Al-Arabiya GM: Muslims are main perpetrators of terrorism

The Associated Press

Updated: 6:32 a.m. ET Sept. 4, 2004CAIRO, Egypt – Muslims worldwide are the main perpetrators of terrorism, a humiliating and painful truth that must be acknowledged, a prominent Arab writer and television executive wrote Saturday, as Middle East media and officials expressed horror at the bloody rebel siege of a Russian school.

Unusually forthright self-criticism followed the end of the hostage crisis, along with warnings that such actions inflict more damage to the image of Islam than all its enemies could hope. Arab leaders and Muslim clerics denounced the school seizure as unjustifiable and expressed their sympathy.

Russian commandos stormed the school Friday in Beslan, Russia; it had been taken over by rebels demanding independence for Chechnya. Russian officials said Saturday that the death toll was at least 250, with twice as many wounded. Many of the casualties were children.

Images of terrified young survivors being carried from the scene aired repeatedly on Arab TV stations. Pictures of dead and wounded children ran on front pages of Arab newspapers Saturday.

Read the entire article on the MSNBC website.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

23 thoughts on “Al-Arabiya GM: Muslims are main perpetrators of terrorism”

  1. “Muslim clerics in Spain issued what they called the world?s first ?fatwa,? or Islamic edict, against Osama bin Laden on Thursday, the first anniversary of the Madrid train bombings, calling him an apostate and urging others of their faith to denounce the al-Qaida leader.”

    Details here.

    I find the explicit condemnation of terrorism and terrorist acts by a major Islamic group to be a positive development.

  2. Does anyone know how a “fatwa” works? How you get it, from whom, under what conditions, whether there are conflicting fatwas, and if so, how they are reconciled? I know it’s a big deal, but I don’t understand the practical or theological factors involved.

  3. I don’t think there’s anything analagous in Christendom to a fatwa, since the latter involves a generic decree of law, not just doctrine. Although in the West, we associate it with a declaration of war or issuing a “hit” on someone (as in the unfortunate case of Rushdie), it doesn’t necessarily mean that.

    From Wikipedia:
    A fatwa … is a legal pronouncement in Islam, issued by a religious law specialist on a specific issue. Usually a fatwa is issued at the request of an individual or a judge to settle a question where fiqh, Islamic jurisprudence, is unclear. A scholar capable of issuing fataawa is known as a Mufti.

    Because there is no central Islamic priesthood, there is also no unanimously accepted method to determine who can issue a fatwa and who cannot, leading some Islamic scholars to complain that too many people feel qualified to issue fatwas.

    In both theory and practice, different Islamic clerics can issue contradictory fatwas. What happens then depends on whether one lives in a nation where Islamic law (sharia) is the basis of civil law, or if one lives where Islamic law has no legal status. It should be noted that many nations in which Muslims make up a majority of the population do not recognize Islamic law as the basis of civil law.

    In nations based on Islamic law, fatwas by the national religious leadership are debated before being issued and are decided upon by consensus. In such cases, they are rarely contradictory, and they carry the status of enforceable law. If two fatwas are contradictory, the ruling bodies (which combine civil and religious law) effect a compromise interpretation which is followed as law.

    In nations that do not recognize Islamic law, religious Muslims are often confronted with two competing fatwas. In such a case, they would follow the fatwa of the leader in the same religious tradition as themselves. Thus, for example, Sunni Muslims would not hold to the fatwa of a Shiite cleric.”

  4. (This may post twice).
    We associate fatwas with issuing a declaration of war (bin Laden) or a “hit” on someone (Rushdie), but I believe it’s a generic decree of law that can be used in a variety of ways.

    From Wikipedia:
    A fatwa (Arabic: فتوى) plural ‘fataawa’, is a legal pronouncement in Islam, issued by a religious law specialist on a specific issue. Usually a fatwa is issued at the request of an individual or a judge to settle a question where fiqh, Islamic jurisprudence, is unclear. A scholar capable of issuing fataawa is known as a Mufti.

    Because there is no central Islamic priesthood, there is also no unanimously accepted method to determine who can issue a fatwa and who cannot, leading some Islamic scholars to complain that too many people feel qualified to issue fatwas.

    In both theory and practice, different Islamic clerics can issue contradictory fatwas. What happens then depends on whether one lives in a nation where Islamic law (sharia) is the basis of civil law, or if one lives where Islamic law has no legal status. It should be noted that many nations in which Muslims make up a majority of the population do not recognize Islamic law as the basis of civil law.

    In nations based on Islamic law, fatwas by the national religious leadership are debated before being issued and are decided upon by consensus. In such cases, they are rarely contradictory, and they carry the status of enforceable law. If two fatwas are contradictory, the ruling bodies (which combine civil and religious law) effect a compromise interpretation which is followed as law.

