Muslim edict slammed for not condemning al Qaeda

The fatwa condemning religious extremism recently issued by American Muslim groups was so broad it was meaningless, and should have denounced specific terrorist groups including al Qaeda, critics within the U.S. Muslim community say.

Critics also say the declaration seemed geared more toward improving the faith’s image rather than starting an honest discussion about Islamic teaching.

“The bulk of the Islamic tradition as it exists does stand against these lunatic, savage attacks on civilians,” said Omid Safi, a Colgate University religion professor and chairman of the Progressive Muslim Union, an American reform group.

“But I would be more inclined to say there are elements of extremism in many parts of our tradition. Rather than simply saying these are not a part of Islam, I would acknowledge that these trends are there and do away with them.”

Muqtedar Khan, a political scientist at the University of Delaware and author of “American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom,” said it appeared the main aim of last week’s fatwa was protecting U.S. Muslim groups from criticism. And the edict may have fallen short of even that goal, he said.

“They should have been at least specific about events, if not individuals or organizations. They did not condemn al Qaeda or [Osama] bin Laden. It would have had more punch to end all these claims that American Muslims are not doing enough to end terrorism if they had,” Mr. Khan said.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based group that endorsed the fatwa, said no specific groups were named because “it would have been a laundry list.”

“I think you can safely regard anyone listed on the State Department list [of terrorist groups] as included,” Mr. Hooper said. That list includes the Islamic militant group Hamas, which many Palestinians believe is waging a legitimate fight against Israel.

“It’s not likely that someone who is already considering some act of terrorism would be dissuaded by this, but you never know if you’re going to prevent someone from going on the ideological road that would lead them to this activity,” Mr. Hooper said.

Muslims around the world have been under renewed pressure to denounce terrorism following last month’s deadly bombings in Britain and Egypt, along with the drumbeat of insurgent attacks on civilians and coalition troops in Iraq.

The U.S. fatwa, written by the Fiqh Council of North America, an advisory committee on Islamic law, said nothing in Islam justifies terrorism targeting civilians. The council further declared that Muslims were obligated to help law enforcement protect civilians from attacks.

Fiqh Council chairman Muzammil H. Siddiqi said the edict applied even when a Muslim country has been taken over by a foreign power. In Britain last month, two groups of Muslim leaders separately denounced the July 7 London attacks, but one said suicide bombing could still be justified against an occupying power, while another said it could not.

“Occupation is wrong, of course, but at the same time this is not the way,” Mr. Siddiqi said.

Yet Abdullahi An-Na’im, who specializes in Islamic law and human rights at Emory University, said the American fatwa was misleading. He said the scholars could not say “in good faith” that Islamic law, called Shariah, required Muslims to assist an invader.

“What is Shariah’s position on an invasion or occupation of a Muslim country by a non-Muslim country? Put bluntly in those terms, I don’t think that any credible scholar could say this is legitimate,” Mr. An-Na’im said. “If the same group of scholars were asked to issue a fatwa over the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, which is the underlying thing, what would that fatwa be and how would Americans feel about it?”

Story Continues →