This is a guest post by The Professor first posted on Harry’s Place
Two days ago the Pakistani Sufi organisation Minhaj-ul-Quran launched their remarkably comprehensive fatwa (religious ruling) against terrorism and suicide bombing.
Since then the Muslim Brotherhood’s Azzam Tamimi has been on a one-man mission to discredit it.
On the BBC, he mocked al-Qadri for not preventing suicide bombings in Pakistan before saying that he himself believed that suicide bombing was allowed in “self-defence” (but not against “innocent civilians” – as opposed, presumably, to guilty civilians) and saying that:
‘Then there is the question of utility and whether this is actually good for the cause or bad for the cause and in most cases it’s not good for the cause. And I think this is the argument we need to push forward rather than resorting to fatwas because for every fatwa, there is a counter fatwa.’
So, in other words, the question of whether or not jihadists should kill civilians is not one of morality but rather of ‘utility’. If killing civilians produces results, Tamimi says, then it is ok.
He then hammers this point home by saying that British Muslims should not carry out suicide bomb attacks at present because this would be ‘counter-productive’:
‘British young Muslims; I would advise them against resorting to any of these tactics because they are counterproductive. But I cannot apply the same thing for people who are defending their country and defending their homes and for people whose families have been wiped out completely by coward pilots flying F16’s and Apache helicopters.’
Presumably then, if circumstances changed and suicide bombing in the UK stopped being ‘counter-productive’ and instead became ‘good for the cause’, Tamimi would then be supportive of such attacks.
Tamimi’s latest outburst is yet another nail in the coffin of the increasingly threadbare argument pushed by pro-Islamist lobbyists Andy Hull, Jamie Bartlett and the widely discredited Robert Lambert that the Muslim Brotherhood should be used by the British government to fight jihadist terrorism.
Instead, as Tuesday’s anti-terrorism fatwa by Minhaj-ul-Quran proved, it is those non-Islamist groups that openly condemn terrorism ‘with no ifs and no buts’ who are our real allies against religious extremism.
30 Comments
I don’t know this Ali chapbut what about indiscriminate and targetted shelling, carpet bombing, use of white phosphorus and drone attacks on openly civilian populations…that follows the same line that Killing civilians is fine if it produces results, doesn’t it?
so you’re saying that what he says is fine, as long as you can point at someone who is “worse”? can you point at any of his tactics that can be shown to *prevent* harm to civilians, like, say, firing 8,000 rockets indiscriminately over a border when you’re supposed to be observing a ceasefire, after a military withdrawal? how about using your own people as human shields? how about throwing your own people off roofs for not voting for you? how about killing civilians on your own side, or getting them killed in order to try and score futile propaganda victories against a vastly superior military power?
what “results” would you say those have produced, yaseen?
i am sure the population of gaza are *most* impressed.
b’shalom
bananabrain
The Palestinians have the legal right to self-determination. with the absence of an army, how do you suggest they should carry out that self-determination?
Israel justifies, as does the US, the killings of ‘collateral’ innocents on the basis that the (unconvicted) assassination target was being targeted. Palestinians have made the like argument that they likewise target military infrastructure and their rockets go astray due to poor technology, perhaps the US could do everyone a favour by providing them with more accurate weapons as they do with Israel? Yeah, it sounds strange, but man there is some logic to that! You problem of killing innocents would be resolved overnight…
Or do yo have better ideas to self-determination instead (one that of course doesn’t involve ‘selling out’ as usual)?
i wasn’t aware they need an army to engage in self-determination, particularly given that the israelis unilaterally pulled out of gaza. i’m not sure they need an army to amend the bits of their charter that call for killing all jews worldwide and i’m particularly sure they don’t need an army to spend their money on food and infrastructure rather than smuggling in more pointless weapons. and i’m sure their self-determination could equally be carried out without throwing their political opponents off roofs.
on the other hand, if they need an army, perhaps they could use these guys, who already work for them:
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_qbT9lfmNQI0/Sam7fi9w2jI/AAAAAAAABh8/m4ZQrHiPLRs/s800/hamas16.jpg
perhaps you could tell me what military infrastructure exists in sderot, where the majority of rockets seem to be falling? what are they trying to hit, the kirya in tel aviv, but being let down by crappy guidance systems?
aren’t the iranians doing their best to help?
you seem reluctant to suggest the option of just stopping firing rockets and negotiating.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Actually, Yaseen and the other Islamists hereabouts have absolutely no problem with the tactics of any side involved in the conflict. Their real issue is with the fact that Israel is a Jewish state. Their concern for the rights of Palestinians is that deep – it extends just as far as their basically Jew-hating agenda allows them.
oh, my mistake – i happen to be one of that group of eccentrics that actually wants a solution whereby the palestinians and israelis both get to live in peace without trying to murder each other, hence my support for, say the ray hanania peace plan. i am aware that this doesn’t exactly fit the Glorious Islamist Future narrative that our friends in the comments are so keen on, but i’ll just have to live with that.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Munafiqoon what about stories like this…it is called perpetyal terrorism:
Fallujah doctors report rise in birth defects
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8548707.stm
Just to let you know, Yaseen:
Falujah is in Iraq – not Palestine.
