Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/815478-muslim-leader-to-condemn-terrorists

Its about time. Maybe after another few grotesque massacres against another few thousand innocent civilians (Including a few more purposely attacking children at school) in the UK, Spain, USA, Russia, China and India we can get another one to come out from the tens of thousands of prominent clerics to properly condemn the killers, then these Muslim chaps might make me eat my words after all! :-)

I don't think this will change the bigoted opinions of many Westerners regarding Muslims, sadly.

mattyrm wrote:...we can get another one to come out from the tens of thousands of prominent clerics to properly condemn the killers, then these Muslim chaps might make me eat my words after all! :-)

There's a fairly long list of prominent clerics and jurists who have condemned terrorism; particularly the sort that involves the knowing sacrifice of one's own life.

“Hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood constitute a form of injustice that can not be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts"
- Shaykh Abdul Aziz al-Ashaikh (Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia and Chairman of the Senior Ulama, on September 15th, 2001)

“The terrorists acts, from the perspective of Islamic law, constitute the crime of hirabah (waging war against society)"
Sept. 27, 2001 fatwa, signed by:
- Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Grand Islamic Scholar and Chairman of the Sunna and Sira Countil, Qatar)
- Judge Tariq al-Bishri, First Deputy President of the Council d'etat, Egypt
- Dr. Muhammad s. al-Awa, Professor of Islamic Law and Shari'a, Egypt
- Dr. Haytham al-Khayyat, Islamic scholar, Syria
- Fahmi Houaydi, Islamic scholar, Syria
- Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, Chairman, North America High Council

Kilkrazy wrote:http://www.metro.co.uk/news/815478-muslim-leader-to-condemn-terrorists

The linky just came up with a blank page mate

It works for me.

I don't want to sound unhelpful but there's nothing I can do, really. It's The Metro's page.

I don't know- you just can't get the staff these days

no worries was just wondering if it was a broken link.

Link is all good here too.

@Dogma - It's interesting that none of those clerics specifically denounced 'jihad'.

mattyrm wrote:Its about time. Maybe after another few grotesque massacres against another few thousand innocent civilians (Including a few more purposely attacking children at school) in the UK, Spain, USA, Russia, China and India we can get another one to come out from the tens of thousands of prominent clerics to properly condemn the killers, then these Muslim chaps might make me eat my words after all! :-)

That’s a bit hyperbolic isn’t it?

In the UK we have had 1 successful Islamic terrorist attack since the 'war on terror' began and the casualties in that where roughly equivalent to the number of people killed in traffic accidents in the UK each week. Yet the amount of sheer paranoia over terrorism and Muslims in general in the last decade has been staggering.

On the matter of terrorism we really have lost all sense of proportion.

I remember moslem community leaders being asked on TV to condemn terrorism the morning after the 7/7 attacks and how they danced around the point.

They got as far as all killing is bad, but tried to link 7/7 to other acts of violence.

Albatross wrote:@Dogma - It's interesting that none of those clerics specifically denounced 'jihad'.

That is because in Islam jihad has the meaning of "struggle".

Moderate muslims take it to mean personal struggle against one's own evil, and extremists take it to mean violent struggle against non-muslims.

Therefore the cleric in this news clip condemned violent, evil jihad, but for him to condemn all jihad would be like a bishop condemning confession or charity.

Hey you did fix it Kilkrazy! It's working now

Hi Alabatoss
not sure that there are going to be statements condeming Jihad of itself as it is written in the Koran.

They can however make proclaimations against misinterpretations by certain groups or their leaders.

LuciusAR wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Its about time. Maybe after another few grotesque massacres against another few thousand innocent civilians (Including a few more purposely attacking children at school) in the UK, Spain, USA, Russia, China and India we can get another one to come out from the tens of thousands of prominent clerics to properly condemn the killers, then these Muslim chaps might make me eat my words after all! :-)

That’s a bit hyperbolic isn’t it?

