Muslim clerics to issue fatwa against killings and violence?
posted at 6:10 pm on May 1, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Could Muslim clerics of competing sects come together to issue a fatwa against violent jihad? The US and the Anglican church in Iraq hope that they can shepherd it into reality. After working together for months in places like Cairo and Denmark, Shi’ite and Sunni clerics will issue a religious ruling that violent jihad is anti-Islamic. The fatwa could force radicals to at least an intellectual defensive and hinder recruitment for suicide bombers and terrorists:
High-ranking Shiite and Sunni leaders are preparing to issue a religious decree condemning suicide bombings and other forms of violence, according to an Anglican minister who has led efforts to bring the two Muslim sects closer.
The draft decree, also called a fatwa, cites Quranic verses and says, “The prophet Mohammed prevents the spilling of blood, Muslim against Muslim, and thus suicide bombings are totally prohibited,” said the Rev. Canon Andrew White during a dinner Monday with Pentagon officials. The draft calls on Iraqis “to reject and forsake all violence, forsake all killing and provocation,” White said.
“What is new is that this will be a fatwa from Shiite and Sunni,” White said in an interview. “It’s not going to solve all of our problems, but it’s the beginning of the process towards the reduction of violence.”
How seriously does the US take this? Very seriously. According to USA Today, the Pentagon has worked on this project for four years, and last August they finally reached some kind of general agreement on the merits with the council. They have paid the bills for the meetings and the travel, and have worked with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Moqtada al-Sadr, and other notable clerics to build credibility for the effort. One aide to Robert Gates calls it a “tour de force”.
Perhaps. The connection to the Pentagon and to the Anglican Church may have a slightly deleterious impact on the credibility of the group, assuming they actually issue the fatwa. The Maliki government’s long-overdue push to eliminate the Mahdi Army militia may crack the alliance that came together to consider the question of violent jihad. Even if the group does publicly oppose violence and suicide attacks, it will not stop Osama bin Laden, Baitullah Mehsud, and Ayman al-Zawahiri from conducting their lunatic attacks on Muslims and infidels alike.
It could provide at least a start towards the elimination of the radical impulse in Islam, however. That has to have a beginning, and a convocation of respected Muslim clerics from the epicenter of the jihadist war would at least get the attention of a wide number of Arabs. In order for it to have real impact, though, the group would need to get the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia to take the same stand, and to do so willingly rather than by fiat of the royal family.
It certainly isn’t bad news. As for a tour de force … let’s see how it works in the real world.
Update: This fatwa specifically addresses Muslim-on-Muslim violence, our great friend Robert Spencer notes. However, I’d doubt that Muslims would start off by including infidels in such a fatwa. It’s still a start, and if Muslims would stop killing other Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, we could start addressing the infrastructure needs that could stabilize both countries permanently.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Even if it is 1% sincere we should take what we can get. A journey of a thousand miles etc etc etc.
Limerick on May 1, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Seriously. It has to start somewhere. This would be as good a place as any.
BadgerHawk on May 1, 2008 at 6:17 PM
I’m hopeful, yet cynical. It can’t hurt (unless you’re a democrat).
SouthernGent on May 1, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Blessed Allah, peace be upon him………
Seven Percent Solution on May 1, 2008 at 6:20 PM
I guess it’s a start to ban killings of fellow Muslims.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 1, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Wait a minute, I thought we wanted war without end, a holocaust on brown skinned people, an ever expanding of our empire. My follow commenters have gone soft.
…. I am confused.
Harpoon on May 1, 2008 at 6:27 PM
… which will be enforced by killings and violence.
Chuck Schick on May 1, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Welcome to Islam Lite.
Cicero43 on May 1, 2008 at 6:33 PM
I think it would be sincere, and set up the remaining attackers as violators of religious law. It would provide cover for them to quit al-Qaida (they could claim to be respecting the clerics behind the fatwa). It gives cover for ordinary Iraqis, when they’re chatting on the street corner or in marketplaces, to say something derogatory about al-Qaida.
If we get the Iraqi public opinion in general, the Iraqi civilian government, the Iraqi military, the Iraqi police, and the Iraqi clerics all to support peace in Iraq, that will be huge.
It would also make the other Arabs think twice before joining the “jihad” in Iraq. It takes some luster off of the “holy war” the terrorists want to wage there.
And it’s an implicit rebuke to Iran, which is fueling the violence. There’s no downside at all.
One key aspect of the Surge was to get tribal leaders on board, instead of pushing them to the side. This is just an extension of that (wildly successful) policy.
daryl_herbert on May 1, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Maybe some day islamists will realize that God can mete out his own justice, thank you, and doesn’t need a bunch of violent, uneducated primitives to kill in his name.
