I doubt this will have any effect on the attitudes of any adult Muslims. The definition of what they consider terrorism is the problem with this fatwa. I'm almost certain that nothing Palistinians do to Israeli citizens will be considered terrorism.

It's hard to believe a group of people are truly against certain acts when they remain silent as long as it doesn't affect them. For as long as Muslims were killing non-Muslims they didn't seem to have a problem with it.

That was my post above there - forgot to put my name in it.

Why don't Christians ever issue Fatwas? Oh that's right, I forgot that the ACLU would be after their asses if they tried.

This fatwa means death to all those who bring death to the infidels.

- "Better late than never, I guess."

Haven't been paying much attention, I guess.

Hey, July pick a nickname so we can flame you good and proper. Moron.

"'Having our religious scholars side by side with our community leaders leaves no room for anybody to suggest that Islam and Muslims condone or support any forms or acts of terrorism,' said Esam Omeish, president of the Muslim American Society, one of the groups which announced the fatwa."

Sura 9 of the Koran instructs muslims to kill or convert all unbelievers. Madrassahs and mosques all over the world are reported to be giving very literal instruction in the Koran, so a few highly placed American muslims can't make Sura 9 just go away.

Moreover, it's of special interest that Sura 9, verse 5, instructs muslims to ambush unbelievers and to employ every strategem against us. Muslims aren't going to say to us, "Don't be afraid! We want to ambush you." It's more effective just to say, "Don't be afraid!". For when we frightened but gullible unbelievers have let down our guard, the muslims can satisfy their desire.

Arafel

Note that CAIR's professional shitbag Ibrahim Hooper chimes in - interesting, given that CAIR is generally more apologetic or supportive of acts of "resistance" depending on who's being resisted.

So many fawas, so little time. But seriously, it seems like practically anyone can issue one of these things - it's as if every Catholic priest could write his own encyclical and throw it out there for the faithful to follow. How does your average Muslim know which ones they're supposed to follow? Some contradict each other, who knows who the authors are or where they got their qualifications - how do people decide what to do?

Gosh, here it is almost 3 years and eleven months later, and they've finally decided to decry the massacre!

I'll believe it when I see it, not one nanosecond before.

The Koran (Quran?) tells believers it's o.k. to lie, so long as the lie promotes the spread of the faith. I gotta tell you, this looks more like a Clinton pronouncement than a directive to action - you know: when can you tell when Clinton is lying? His mouth is moving. This Grand Poobah sounds like that.

Here's a link.

Not the same EXACT story.

Carlos and Arafel pretty much said it. The koran and the suras specifically say that anything in the service of promoting the spread if islam is permitted, including lying and making false treaties. (See Mohammed v. Medina.)

LGF is now reporting that this fatwa is a hoax/fraud/bullshit.

These moderate Muslims have a lot of ties to terrorist groups. Betcha didn't see that coming.

Dave S. said, "LGF is now reporting that this fatwa is a hoax/fraud/bullsht."

Well, then we're spared the trouble of disbelieving it.

Arafel

When the history of the late 20th/early 21st century is written, it will be seen as the period when Islam went through a fundamental change, emerging different but stronger, rather like the Reformation of Christianity in the 15th century.

Evidence of this is everywhere. You can barely turn on any media instrument without hearing something or another about Islam. While I wasn’t around back in the 15th century, and while media was far from the omnipresent animal it is today, I would bet that this “buzz” that we now hear about Islam, was the buzz you heard about Christianity at that time.

All religions have fundamentalist factions, who see this or that version of their scriptures as correct, this or that leader as the anointed one, and so on. Through time, all religions live with these internal struggles, and Islam is no exception. However, over the past few decades, the churning within Islam has become more and more volatile, and, since the Islamic revolution in Iran (1970), has spilled out screaming into the so-called secular world.

The shrillest – and horrifying – noises, of course, are coming from the terrorist fringe, which is using fundamentalist Islam as a smokescreen to push its political goals. Throughout history, religion has often been hijacked in this way, and whether these movements take on an Islamic or a Hindu or a Christian or a Judaic face, they are politics, pure and simple. [Mr. Osama bin Laden’s espoused goals, for instance, are very specifically political – get the Americans out of Saudi, replace the Saudi government, and so on.]

Then, there are hundreds of millions of plain, devout Muslims who are, on the one hand, horrified at the actions of the fundamentalist fringe that is hijacking their religion, and, on the other, shocked at the mindless, heartless response being driven from Washington. [To have your beliefs described as fanatical, backward, barbaric and uncivilized is hardly a way to try and create a dialogue. It is heartening that since the London bombings last month there has been a dramatic change in the debate – more and more “moderate” Muslims are speaking out and, critically, more and more ordinary non-Muslims are seeing the foolishness of trying to fight terror with terror, to wit, a recent poll showed that 85% of the British population believes that the attacks in London were a direct result of Britain’s pillion ride on America’s honor killing war in Iraq.]

