions or reject them on technicalities.
The niyat here is more important than the hypothetical possible unintended consequences. Legal rulings based on DIvine scripture are, by their nature, contentious and problematic in general.
Big deal
Teed Rockwell 12:07 pm on January 13, 2010 Permalink
muslimbuddhist.blogspot.com
“if America were oppressive of its muslim population would it then be permissible to attack America?”
That inference is a fallacy called affirming the consequent.
If America does not oppress Muslims, It should not be attacked
Therefore if America does oppress Muslims, It should be attacked.
This has the same logical form as:
If Napoleon was killed in a plane crash, then Napolean would be dead. (true)
Therefore, if Napoleon was not killed in a plane crash, Napoleon would not be dead. (false)
Terrorists of course are likely to embrace fallacious arguments. But you can accuse these Imams of making a statement that would give them logical justification for attacking America.
All the Abrahamic faiths were deeply influenced by Aristotle, which is a good thing.
BK 12:12 pm on January 13, 2010 Permalink
LOL
Teed Rockwell 12:23 pm on January 13, 2010 Permalink
Oops. I meant to say, of course, that you CAN’T accuse these Imams of making a statement that would give them logical justification for attacking America.
BK 12:34 pm on January 13, 2010 Permalink
mana from heaven.
In efforts to be scholarly, the best of intentions by the brightest of people get lost down that rabbit hole of facts, fictions, mistakes and ill-conceived conclusions. “Look past common sense to what the “scholars” tell us. In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed hadi is king.