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.

“The prophet Mohammed prevents the spilling of blood, Muslim against Muslim, and thus suicide bombings are totally prohibited,”

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!

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.

There are several basic assumptions shared by most of us who consider ourselves anti-Jihadis, and several disagreements on how to wage the fight. How we discuss these differences is important; although I prefer a reasonably rational discourse, all of u…

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,”

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.

That fragile light at the end of the tunnel just got a little brighter, and I hope it stays that way.

“The prophet Mohammed prevents the spilling of blood, Muslim against Muslim, and thus suicide bombings are totally prohibited,”

But us karif, we’re fair game. Gimmie a break.

Shi’ite and Sunni clerics will issue a religious ruling that violent jihad is anti-Islamic.

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?

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.

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

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.

It could provide at least a start towards the elimination of the radical impulse in Islam, however.

I’m not sure how convincing Muslims to follow Islamic teachings changes anything. Its not a radical impulse, its Islamic doctrine.

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.

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.

As for a tour de force … let’s see how it works in the real world.

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.

We have seen this before. Qur’an 4:92 forbids a Muslim to kill another Muslim intentionally, and there have even been demonstrations in various majority-Muslim countries against Al-Qaeda when the jihadists have the temerity to kill other Muslims, know…

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.

It could provide at least a start towards the elimination of the radical impulse in Islam, however

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.