And finally, there are hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of Muslims like myself, who have lived largely outside the religion, because it’s perceived practices did not fit in with our contemporary lifestyles. I am suddenly identifying myself as Muslim and trying to understand, and participate in, this change. [I am amazed at the number of people like myself I have encountered over the past year or so; and while it is likely that not all the activated “quasi-Muslims” will remain engaged forever, I believe that the fresh energy they bring to the table can contribute significantly to the evolution of a renewed Islam. In fact, it is critical that non-Muslims join the party as well, and quasi-Muslims are best placed to bring non-Muslims into the dialogue.]

Of course, it takes two to tango and if we are to ever see a calmer, more peaceful and more wonderful world - which I have no doubt we are - it is crucial that non-Muslims open their minds and their hearts as well

Jamal it's not crucial that non-muslims open their minds - it's crucial that muslims open theirs. I dated an Iranian girl for six years, who, because her mother was Armenian, was a catholic. Her sister, brother, and mother were also catholic, but her father and the rest of his relatives were muslim. They all left Iran after the revolution and by the time I met them were all pretty much Americanized (i.e. drank alcohol, dressed normally, etc...) with one exception. When the chance to talk about it came up they were always anti-jew.

I have seen this attitude in the vast majority of muslims I've come across. Even in those muslims who by all appearances barely follow islam there seems to be at least the anti-jew connection. It's almost pathological. It reminds me of stories of how otherwise good, decent whites in the fifties could still talk about "the coloreds" and how bad they were for society.

Beyond that though, islam seems to be the most intolerant of the major religions. It specifically calls for the conquest of the world, through deceit and through war. In no islamic country in the world are other religions allowed the freedom that islam is itself allowed in non-islamic countries. You do not find the moderate muslims in these countries calling for the free practice of other faiths. You do not see any movement calling for even the tolerance of these other faiths.

It is not the action of the terrorist fringe hijacking islam that is so worrisome, it is the complete indifference of these as-yet-unseen moderates. Actually, it seems these terrorists are practicing islam as it has historically been practiced, and what is needed is for the moderates to hijack it. Because if they don't, and I say this as an atheist, islam will likely bring about a holy war that they will ultimately lose.

Allen - well said.

Jamal - I have yet to see a "moderate" muslim. I know "moderate" Republicans and Democrats, I know "moderate" religionists of several stripes, but I have never met a "moderate" muslim.

Maybe the reason for this is that either you're muslim or you're not, and if you are, you have to go for the gusto as described in your holy book. That doesn't leave too much room for compromise, so either you're with "them" or you're yanking at least your own chain, if not everyone else's.

I've said it before, and this won't be the last time, either: Islam was born in violence, spread in violence, and cannot exist without violence. Or is it that I read a different Koran (Quran)?

This is the other conservative meme that is so egregiously mongered in this blog: There are no moderate Muslims/Islam itself is intolerant.

Allen writes:
In no islamic country in the world are other religions allowed the freedom that islam is itself allowed in non-islamic countries.

Let's see, Nigeria, Africa's most populous country, is 50% Muslim. It's Constitution states:
38. (1) Every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom (either alone or in community with others, and in public or in private) to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

(2) No person attending any place of education shall be required to receive religious instruction or to take part in or attend any religious ceremony or observance if such instruction ceremony or observance relates to a religion other than his own, or religion not approved by his parent or guardian.

(3) No religious community or denomination shall be prevented from providing religious instruction for pupils of that community or denomination in any place of education maintained wholly by that community or denomination.

(4) Nothing in this section shall entitle any person to form, take part in the activity or be a member of a secret society.

Indonesia contains the worlds largest population of Muslims. Its Constitution states:

Article 27 (1). All citizens, without exception, shall be equal before the law and in government and shall have the duty to respect the law and the government

Article 29 (2). The state shall guarantee freedom to every resident to adhere to their respective religion and to perform their religious duties in accordance with their religion and that faith.

The Morocan Constitution states:

Article 5: All Moroccan citizens shall be equal before the law.

Article 6: Islam shall be the state religion. The state shall guarantee freedom of worship for all.

Just the first three I looked up. But I'm confident this evidence, as all other evidence contrary to the resident anti-Islamic meme, will be dismissed.

Some good perspective on this moderate Muslim issue:

NY Sun article

About this "fatwa"

Regarding the meme that the Koran requires the faithful to convert/kill disbelivers I offer the following:

The Disbelievers
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

[109.1] Say: O unbelievers!
[109.2] I do not serve that which you serve,
[109.3] Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve:
[109.4] Nor am I going to serve that which you serve,
[109.5] Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve:
[109.6] You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.