Cicero43 on May 1, 2008 at 6:36 PM
There must be peace and love!!! …or we’ll kill you!!!
Did these guys go to Berkeley in the ’60′s?
landlines on May 1, 2008 at 6:37 PM
“The prophet Mohammed prevents the spilling of blood, Muslim against Muslim, and thus suicide bombings are totally prohibited,”
But killing indifels is still cool, right? Just checkin’.
Tony737 on May 1, 2008 at 6:38 PM
“indifels”? hahahaha infidels!
Tony737 on May 1, 2008 at 6:39 PM
I agree it is full of loopholes and faults, but it is something to start with. It does nothing to tie our hands but seems to cut into the recruiting base of AQ.
Limerick on May 1, 2008 at 6:42 PM
The catch is that you can’t suicide bomb if there are any Muslims nearby. This would eliminate bombings in markets, street corners and mosques.
Take what you can get, brother…
Asher on May 1, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Who can stand up to Anglican hand wringing? Of course it will work. Fashionable fatwas are so in right now.
BL@KBIRD on May 1, 2008 at 6:48 PM
I won’t hold my breath!
canopfor on May 1, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Forgive me for being more than a little skeptical, but the imperative for offensive jihad is hardwired into the Qur’an and the hadith. To renounce it would be to jettison more than half of their holy scriptures and repudiate the actions of Muhammad, himself. I’ll be amazed if they can successfully square this circle.
Of course, the devil is in the details:
What about “Muslim vs. non-Muslim?” Oh, wait. We’re still part of the “dar ul-Harb,” the “House of War.” What was it Muhammad said?
(Qur’an 9:29)
To say I’m skeptical this can be done is to put it mildly.
irishspy on May 1, 2008 at 6:50 PM
If true, this is going to make the democrats and news services very sad.
jukin on May 1, 2008 at 6:50 PM
I really thought this was going to turn out to be a link to a story on The Onion.
greggish on May 1, 2008 at 6:51 PM
I doubt it. The spirit behind Islam is not remotely interested in peace. That “radical” impulse has been part and parcel of Islam from day one.
TexasDan on May 1, 2008 at 6:56 PM
Take what you can get, brother… – Asher
I agree, I’m not against this, but I also understand that Sunnis view Shi’ites as ‘innovators’ or apostates who are even worse than infidels. I hope this works but I’m skeptical. I hope it doesn’t lead to even more attacks on the non-believers.
Tony737 on May 1, 2008 at 6:58 PM
When ever one sect of Islam ruled against another sect, the result was and will be the same…… murder and mayhem.
MNDavenotPC on May 1, 2008 at 6:58 PM
Oh yeah, and “Happy May Day” to all you commie-libs out there.
Tony737 on May 1, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Can I be the first to say DUH! Islamic doctrine has always prohibited Muslims from killing innocent Muslims. The Pentagon spent four years trying to convince Muslims to follow the sacred words of Allah? Please tell me this is an Onion parody.
aengus on May 1, 2008 at 7:24 PM
I’m not sure how convincing Muslims to follow Islamic teachings changes anything. Its not a radical impulse, its Islamic doctrine.
Well lets see now, in the 7th century Islamic doctrine started off by prohibiting violence by Muslims against innocent fellow Muslims. That was 1,300 years ago. I suppose if we give it another 4,000 years they might find some mistranslation that allows it to apply to infidels as well. If we’re lucky.
It might stop Sunnis and Shias warring against each other – yippee! It will have no effect on the commands to slay the infidel. The kufr is not considered innocent within Islam. This is quite clear.
aengus on May 1, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Limerick,
You are a good man. God bless your son and keep him safe.
This fatwa could be observed 100% sincerely and yet Mohammed’s prohibition against spilling innocent blood does not apply to the infidels who are not considered innocent under Islam.
aengus on May 1, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Just make sure there’s no official fatwa document that any American puts his John Hancock on (agreeing that violence is anti-Islamic) and keep the congratulatory statement from the State Department to a brief “good!”
Connie on May 1, 2008 at 7:41 PM
By the way, Ed, your link to Jihad Watch is broken. You have 2 dots after www. Should only be 1.
Connie on May 1, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Somebody probably threatened to kill them if they didn’t.
profitsbeard on May 1, 2008 at 7:58 PM
If this does happen, it will be a giant step towards unity and peace in Iraq – which is good for us as well. It brings closer the day when we can bring the troops home without leaving a country in chaos.
Seems to me that Ali al-Sistani, Moqtada al-Sadr, et al have been watching U.S. politics and have determined that (like Rev. Wright) they can get their 15 minutes of fame on the world stage by agreeing to this fatwa.