You are simply engaging in a bit of geographically-challenged “whatabout”-ery.
Knobo Abu Faris its in the Middle East where everyone is allowed a say as long as it is in favour of the imperialists and dictators…you scummy why don’t you comment on the co-existence, pluralistic, democratic, human right, liberal article itself…about Iraqi children who are suffering as your parasitic fingers type a reply.
Well, that got your attention, Yaseen.
Of course, Falujah is actually in Western Asia and not the “Middle East” – but we have already received evidence of your more than sketchy knowledge of the meta-region’s geography, so we will let that one slide. Although I am still chortling at your faux-pas of thinking Falujah was in Palestine.
Let’s stick to the above the line article, Yaseen. I can understand why you want to divert attention from it, however.
Do tell us how discussion of the use of depelted uranium shells in the Battle for Falujah has any bearing on an article about Tamimi’s latest support for terrorism.
Oh, can you do it without being abusive? Thanks awfully.
In the last 24 hours I have been reliably informed by Islamist goons hereabouts that correcting their spelling is indicative of apostasy – and now that Falujah is in Palestine.
Ignorant and mad – how very, very sad.
Isreal/America is the common denominator, the axis of humanity and benevolence. One rains down phosphorus bought from the other and the other uses depleted uranium whenever it gets the chance. But hey these things have nothing to do with each other..you really are unbelievable. Typical slippery, slimy, detritus tactics, Abu Faris, wouldn’t expect anything more from you.
I guess the universal rule in this world – like it or not – has always been that what goes round comes round…
How about addressing the content of the above-the-line article, Yaseen; rather than inflicting us with your polemical what-about-ery?
So, you support terrorism in the form of suicide bombing, do you?
Save the abuse, my geographically challenged one, you are wasting your time.
Yaseen,
Since you are simulating so much upset about the report you link to from the BBC, perhaps it might be best if you went to that site and posted comments there – as this thread is about the latest support for suicide bombing terrorism given by the Muslim Brother, Tamimi.
Come on, Yaseen:
Do you agree with Tamimi’s statements or not?
Sucide Bombing in any shape or form is dispicable and un-Islamic…now tell me carpet bombing and drestoying townships is just as henious.
So, you do not support Tamimi’s statement. A shame you could not have made that clear earlier.
So you reject Tamimi’s position? Yes or no, will do.
As far as I am aware, Falujah was not carpet-bombed. As for “destroying townships”, Falujah was not destroyed – and it’s a city not a township. Not that this has anything remotely to do with the topic at hand.
Abu FOGA just cant stop – So a question to you FOGA do the palestianians have a right to resist the illegal occupation? I am not talking about Gaza but the whole of palestine (which was a soverign country before the zionists invaded illegally)?
with the best will in the world, palestine was never a sovereign country! it went from a province of the ottoman empire to a mandate of the british empire (incorporating jordan, which is why the “west bank” is called the west bank) to a combination of jordan and israel. at which point was there an actual sovereign nation-state called palestine? gaza was originally part of egypt. and zionist settlement started in the C19th under the ottomans, (although there has been a continuous jewish presence in the land since the last jewish commonwealth). whether or not you accept the balfour declaration (or the contradictory promises made by the british to the arabs, or the sykes-picot treaty, or any of the rest of the imperialist skullduggery) the fact is that there was a partition vote in the u.n. which established the sovereign legitimacy of israel, although obviously not the borders. the arabs did not vote for a contrasting state of palestine – they simply voted against the partition of the mandate and, when they didn’t like the result, started a war instead and lost. and continued to follow this pattern until the early 80s when israel got stupid in lebanon.
none of which, of course, should be understood to mean that there aren’t such people as palestinians with a right to national self-determination if that is what they want. whatever the situation back in the day, there have certainly been a couple of generations of people who see themselves not as jordanians or as arabs, but primarily as palestinians, so good luck to them and my blessings on any sensible and reasonable endeavour they should embark on – none of which applies to anything i’ve ever seen hamas come up with, on the subject of which, when you say “the whole of palestine”, do you mean tel aviv, too? do you think palestinians have “right to resist occupation” by blowing stuff up on dizengoff street?
b’shalom
bananabrain
A question for you, Wiki:
Does “legitimate resistance” include deliberately targeting civilians with prior and malicious intent and then acting upon that malicious intent? This is the manner of suicide bombing.