  5. Jim: Islam doesn’t have the top-down heirarchical structures of authority you find in Christian denominations. My understanding is that any Mullah, or cleric, who has completed his religious eduucation may issue a fatwa. Furthermore Islam, like Christianity, is divided into a number of sects, from the conservative, intolerant Wahabbis, to the Protestant-like Shiites, to the mild and mystical Sufis.

    That is why Muslims in the US and Spain, for example, can correctly state that other Islamic figures in the middle-east who advocate violence, do represent the position of their Islamic faith as they understand it.

  6. Islam is Not Amorphous;It Has Maintained Theological Consistency

    The fact that there may not be a structure in Islam that is analogous to that found in Christianity—bishops, pastors, elders, etc. does not mean that Islam is amorphous and shapeless.

    Islam has done a reasonably good job of maintaining theological consistency. Once need to remembering ALWAYS that Islam is and always has been a POLITICAL MOVEMENT concerned primarily with gaining political power. Mohammed maintained theological control during his lifetime and that theological control was continued by his successors in various Islamic dynasties. In the 11th Century, the Caliph of the Muslim Empire convened a conference to settle theological differences that had cropped up in the Islamic world. The goal, which he achieved, was to settle all questions of interpretation, itjahid. This was the conference that announced the “end of itjahid.” The end of open interpretation of sacred texts. It is therefore quite possible to refer to classical Islam, that being the Islam agreed upon in the 11th Century and approved of and imposed by the Caliph who had all of the military and political power.

    Today, there are several theological centers which are considered orthodox and authoritative, leading among them is the Muslims theological institute in Cairo.
    This Institute has published translation of the Koran for purposes of prosyletization of non-Muslims. It has also published comprehensive editions of Islamic encyclopedias and compendiums of classical sharia law.

    No, all of the business about Islam being hijacked is jihadi propaganda. There is a well-defined body of belief which can be identified as “classical Islam.” Islam can be held accountable.

    The usual arguments asserted to absolve Islam from responsibility are:
    A) the evil practices are cultural not Islamic (read the Hadith to see Mohammed behead, torture, rape and engage in mass executions)
    B) the quotes are taken out of context (read leading Islamic scholars from the Cairo institute explain why Muslims cannot accept the International Declaration of Human Rights)
    C) It isn’t bad because Christians or Jews have committed bad acts in the past or are currently committing bad acts.

  7. Muslims Contempt for Christian Faithlessness; Muslims relentless assault on our culture

    Muslims have never retreated from their core assertion that the Koran represents the direct and unfiltered word of God. Christians on the other hand have been wiling to abandon and ignore Christ’s teachings against divorce. Somehow we have managed to evade the direct teaching of our Savior. The example of divorce is just one among many examples. Episcopalians are ready to abandon the guidance of St. Peter. Muslims have never compromised on the assertion that the Koran is the unbending and eternal word of God.

    Read about Canada today and you will see that Sharia law is gaining a foothold. There is a serious possibility that it will be adopted in Canada, allegedly for family disputes among Muslims. This is, of course, the nose under the camels tent. Muslims continuously assault our culture at every turn. I just read an article by a Canadian Muslim man promoting his idea that he should not be judged harshly for refusing to shake hands with a woman. Westerners are offended because in our culture a refusal to shake hands is an insult. His position was that since he was able to make Muslim argument against shaking hands, he should be absolved from criticism for treating women badly.

    This goes on every day, piece by piece by piece, Muslims work to dismantle our society, our principles and our morals. Given the assault on marriage launched by people who engage in physically harmful and sterile forms of sexual gratification, what is left to defend monogamy. If we re-define marriage, an institution centered on natural procreation and include in the definition of marriage a practice which is antithetical to natural procreation, we have nothing left to defend.

  8. Tactic: Bond with the non-vioment Muslims; No end to the appeasement

    Some think that our safety will be ensured by an ecumentical bonding with non-violent Muslims. But this is, of course, a deal with the devil. Non-violent Muslims still work daily to chip, chip, chip away at our culture until it is Islamicized. We are told that we must compromise our principles as appeasement to the Muslims so that they will abandon violence. We are giving in to threats.