In the UK we have had 1 successful Islamic terrorist attack since the 'war on terror' began and the casualties in that where roughly equivalent to the number of people killed in traffic accidents in the UK each week. Yet the amount of sheer paranoia over terrorism and Muslims in general in the last decade has been staggering.

On the matter of terrorism we really have lost all sense of proportion.

Successful is the key word. Thank your James Bondo types for that.
Don't forget the plan to blow up several airliners at once which could have killed thousands.

There's a difference between Jihad-the personal struggle and Jihad the crusade. Its easy to separate and condemn. If the latter is not, well there you are.

LuciusAR wrote:

That’s a bit hyperbolic isn’t it?

In the UK we have had 1 successful Islamic terrorist attack since the 'war on terror' began and the casualties in that where roughly equivalent to the number of people killed in traffic accidents in the UK each week. Yet the amount of sheer paranoia over terrorism and Muslims in general in the last decade has been staggering.

On the matter of terrorism we really have lost all sense of proportion.

Hyperbolic? Arent you looking for BNP everywhere?

Just like with the IRA the only reason we don't have this thing going on all the time is because the security services are good. Why would you discount the unsuccessful terrorist attacks, head in the sand perhaps.

The majority of the terrorists being found were born here, they are not first generation immigrants. This includes the 7/7 bombers. They were brought up in this nation and yet want to blow up this nation. Any aware person should see the threat of Islamic dogma. If nothing lese remember this, the people who committed the Glasgow bombing were DOCTORS, I cant stress this enough, if even local doctors can be turned into suicide bombers why should we not be concerned?

@KK - Fair enough. This, then:

The four major categories of jihad that are recognized are Jihad against one's self (Jihad al-Nafs), Jihad of the tongue (Jihad al-lisan), Jihad of the hand (Jihad al-yad), and Jihad of the sword (Jihad as-sayf). Islamic military jurisprudence focuses on regulating the conditions and practice of Jihad as-sayf, the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, and thus the term Jihad is usually used in fiqh manuals in reference to military combat.

It seems that 'Jihad as-sayf' is allowed under their religious law - my point was that they didn't condemn 'holy war', only 'terrorism' and 'shedding blood' in the examples Dogma posted. Again, dancing around the subject. They should come out and denounced ANY armed struggle in the name of Islam.

Ok so aside from the successful 2005 bombings in terms of failed attempts we have had the failed Glasgow Airport bombings and the failed car bombs in London both in 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_London_car_bombs

I have been scouring the net and cant find and reference to any serious failed attempt by Islamic fundamentalists to attack the UK, aside from the occasional lone nutter.

Besides even if all of these had been successful the risk of terrorism would still be infinitesimal compared to the number of easily avoidable yet totally unglamorous deaths that happen every day.

However the risk to citizens from the government in it’s attempts to combat this largely imaginary threat (Proposed ID cards, Increased CCTV, The DNA database, 48 days imprisonment without charge, silly scanners at the airport, advertising campaigns encouraging people to spy on their neigbours, harrasing people for taking photos) scare me far more than any tiny collection of silly incompetents.

@LuciusAR - Don't forget British muslims travelling to the Middle East to try and kill British and American soldiers.

They are not going to do that, so anyone who wants a ready-made excuse to hate muslims has got one right there.

Look at it from a different perspective though. What if the UK and USA should come out and denounce ANY armed struggle in the name of democracy.

How likely is that to happen?

Christianity has a literature of theological reasoning to allow the fighting of a just war.

Kilkrazy wrote:Christianity has a literature of theological reasoning to allow the fighting of a just war.

Oddly enough, it is called Just War Theory. I'm working on the Fun War Theory. I've played a lot of Call of Duty and Modern Warfare and apparently war is awesome.

Hey look, a cleric has denounced terrorism.
More should do it.
Actually, lots have.
Yeah? Well they didn't denounce it using the exact wording I'd like to see.