As a subsidiary, but closely related question: Should terrorist acts, (in any proper meaning of the word) such as suicide attacks against civilian targets, which are acts made with theintention of killing, maiming and terrorising civilian non-combatants be in any way compared with the collateral, unintentional death of non-combatants as a result of military actions by sovereign states against clearly designated and carefully chosen military targets (such as terrorists launching rockets at civilian homes)?
International law makes this distinction – even if you do not. Perhaps you could explain?
I am sure you understand the role of intention in law. After all, it figures quite widely in fiqh, for example.
You keep avoiding my questions – are you a muslim?
I have made this point on another post but will mention again
A few verses from the Qur’an (word of allah) which I believe summarises you people, I shall say no more.
“And who believe in the revelation sent to you (Muhammed) and sent before you, and they believe to the hereafter.
They are on true guidance from Allah, and they are who will prosper.
As those who reject faith, it is same to them, you warn them or do not warn them, they will not believe.
Allah has sealed their hearts and their hearing, and also their eyesight are closed. And for them great penalisation.
Among the people there are some who say “we believe in Allah and the hereafter”, but in fact they do not believe.
They try to deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves and they do not realise it.
In their heart is disease, and Allah has increased their disease; and grievous penalisation for them, caused by the tell a lie.
When it is said to them: “Do not make mischief on earth”, they reply: “In fact we want to make peace.” Remember, in fact they are the people who make damage, but they do not realise it.
If told to them: “Believe as the others believe.” They reply: “shall we believe as the fools believe?” Remember, in fact they are the fools; but they know not.
When they meet those who believe, they say: “we believe”. And when they return to their evil, they say: “we are really with you, we are only jesting.”
Allah will throw back their mockery on them and let them unsolved in their trespasses.
These are those who have bartered guidance with trespasses (perverting), but their trading is profitless and they have lost their true direction.
Their similarity is like a man who kindles a fire, when it is lighted around him, Allah took away the light and left them in darkness, cannot see.
They are deaf, dumb and blind, and they will not return to the right path.” (Baqara 2:4-18)
Sadly for Wiki, his ignorance of the Levantine region lets him badly down.
When asked, until about 1948, how they self-identified what today are called Palestinians mostly responded by calling themselves “Syrian”. Possibly the most rightly infamous “Palestinian”, Hajj Amin al-Hussayn never as far as I can judge ever referred to “Palestine”, nor to himself as a “Palestinian”. One of the reasons why the founder of the vile Islamist Hizb ut-Tahrir was so keen on pan-Arabism (which he sold to non-Arabs as pan-Islamism – but note the supremacy of Arabs in his version of the Caliphate) was precisely because he had absolutely no notion of himself as a “Palestinian”.
The use of the Politically charged noun “Palestine” and the associated adjective “Palestinian” are entirely anachronistic when referring to the people of the region before the latter half of the Twentieth Century.
Bananabrain comments, with which I agree, that:
Agreed. Palestinian self-identification is as a result of the infinitely badly handled and conducted struggle between Israel and the surrounding Arab states that has dominated the region since the mid 20th Century. Palestinian national self-identification is a result of Arab intransigence, Arab abuse of the local Arab population as a pawn in regional power games, and Israeli mishandling of the aftermath of their legitimate self-defensive struggles against surrounding Arab regimes mostly hell-bent on wiping Israel from the map.
I happen to think Israel should exist – indeed must exist. It poses an enormous threat to the lazy, thuggish, sleazy dictatorships that surround it, by dint of democratic example.
In fact, the best hope of freedom and peace that the Arab peoples have is the existence of Israel – their best hope of continued suffering, conflict, enslavement to local tyrants and religious fascists lies with the likes of Hamas, Hizbullah and their regional state backers.
Anyone who knows anything of traditional Arab societies will acknowledge that for a person living in the early 20th Century in, for example, the Levant notions of national identity were extremely novel – and mostly regarded as alien imports from European political culture. Notions of national liberation were mostly held by urban elites, unconnected to the masses of the Arab Street in any real way. For most of the Arabs of that time and region, loyalty was to family, clan and tribe – especially for people born into the traditional elite tribal groups such as the al-Hussayni.
As some here like to raise the ghost of TE Lawrence, one might point out the utter chaos of the Damascus “conferences” that followed the Arab Army’s capture of that city in 1918. Immediately, all city positions and roles were divided along tribal lines (and for the urban Arabs who had been liberated, along lines of the Ottoman milet system. And if anyone wants to raise the events of 1920 in Damascus, can I point out that it was restricted to Damascus and other main cities, not the country and tellingly was largely a grievance against a perceived outsider imposed by other outsiders, the Hashemite king imposed by Britain and France, and not a real struggle for national independence for Syria). There was no suggestion in anyone’s minds of a “national” or pan-Arabist government. Matters followed their traditional course, with tribe, clan and family trumping any abstract appeals to national or regional identity.
