Muslim clerics endorse anti-terror fatwa

[Tsukasa Buddha]

HYDERABAD, India, Nov. 8 (UPI) -- About 6,000 Muslim clerics from around India approved a fatwa against terrorism Saturday at a conference in Hyderabad. Maulana Qari Mohammad Usman Mansoorpuri, president of the Jamaiat-Ulama-i-Hind, called terrorism the most serious problem facing Islam, The Hindu reported. He blamed Islamic radicals for their actions and the news media for failing to distinguish between the radicals and the majority of Muslims.
...
"Islam rejects all kinds of unjust violence, breach of peace, bloodshed, murder and plunder and does not allow it in any form. Cooperation should be done for the cause of good but not for committing sin or oppression," the fatwa written at the Darul Uloom Deoband, India's foremost Islamic seminary.

Linky.


Though I am normally loathe to attempt rational discussion on this topic, this headline on Digg caught my eye.


Rationalizing and confirmation bias, engage!

 

[RandFan]

Cool.

Thank you for the info.

 

[Wildy]

I hope it works out.

Then again, from what I've noticed, Islam seems to allow conflicting fatwas because there isn't a central authority or some form of hierarchy.

 

[fuelair]

For those who have trouble recognizing a distinction between rational Muslims and other Muslims (similar to rational and non-rational Christians, etc.) - more evidence they do exist!!

 

[Wildy]

For those who have trouble recognizing a distinction between rational Muslims and other Muslims (similar to rational and non-rational Christians, etc.) - more evidence they do exist!!

Please, do continue to unfairly classify me.

 

[fuelair]

Please, do continue to unfairly classify me.

I may be missing something but where/when did I classify you?

 

[geni]

Fatwa is legit under islamic law and will probably have some impact on islam in and connected with india. In other areas perhaps less so.

 

[luchog]

Linky.

This is a very good thing to hear.

Unfortunately, the cynic in me wants to know how they define "terrorism", "sin", "oppression", and "unjust".

Never mind me, I'm just having a particularly misanthropic week.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Linky.

Though I am normally loathe to attempt rational discussion on this topic, this headline on Digg caught my eye.

Rationalizing and confirmation bias, engage!

How nice. How many total Muslim clerics are there in India? In the world?

How many of them will sign up to endorse this fatwa? Perhaps this will gain momentum, and perhaps it will remainl a local case of preaching to the local choir. It would be nice to see this get some legs.

DR

 

[mrbaracuda]

Though I am normally loathe to attempt rational discussion on this topic, this headline on Digg caught my eye.

Oh but why? Could we destroy your warm world of hot fuzz by doing so?

Rationalizing and confirmation bias, engage!

And what's this supposed to mean?

Anyway! As a long time reader of jihadwatch.org, I couldn't help but notice they also picked this story up on their site. They carry an AFP article which might make luchog's inner cynic come out again, with lines like these:

The endorsed fatwa, or ruling, holds that the term jihad -- 'holy war' -- cannot be applied to terrorist acts.

"Jihad is basically a constructive phenomenon. Terrorism is based on destruction alone. Jihad is permitted only for restoring peace and is a fundamental right of a human being," the edict reads.

"It's a very good and important step which draws the distinction that jihad and terrorism have nothing in common," said Khalid Rasheed, a senior cleric from northern India who attended the meeting.

In other words: Blowing someone up while shouting my "BS-god is greatest" is probably not terrorism, but jihad, and when you don't, it's terrorism!

At the closing session on Sunday, K. Rahman Khan, deputy speaker of India's upper house of parliament, urged the scholars to help end "all forms of terrorism."

But don't end jihad please! The last paragraph is nice and all, but they better not have this guy among them. Or this guy.
Other than that, what the pink pony and DR said.

 

[linusrichard]

Anyway! As a long time reader of jihadwatch.org, I couldn't help but notice they also picked this story up on their site. They carry an AFP article which might make luchog's inner cynic come out again, with lines like these:

In other words: Blowing someone up while shouting my "BS-god is greatest" is probably not terrorism, but jihad, and when you don't, it's terrorism!

That's a weird way of interpreting that paragraph. What brings out my "inner cynic" is an article that blithely translates "jihad" as "holy war," without explanation. What this paragraph is saying, pretty clearly, is that terrorism can't be considered jihad, not that jihad won't be considered terrorism.

Now, there's still the questions of (1) do they mean it, and (2) how influential will this be on others. But what they're saying sounds pretty good.

 

[mrbaracuda]

That's a weird way of interpreting that paragraph.

Nah, not really after you have spent some time on the rhetoric of muslim terrorists.

What brings out my "inner cynic" is an article that blithely translates "jihad" as "holy war," without explanation.

Ah-huh?!

What this paragraph is saying, pretty clearly, is that terrorism can't be considered jihad, not that jihad won't be considered terrorism.

Which is what I said?! I'm tired, so help me out here!

But what they're saying sounds pretty good.

Oh that part always does, especially to the untrained dhimmi ear!

 

[linusrichard]

Nah, not really after you have spent some time on the rhetoric of muslim terrorists.

You mean spent some time reading jihadwatch.com?

Ah-huh?!

What part of that was confusing?

Which is what I said?! I'm tired, so help me out here!

What you were saying was that you're reading this to mean that if an act of jihad were also an act of terrorism, then it wouldn't be considered terrorism, because jihad couldn't be terrorism. And what I was saying was that the obvious meaning of that paragraph was that if an act of jihad were also an act of terrorism, then it wouldn't be considered jihad, because terrorism can't be jihad.

Now, it's surely possible that they secretly believe what you think they're saying, but they're not saying what you think they're saying.

Oh that part always does, especially to the untrained dhimmi ear!

Oh. Namecalling. Never mind, then.

 

[mrbaracuda]

You mean spent some time reading jihadwatch.com?

No. Spending a little more than three years with this topic now due to personal circumstances.

Never mind

Yes, never mind with you any time.