I think that much is made of the following Koranic verse:

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

I think that this verse is historical speaking specifically about the pre-Islamic Arab idol worshippers who Mohammed fought against and overthrew, rather than about unbelievers in general. Like the Bible, the Koran is full of apparently contradictory injunctions and phrases that can be construed to mean many things. The problem is NOT Islam, the problem is Islamic extremism that takes and interprets some of the Koran to justify their attrocities.

vonK,

Some facts about Morocco:

Islam is the state religion.

The practice of Christianity and Judaism are tolerated.

Law and tradition call for severe punishments for anyone who converts from Islam.

Proselytizing by non-Muslims is often punished even when it does not violate Articles 220 and 221 of the Penal Code, which make proselytizing a crime only if seductive or coercive means are employed. Convictions of such actions usually result in deportation.

Some 'freedom of religion', huh?

Brew - That's not quite the dire take that the State Dept. has on Morocco (2004):

The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respects this right in practice; however, there were some restrictions. The Constitution provides that Islam is the official state religion; however, non-Muslim communities openly practice their faith.

...The Government places certain restrictions on Christian religious materials and proselytizing, and several small religious minorities are tolerated with varying degrees of official restrictions. The Government monitors the activities of mosques and places other restrictions on Muslims and Islamic organizations whose activities are deemed to have exceeded the bounds of religious practice and become political in nature.

The generally amicable relationship among religions in society contributed to religious freedom; however, converts to Christianity generally face social ostracism.
...
In March, an English-speaking church group received nonprofit association status as the "Protestant Church of Rabat." Other registered churches and associations include the Evangelical, Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, French Protestant, and Anglican churches. While the Rabat Protestant Church and other minority religious groups have been operating unfettered by government authorities since the 1970s, registration allows the groups to make financial transactions and other plans as private associations and legal entities.
...
The Government continues to encourage tolerance, respect, and dialogue among religions. In the past year, King Mohammed VI or the Minister of Islamic Affairs has received the Archbishop of Athens, delegations of American Christian and Jewish leaders, the Grand Rabbi of Jerusalem, and the chief Sephardic Rabbi of Israel. The country has the only Jewish museum in an Arab nation.
...
An interfaith service at the Catholic Cathedral in Rabat took place in March to commemorate the victims of the March 11 terrorist attacks in Madrid. Most senior government officials, including many ministers, attended the event. The ceremony featured Muslim, Christian, and Jewish religious speakers.

OTOH

Any attempt to induce a Muslim to convert is illegal. ... The Government has cited the prohibition on conversion in the penal code in most cases in which courts expelled foreign missionaries.
...
Citizens who convert to Christianity and other religions generally face social ostracism, and a small number of converts have faced short periods of questioning or detention by authorities for proselytizing and have been denied issuance of passports. Voluntary conversion is not a crime under the criminal or civil Codes; however, until 5 years ago, the authorities had jailed some converts on the basis of references to Islamic law. Nevertheless, Muslim citizens are allowed to study at Christian and Jewish schools.
...
Since 1983, the small Baha'i community has been forbidden to meet or participate in communal activities; however, there were no reports that the Ministry of the Interior summoned Baha'is for questioning or denied them passports, as had occurred in past years.

vonK,

So we agree then. There is no religious freedom (as any rational person would describe it) in the islamic world. Sometimes I think there are those on your side of the aisle (present company excluded) that believe we have too much religious freedom here in the good ol' USofA.

Brew - Uh, no we don't agree that there is no religious freedom in the Islamic world. I'm confused how you reached either the conclusion that there is not religious freedom or that I think there is no such freedom based on the voluminous citations I provided.

vonK,

"or that I think there is no such freedom based on the voluminous citations I provided"

The citations you provided *prove* there is no religious freedom there! If I can go to jail for telling you about Jesus, or L. Ron Hubbard, or Budda, or Mr. Magoo there is no religious freedom. If the state religion is 'xxx', there is no religious freedom. How do you define religious freedom?

Brew - Oh, and here I thought religion was a private thing. Ok, there are limits imposed on the right to Evangelize. But somehow the Evangelicals manage to not only worship, but be one of the officially registered religions in Morocco.

Yeah, there is not complete freedom on religion in Morocco, less than there is in the USA, but nothing like "no religious freedom". Hell, even here in the USA we don't allow Native Americans to use Peyote or Rastafarians to smoke ganja, are you arguing that there is no religious freedom in the USA?

vonK,

"Ok, there are limits imposed on the right to Evangelize"

Not to mention the right to convert from Islam to whatever. Just a small detail, huh?

"But somehow the Evangelicals manage to not only worship, but be one of the officially registered religions in Morocco"

Nothing like having to 'register' with the government to prove there is religious freedom in your country!