What is, frankly, irritating about so much of the “support” and “sympathy” for the Arab peoples that emanates from armchair jihadi, ensconced before their keyboard, safe in their East London bunkers, is the sheer ignorance and contempt for the history of the Arab peoples themselves. As someone who lives and works in the Arab world and is married to an Arab, can I just tell these people that their so-called “support” is most unwelcome?
You keep on avoiding my questions are you a muslim?
That question has absolutely nothing to do with any of the threads on this site.
Further, one’s religious identity is a private affair; but you as a hard-line Islamist would beg to differ on this point, of course.
Stick to the topics at hand, please.
Might I also add, as an aside, that I am less than accommodating with people who insist on repeatedly dubbing my son an idiot.
Yes, another excellent article.
Absolutely.
And it’s no coincidence that the Saudi Arabian authorities, which have all but banned the noble tradition of tasawwuf in their own country, and with their philosophy of Wahabism are the mentors of those who seek to ban tasawwuf elsewhere, are also the ones who fund many of the institutions, either directly or indirectly, in which extremist ideas are fostered.
Extremists, by definition are those who do not follow the path of moderation, and are therefore no longer being “guided on the path that is straight” but rather are “on the path of those who have gone astray” or “those who incur God’s wrath”. Perhaps this is the meaning of the hadith that, “The destruction of my followers will be through the hands of young men from Quraish.” [Bukhari 9:88,180]
But to return to the article, I’d like to make two points about Tamimi’s comment that “for every fatwa, there is a counter fatwa”:-
Firstly, there is absolutely no possibility of a fatwa, which by definition must conform with the Qur’an and Sunnah, that can in any way condone the killing of innocent civilians and oneself under any conditions whatsoever. This has amply been proved by many Shuyukh, and in any case is patently obvious to anyone whose heart is open to the true message of Islam.
But secondly, and more fundamentally, to say categorically that “for every fatwa [and not just some fatwas] there is a counter fatwa” is to say that there is no truth in Islam which can be held to be sacrosanct. It is to say that there is no teaching of Islam which has any authority derived from validity, for I can find another equally valid teaching which will counter it, and that therefore I can do whatever the hell I want in the name of Islam.
It shows the truly nihilistic and anti-religious principles which lies at the heart of “Islamist” thinking, particularly the strand that condones suicide bombing. It is “God is dead” dressed up in Islamic clothing, and in this sense – let there be no doubt – it is a thoroughly modern phenomenon. (For to relegate all fatwas to the order of mere theories, is ultimately to relegate the existence of God to a theory. How modern is that?).
If you push any Islamist to justify themselves (as I have done on the comments pages of spittoon and elsewhere), they will ultimately come out with statements like this, or else slink away into the refuge of some dark shadow.
I would agree with you almost completely, Abu Yusuf – as I hope you are relieved to learn!
Without wishing to get picky, however, can I just suggest that your argument here needs some fine-tuning:
I think we need to be careful here, as this does not necessarily follow. Fatawa, however erudite, considered and well-researched their evidences and conditions remain opinions made by Islamic jurists. At their greatest force, they may be considered as judgements made by suitably qualified individuals; but this is not the same as definitive statements of truth.
Consequently, it is not the case that if there were a counter-fatwa for every fatwa that the opined truth of Islam is thereby imperilled.
{I have some scepticism about the fruitfulness of the use of the word “truth” – unless very carefully described and circumscribed – when in the context of religion as it happens too!}
Abu Faris,
I am no sceptic when it comes to truth. To me, Absolute Truth is one and same with the Essence of God, “Allah, huwa al-Haqq”, and all other truths are less true to the extent that they distance themselves from this essential Truth. If we part company here, then at least let’s do so amicably.
What you say about futwas is true for certain categories of futuwa, but not all, for example the fatwas on ‘aqidah. I take issue with Tamimi’s (and other’s) beliefs that ALL fatwa are relative – and maintain that is a modern and anti-sacral way of thinking. Again, if you disagree then so be it. Let me be relatively wrong in peace
Perhaps the notion of truth in religion – and its role elsewhere in human affairs (or rather its presumed importance) – is best left alone. It is not that I am sceptical about truth (as such), Abu Yusuf – but rather its usefulness as a term to describe what you want in religious terms.
I am afraid I am not a great fan of absolutes, let alone absolute truth; and I cannot agree with you about the grades of fatawa.
Let me just conclude by suggesting that opinions are also important and can stand on their own feet without recourse to being dressed up as “truths”.
Perhaps I read too much Nietzsche, Bergson and Sorel for my own good; but it strikes me that myths are fundamentally important items in human existence without any recourse to being true (or false).
As you say, we can do this in peace, insh’allah!