    Non-vioment Muslims will still work for the acceptance of these core Muslims beliefs:
    A) Muslims are entitled to justified offense when they are forced to observe the celebration of non-Muslim religious traditions. This means that Muslims will ensure that we strip the public arena of Christian symbols and Jewish symbols. New York City schools outlawed references to Christmas but allowed references to Islamic holidays. This is happening NOW and HERE.
    B) Muslims are entilted to beat their wives
    C) Muslims are entitle to four wives
    D) Muslims are entitled to courts which grant women’s testimony half the value of men’s testimony
    E) Muslims are entitled to legal protection of a custom which grants female children half the inheritance of male children
    F) Muslims are entilted to protection from the sight of things they consider u unclearn, such as pork. Muslims in Britain have been successful in removing images of pigs from the public square. They have been removed from billboards and traditional statutes of boars have been removed from public parks. They have successful removed children’s book with stories about the “Three Little Pigs.”
    G) Muslims are entitled to challenge and attack Holocaust remembrances.
    Muslim students in France have walked out a history courses teaching about the Holocaust. Muslim clerics in Britain have refused to participate in ecumenical observations of the Holocaust, claiming that it was improper to remember the Holocaust without granting the Palestinians equal status as victims.
    H) Muslims are exempt from laws which affect everyone, such as driver’s license pictures for women, and uniform work rules.

    Sure, go ahead, bond with your non-violent Muslim friends. You can just forget that the Koran teaches that the literature which Jews call the Torah and which Christians call the Old and New Testament are tainted and corrupted and therefore not Holyl. Christians agree that the Torah is Holy, we do not teach that the Jewish scriptures are false and perverted. Muslims do.

  9. Note 5: Missourian, are you suggesting that if only Americans would breed more, the Islamic threat would be less than it is? I find this analagous to Buchanan’s endless fretting about us being overrun by Mexicans because European Americans (I assume he means “whites”) aren’t having enough kids (even though he and his wife, ironically, have no children).

    I don’t mean to diminish your concerns about Islam (which I share) but I’m not sure exactly how marriage relates to it.

  10. Muslims teach that your Scriptures are lies

    The Koran makes abundantly clear that Muslims are to consider the Old and New Testament corrupt. There are NO Muslim scholars that have every retreated from that position. Muslims who vear from traditional Muslim teaching are considered apostate. The penalty for apostasy is death. Muslims in the United States would want to leave Islam are still rightly fearful for their lives.

    You cannot collaborate with an implacable foe and except to survive with your culture and laws and beliefs intact.

    Muslims in Europe openly publish their plans to conquer the continent peacefully through cultural infiltration, political agitation and population dominance. It is happening as we speak. Europe is riddled with jihadi warriors collecting funds and financing death all over the world.

    Remember the old story about the snake. A frog encounters a wounded snake at the river. The snake pleads with the frog to let it ride on the frog’s back as the frog crosses the river. The frog initially refusing stating logically enough that snakes are the implacable foes of frogs and that the frog does not wish to die by snakebite. The snake responds that it wouldn’t make sense for the snake to bite the frog because then both the frog and the snake would drown. The frog finds this logic compelling and allows the snake to ride on his back. The snake bites the frogs neck and poisons him. As they drown the frog asks “why did you do this, we will both die?” The snake replies “you knew I was a snake when I climbed on your back, what did you expect?”

  11. American Muslims Apostates Fear for Their Lives

    Look into the writings of American Muslim apostates. They fear for their lives. The Armanious family in New Jersey are now the TARGET of CAIR who seeks to punish them for suggesting that the deaths in their families were the consequence of prosyletizing to Muslims. Death threats to Americans abound on the Internet.

    Muslim immigration should cease immediately. All Muslims currently in the country should be held to a strict assimilationist standard. None of our laws, customs or culture should be changed to accommomdate Islam. None. None. None.

    I have worked with Muslims professionally and I have seen the cold and deep seated contempt that they have for all women. Don’t fool around with these people. they are far more serious, more dedicated and more willing to lie and cheat for their cause than we are.

    Certainly the Orthodox Christians of all people are in a position to tell the world what living next door to Muslims are like.

  12. James K

    James K types:
    Note 5: Missourian, are you suggesting that if only Americans would breed more, the Islamic threat would be less than it is? I find this analagous to Buchanan?s endless fretting about us being overrun by Mexicans because European Americans (I assume he means ?whites”) aren?t having enough kids (even though he and his wife, ironically, have no children).

    I don?t mean to diminish your concerns about Islam (which I share) but I?m not sure exactly how marriage relates to it.

    Comment by JamesK ? March 11, 2005 @ 3:02 pm
    *********************************************

    If you review my Note 5 I did not refer to demographics in any way shape or form.

  13. Use of the word “breeds” for natural reproduction

    I find the use of the word “breeds” to refer to natural heterosexual reproduction to be offensive. I have only heard the word “breed” used in that fashion by homosexual activists who love to heap scorn on normal families. I will accept an apology however.