"Yeah, there is not complete freedom on religion in Morocco, less than there is in the USA, but nothing like "no religious freedom". "

And this is ok with you? Its not a standard I like to see because then you forget that in the eyes of these countries not believing (i.e. atheism) is just as bad as believing in Jesus.

"Hell, even here in the USA we don't allow Native Americans to use Peyote or Rastafarians to smoke ganja, are you arguing that there is no religious freedom in the USA?"

Nice strawman, vonK. but nobody is arguing that people should be allowed to commit criminal acts. Stay on topic please.

Not to mention the right to convert from Islam to whatever. Just a small detail, huh?

A small and incorrect detail. To quote the State Department:

Voluntary conversion is not a crime under the criminal or civil Codes; however, until 5 years ago, the authorities had jailed some converts on the basis of references to Islamic law.

You say:
Nothing like having to 'register' with the government to prove there is religious freedom in your country!

There is no cited requirement to 'register', to again quote the SD:
While the Rabat Protestant Church and other minority religious groups have been operating unfettered by government authorities since the 1970s, registration allows the groups to make financial transactions and other plans as private associations and legal entities.

How is this different than the US requiring churches to register and pass muster for IRS and other benefits?

Again, you seem to be taking an all or nothing stand on religious freedom. There is less religious freedom in Morocco than in the USA, but that does not approach the definition of NO religious freedom.

Is there no religious freedom in France? I mean, the French just outlawed the Hijab so that must mean there is no religious freedom right?

vonK,

Are you drinking already? You say "There is no cited requirement to 'register'"
Then in the very text you paste it says "registration allows the groups to make financial transactions and other plans as private associations and legal entities"

Also:

"one of the officially *registered* religions "

Your words, not mine.

"How is this different than the US requiring churches to register and pass muster for IRS and other benefits?"

Because there is *no law* that says a church must register and you know it.

"you seem to be taking an all or nothing stand on religious freedom" Yes, I am because freedom to worship should be absolute.

"Is there no religious freedom in France? I mean, the French just outlawed the Hijab so that must mean there is no religious freedom right?"

In my *opinion*, if I can't wear a Hijab, or a crucifix, or a Star of David then no I don't have religious freedom (so you're not confused, wearing hats and jewelry is not usually considered a crime as is taking peyote or smoking dope).

Brew - You are the one with the admitted fondness for drink, not I.

You also really need to get some remedial reading comprehension. For example, you write:

You say "There is no cited requirement to 'register'"
Then in the very text you paste it says "registration allows the groups to make financial transactions and other plans as private associations and legal entities"

Re-read your post and re-read, assuming you did read, the SD report. Eventually you will see that it says that religions are not REQUIRED to register, but that IF the register they receive benefits. Religions in the US are not REQUIRED to register as 501(c)3 organization, BUT they receive benefits, as well as restrictions, if they do so. Clear?

But, given that you believe there is no religious freedom in France because of the outlawing of the Hijab I can safely assume that you have simply found yourself out on a logical limb and are sawing as fast as you can.

"You are the one with the admitted fondness for drink"

I agree! Finally we have found some common ground!

Perhaps you can give me your definition of freedom of religion? That would seem a better discussion then why when you say 'register' it really doesn't mean 'register'. and when you say 'US requiring churches to register' it doesn't really mean 'require'. So please, inform the uninformed, elighten us who dwell in darkness, educate us, the ignorant. Tell us, what is freedom of religion?

I'll take the definition in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

So there are two main clauses in this definition:
1) the right to change ones belief, and 2) the right manifest ones belief.

Within the second of these clauses are some sub-clauses:
2) worship a) alone or in community, and by b) teaching, and/or c) practice (prayer, etc.), and/or d) worship and observance (mass etc.)

Now Morocco seems to me to meet all but possibly 2)b), and that is only attenuated in the instance of teaching to Muslims for the purpose of converting the Muslims as there is no mention at all of restriction on evangelizing non-Muslims AND Muslims are free to attend schools run by non-Islamic churches.

Ok, I missed that the SD report mentions:
Voluntary conversion is not a crime under the criminal or civil Codes; however, until 5 years ago, the authorities had jailed some converts on the basis of references to Islamic law.

So while right 1) is technically legal it has at times been infringed, though apparently not in the last 5-6 years.

"I think that this verse is historical" -- von Kreedon

I can't imagine that phrase passing the lips of any muslim except one who had already been so heavily westernized as to be unreliable as a representative interpreter of the Koran. I think that sort of interpretation comes out of the modern tradition of Biblical interpretation beginning with Spinoza.

In any case, Sura 9:5 is the verse that Osama bin Laden takes as a sort of centerpiece for the "fatwa" he and his allies issued against the United States in 1999. He didn't give it a merely historical interpretation and he was evidently confident that the readers and audience of his fatwa wouldn't either.

I invite everyone again to look at Sura 9 of the Koran and judge it for yourself. The closer you look, the more horrified you'll be.