Whatever, hate who you want to hate.

KK wrote:Christianity has a literature of theological reasoning to allow the fighting of a just war.

I don't care. I'm not Christian. The fact that religious groups can come up with excuses to go to war is not something I am in favour of, I don't limit this to Islam.

The 'Jihad' thing is being purposely left ambiguous - Jihad is a requirement, Jihad-as Holy war is permitted.

KK wrote:Look at it from a different perspective though. What if the UK and USA should come out and denounce ANY armed struggle in the name of democracy.

How likely is that to happen?

Ireland. Switzerland. When was the last time either country declared war? Is neutrality effectively not the same thing as denouncing armed struggle?

I'm being facetious there, but in any case, democracy does not require nations to spread their doctrine 'by the sword'. I live in a democracy (apparently), but I don't get down on my knees and pray to it five times a day, it doesn't provide instructions for my diet, dress, or behaviour.

Albatross wrote:@LuciusAR - Don't forget British muslims travelling to the Middle East to try and kill British and American soldiers.

Are there any figures on the number of British Muslims that been proven to have done this? I’ve tried looking on Google but sofar can find anything.

my point was that they didn't condemn 'holy war', only 'terrorism' and 'shedding blood' in the examples Dogma posted. Again, dancing around the subject. They should come out and denounced ANY armed struggle in the name of Islam.

Hi Albatross
I wouldn't disagree, except that would be a bit like expecting western nations saying they would never go to war to protect democracy.*
They cannot condemn a Holy War if it is written into scripture. You have to understand that to Muslims the Holy Koran is the Word of God dictated to Mohammed by the Archangel Gabriel.

* see that KK has pipped me to that!

@LuciusAR

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/exclusive-army-is-fighting-british-jihadists-in-afghanistan-1631347.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/2485750/British-Muslims-fighting-with-Taliban-in-Afghanistan.html

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23652231-uk-troops-fighting-british-muslims-in-afghanistan.do

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/f18/british-muslims-fighting-taliban-afghanistan-14679/


Those took me literally seconds to find.

@Chibi - Hi mate, as I pointed out, democracy is not a religion.

LuciusAR wrote:Are there any figures on the number of British Muslims that been proven to have done this? I’ve tried looking on Google but sofar can find anything.

By wiki there's been two confirmed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency#Profiles_of_insurgent_groups

Which seems a small number to condemn the 1.5 million muslims living in the UK over.

It would be nice if tv showed less crazy muslims and more of the nice normal muslims i talk to

Albatross wrote:

KK wrote:Christianity has a literature of theological reasoning to allow the fighting of a just war.

I don't care. I'm not Christian. The fact that religious groups can come up with excuses to go to war is not something I am in favour of, I don't limit this to Islam.

The 'Jihad' thing is being purposely left ambiguous - Jihad is a requirement, Jihad-as Holy war is permitted.

KK wrote:Look at it from a different perspective though. What if the UK and USA should come out and denounce ANY armed struggle in the name of democracy.

How likely is that to happen?

Ireland. Switzerland. When was the last time either country declared war? Is neutrality effectively not the same thing as denouncing armed struggle?

No, because they would still fight in self-defence. Some people appear to be asking muslim clerics to condemn all forms of armed conflict.

Albatross wrote:
I'm being facetious there, but in any case, democracy does not require nations to spread their doctrine 'by the sword'. I live in a democracy (apparently), but I don't get down on my knees and pray to it five times a day, it doesn't provide instructions for my diet, dress, or behaviour.

Funnily enough we went into Iraq to spread the doctrine of democracy by the sword.

@sebster - That article only really relates to Iraq.

Inasmuch as you said:

Whatever, hate who you want to hate.

I would like to say:

Whatever, pretend Islamic militancy isn't a problem if you like - thousands of dead people would disagree.

Pretend all muslims are militants if you like -- it isn't a problem.