The Washington fatwa

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

A number of North American-based Muslim organizations, clerics and activists held a recent press conference in Washington to release a "fatwa against Terrorism." The religious edict, unveiled at a critical time following the London bombings, is certainly the subject of significant interest. First, the timing: It comes after the terrorist attacks against Britain, and it also follows three years of unparalleled horrors perpetrated by jihadist organizations worldwide, including suicide bombings and beheadings of civilians. This "fatwa," issued by American citizens and associations, is the first theological document made public by a number of Muslim groups based in the United States. Other fatwas were issued in Britain and more detailed ones were made public in Saudi Arabia. There are endless questions about this announcement, especially in the minds of the American public. Let's analyze the actual text before we attempt to address a few of these inquiries.

A couple of points deserve mention at the outset: One, we haven't seen an Arabic version of the fatwa, at least not when it was announced. Fatwas are generally issued in Arabic. All Muslims around the world should be able to read them and all clerics should be able to comment on them. That is a matter of inquiry. Two, a religious edict is part of the theological domain, hence its discussion should overlap with Koranic references and other religious sources. But since the authors of the fatwa have tackled a subject of a "political nature," they have therefore opened the edict to the public for discussion as well. In other words, once a fatwa is out, and as long as it deals with public affairs and political matters, it can and would be discussed by all Muslims, even if they aren't of the clerical realm, and by non-Muslims as well, since the fatwa also covers their realm. This note of caution is necessary to prevent the exclusion of anyone from the debate, under the stipulation that "discussing" a fatwa is a "religious matter." This would be true if the subject of the fatwa is strictly theological. But once the crossing into politics and policies is done, it opens the door to free public debate.

Several points are in order:

1. The text states that: "The Fiqh Council of North America wishes to reaffirm Islam's absolute condemnation of terrorism and religious extremism." Had the text been in Arabic, the authors would have to use the term "Irhab." The fatwa would have been stronger had they quoted from religious texts a condemnation of "Irhab."

The American text didn't reference the "absolute condemnation" with a "clear text," which would allow al Qaeda and the jihadists to defeat the fatwa. For the terrorists have often used theological references to convince their followers that indeed "al Irhab" was accepted to mean jihad. Thus, it would have been of greater efficiency to provide theological grounds for the specific rejection of Irhab, translated as terrorism.

2. The fatwa states that "Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives." This is another important statement, but it is too general to use in making inroads in the war of ideas against the terrorists. For the question is: Who determines what is an innocent life? How can this statement lead to a specific condemnation of the killing of innocent people in Iraq's Sunni Triangle, Moscow, and Sudan at the hands of jihadists who specifically state in their own fatwas that there are no innocent lives when a jihad is waged? The American fatwa could have been specifically geared to defeat the jihadist ideology.

3. It states that: "There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians' lives and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram -- or forbidden -- and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not 'martyrs.' " Again, it would have been more efficient to respond directly to the jihadists who quote from the Koran and other texts and sources. For example there was no such thing as explosives in the 7th century, yet al Qaeda, its allies and even Sheik Yussuf al-Qardawi on al Jazeera have justified the use of suicide bombing, and called it permissible in certain conditions. Sheik al-Qardawi went as far as linking today's suicide bombing to what he called "inghimass" (to throw oneself against the enemy). According to him, this has been permitted by religious teaching since the early days of Islam. A fatwa issued in the West or in the United States must respond to Sheik al-Qardawi and the jihadists theologically, and not state globally what international law and 52 Muslim countries subscribe to already.

4) The text of the fatwa says: "The Qur'an, Islam's revealed text, states: 'Whoever kills a person [unjustly]... it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.' " (Koran, 5:32). This powerful quote has to supercede all other references al Qaeda uses with regard to the kuffar (infidels) from any source. For the jihadist terrorists would quote the same sentence and simply state that the persons they are killing are "justly" killed. Their ideologues have already responded to this reference by saying that whoever kills outside the injunction of the right jihad is acting as if killing all mankind. The same logic applies to all other quotations in the fatwa: a need for theological response to the jihadists in addition to general quotes.