    Although I did not not address demographics in Note 5, demographics will always be an issue if A) political power is distributed through a voting process and B) large groups of people vote in ethnic or religious blocs. There is every reason to believe that French Christian culture and French secular culture will be overwhelmed by a growing bloc of Muslims who will vote together on many important issues.

    You might want to note the common roots “demos” in democracy and demographics. Whatever you think of Pat Buchanan, his population analysis has been proven prescient and his conclusions regarding the demographic makeup of Europe are now generally accepted by people on all positions of the political spectrum.

  14. ELIMINATING ARAB IMMIGRATION
    How does one practically do this? Even if we refuse immigration from Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc, Muslims can immigrate from France, Germany or even Mexico. In addition, they do not have to identify themselves as Muslims. Consider also that Muslims are not always of Middle Eastern descent. We have a substantial population of Somalians in Ohio who are Muslim. So what’s the answer? Unfortunately, the only real option is to forbid immigration entirely for the time being.

    ***
    As far as the term “breed”, the dictionary defines it as “To produce (offspring)”. While I’m sorry you took offense, I cannot be expected to be aware of the obscure use of terms used by various activists on every subject. Substitute “procreate” if you will.

  15. ARAB DEMOGRAPHICS
    Missourian, there’s no easy solution. Eliminating immigration from the Middle East will not prevent Muslims from entering via Europe or even Mexico. They do not have to identify themselves as Muslims. Even race does not indicate anything (we have a large Muslim Somalian population in Ohio). The only answer would seem to be to halt immigration entirely.

    ****
    In regards to the word “breed”: the dictionary defines it as “To produce offspring”. Sorry if offense was taken but I can’t be aware of every obscure use of words as used by various political activists.

  16. Dishonest and disengenous answer on breeding

    I consider JamesK’s answer disingenous.

    Have you ever read a serious article about human demographics in which the relatives rates of human reproduction was referred to as “breeding” rates? I submit the answer is no.

    Have you ever asked a friend or family member if they planned on “breeding” soon?
    I submit the answer is no.

    In polite company, one would ask a family member if they planned on “starting a family” soon, not if they planned on “breeding” soon.

    Other than the contemptuous use by gay rights activists, the term “breeding” is normally only found in texts dealing with animal husbandry. Here are some common usage examples:

    Are you planning on breeding your dog?
    Do you know anything about horse breeding?
    John is a horse breeder by trade.

    Gay rights activists are fully capable of mocking and jeering at heterosexuals, their informal conversation and internal communications frequently use the derisive term “breeder” to refer to normal people.

    So, please let’s not play games. No one uses the term “breed” to refer to human reproduction unless it is used derisively, exactly as you used it. You were engage in deriding Pat Buchanan’s writing about relative fertility rates. Remember that your audience isn’t stupid.

  17. Let’s refrain from accusations, please, Missourian. You have never met me, nor are you a mind reader. I am not a “militant gay rights activist”, either. Not every expression of heterosexuality is “normal”. Ever hear of “sado-masochism” and “dominatrixes”?

    I’m not apologizing. I know what I meant.

  18. Buchanan on immigration:
    “There is nothing wrong with us sitting down and arguing that issue that we are a European country.” (Newsday, 11/15/92)

    In a September 1993 speech to the Christian Coalition, Buchanan described multiculturalism as “an across-the-board assault on our Anglo-American heritage.”

    “Middle-class Californians, uncomfortable with the radical ethnic changes reshaping the state and weary of the tax load, are leaving for good. And as high-income Californians depart, to be replaced by low-wage Latins and Asians who consume more in services than they pay in taxes,California’s deficits will explode.”

    “Put starkly, Buchanan argues that white people are too rich, selfish, godless and guilt-ridden to have children, and so are contracepting themselves out of existence” (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4125)

  19. I feel Missourian’s hysterical response warrants one more explanation:

    The concept of decrying the lack of white people having children merely for the reason that whites will be outnumbered by those of the darker-skinned races is reducing the concept of procreation, marriage and family to the level of breeding dogs for their “purity”. There are many reasons to have a family: making more “whites” is not, in my honest opinion, a valid one.

    Is Arab assimilation an issue? Yes. Buchanan at times is extreme, however, in his views on what the proper racial makeup of the United States should be.

    I stand by my statement.

  20. Actually, the term caught my ear too. “Breeding” is used as a perjorative among homosexuals to describe heterosexuals. It has no place in the discussion. The comment about deviant heterosexuality in Note 18 is out of context as well. Missourian’s post doesn’t address homosexual behavior, just homosexual terminology.

  21. If my comments were taken as a reflection of my own personal views, I can assure you they were not. For this misunderstanding I apologize. Tone and intent are not always clear when speaking through the medium of print.

Comments are closed.