Whatever the reason, it gives some reason to be hopeful – it is still troubling to me that Islamic leaders in this country have been silent for so long on the issue of jihad. I know that there have been a few, but there should have been an outcry from the beginning.
Garnet92 on May 1, 2008 at 8:13 PM
It can start with that clown being glad he’s alive. We’re letting him live I hope he knows.
johnnyU on May 1, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Sorry, but a fatwa against violent jihad…??? So, if you commit violent jihad, what, they kill you right? What’s changed?
I know, I’m very cynical and skeptical, and if it does prevent these jerks from killing each other, great. But it doesn’t include kaffir like me and my kids, so why is this good?
4shoes on May 1, 2008 at 10:10 PM
After this is over, Muq-tada! and Geronimo are going to have something to talk about. Wonder how Mookie will look in a stetson.
pc on May 1, 2008 at 10:22 PM
He says no violence and our guys are erecting a big ole barricade around Sadr City. He’s done for. The reason for the fighting was his guys were coming out to try and stop us from putting up the fence. If they don’t stop us, they be cattlelized. Which means we’ve won.
pc on May 1, 2008 at 10:24 PM
But us karif, we’re fair game. Gimmie a break.
VolMagic on May 1, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Maybe they see the writing on the wall. When McCain wins the U.S. won’t leave until the job is finished, so might as well start the “kiss and make up” right now so they can get us out of their country as soon as possible. Could have something to do with the Iraqi government actually acting like a government and doing what’s in the best interest of it’s law abiding citizens. I don’t care what’s causing it, it’s a another step in the right direction.
That fragile light at the end of the tunnel just got a little brighter, and I hope it stays that way.
Hog Wild on May 1, 2008 at 11:23 PM
Read the words. The fatwa is saying that suicide bombings are prohibited — because a Muslim can’t kill a Muslim.
Well, du-uh. Guess what? A suicide bomber kills HIMSELF – and in doing so, of course, he kills a Muslim.
And even such an incredibly spurious “denunciation” of terrorism as this can never be officially adopted by Muslim leaders. A Mullah can get away with making the hypothetical argument that a Muslim should try to preserve his own life while murdering infidels. That doesn’t hurt their cause any more than arguing how many faries can dance on the head of a pin.
But it can’t actually be implemented, because that would be an impediment to the prime imperative of Islam: gaining land, slaves and converts at any cost.
logis on May 1, 2008 at 11:42 PM
Since the Sunni and Shi’a see each other as unbelievers and thus not Muslim the edict changes nothing.
Annar on May 2, 2008 at 7:14 AM
“There is no Hindu, no Muslim”
“A TRUE MUSLIM IS NOT ONE THAT LABELS HIMSELF MUSLIM BUT ONE WHO HAS STRONG INNER FAITH”
“There is but One God, His name is Truth, He is the Creator, He fears none, he is without hate, He never dies, He is beyond the cycle of births and death, He is self illuminated, He is realized by the kindness of the True Guru. He was True in the beginning, He was True when the ages commenced and has ever been True, He is also True now.” (Japji)
GURU NANAK
Monas on May 2, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Hard to understand the cynicism here about this. To even have this effort become public knowledge is a success for the Bush Admnistration. It totally undercuts Democrats’ arguments that the U.S. is doing nothing to advance the “real war on terror” and that our invasion of Iraq actually produced more terrorists and a bigger cause to rally terrorists. It indicates that there is more to the strategy than just better military counterinsurgency tactics.
The carnage that has been inflicted by radical Muslims against other Muslims in this war dwarfs the number of “infidels” killed on 9/11 and in Iraq and Afghanistan. Aside from whether ending this carnage helps the U.S. politically, it stops a human tragedy and we should all want that. It is encouraging at least to see that a few Muslim clerics have become embarrassed by the carnage and determined to stop it. Only they can stop it and hurrah to them for stepping up to the plate at last.
rockmom on May 2, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Unless you’re an infidel and the jihadists definition of an infidel is very subjective as we all know…therefore I’m not holding my breath they will suddenly have a change of ideology, especially considering in the Koran it is permissible and encourage to lie to the infidels to attain the goal of a world dominated by the Caliphate!
Don’t trust the Religion of Pieces…EVER!
Liberty or Death on May 2, 2008 at 12:36 PM
I’ll take what we can get – I have some friends in the Iraqi Army I’d rather not see attacked, if you get my drift. I’ll look out for myself.
This would cut a fair amount of the recruiting angle used by the religious extremist groups. These folks have to start somewhere – once you start respecting anyone Shia or Sunni, you can make the next step a bit easier. I’d like to be the last of my family to have to fight over here, thanks very much.
major john on May 2, 2008 at 3:14 PM