This Fatwa is absolutely meaningless.
CAIR was birthed by Hamas and the Department of Justice declard CAIR to be an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Terror Funding trial.
Your thoughts? It seems to me there are many problems with this, but I want to hear the thoughts of others.
I'm going to highlight the parts that I think are problematic.
From the Muslim Issue:
Executive Summary (for the full version, please use the links above)
1- It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an—or part of a verse—to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith.
2- It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.
3- It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.
4- It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.
5- It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
6- It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
7- It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.
8- Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.
9- It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.
10- It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.
11- It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.
12- The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.
13- It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
14- It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.
15- It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.
16- It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.
17- It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.
18- It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.
19- It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God. (LOL)
20- It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.
21- Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.
22- It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.
23- Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.
24- After the death of the Prophet, Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.
In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds, Peace and Blessings be upon the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers
14 comments:
Situations like this one make impossible for a non-Muslim, and I´m sure many Muslims, to have a set position on what Islam is and is not. For instance, some of the points made are based on reformed Islam, like:
5- It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
(Where, how, and by whom is it
forbidden?)
12- The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.
What does this mean?
3- It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic
sciences.
Is this a joke? That´s precisely when all the conquests begun!
24- After the death of the Prophet , Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.
Where are all the "forbidden" legislated?
This is why so many people have such serious reservations! Can anyone please clarify? Thanks!
If I am not mistaken #'s 5 and 12 refer to the Islamic doctrine of Ijma which is from the Hadith and says, " "My ummah will never agree upon an error""
So, my opinion is, this series of rulings or whatever the hell you want to call it - is just some sloppy reasoning based upon Ijma, which is another word (or so it seems here) for THE ZEITGEIST OF THE TIMES.
I have never heard of Islam abolishing slavery. That being said, slavery is NOT conducted in most of the world. It is being practiced by Muslims in Sudan and Nigeria however. And no Imam is issuing fatwas against those Muslims, so what is the difference?
There is more wrong here. I want to hear others opinions.
Is nicoinarg still around? He may have some answers...
Good idea. He's going to college these days, so his input is sporadic. I will send this to him and get his thoughts.
Nico's response for now is this:
Heh, funny little letter, especially that joke about Islamic "sciences" cracked me up.
In the detailed Arabic letter, they have some references to where they're taking their BS from. I'm going to try and go over that (as much as I can) to see what the hell they're referring to and then comment back. Might take me a couple of days though.
Without going into much detail, I can say this with absolute certainty that this letter has no bearing on anything whatsoever. Usually the general Muslim idiots don't care for fatwas (except if its against someone they hate aka Salman Rushdie) and only ever care about the Quran and Hadiths and the Sirahs. Secondly, just like this letter was written, another can be written after ISIS takes over more land saying the complete opposite. And no one is going to say anything whatsoever to that contradiction since in Islam contradictions are normal, their Allah can't even make up its own mind.
Anyway, I'm going to try and get more details on it and leave a comment on the post.
So, we'll have to wait a little while .
Thanks to both of you.
Sorry its taken me a while, I've been extremely busy.
After going through the whole document, I am convinced that this letter was written as a PR stunt because maybe Muslims were feeling the heat from questions on why they are not criticizing the Islamic State if they are so against Islam.
This letter is full of misleading texts, it is as if someone with zero knowledge of Islam wrote it. OR it could be that it was written for not Al Baghdadi but leftist idiots in the West. Which would make more sense because otherwise this document makes absolutely zero sense.
Baghdadi probably didn't even bother reading it. Or maybe he read just the one part that actually told him, in this document, how brave and valorous he and his fighters were. Or those parts about jihad that actually encourage what he's doing because in trying to prove that he is not following Islam, they in fact prove that he really is following Islam, more so than the so called scholars.
Anyway, I am just leaving my comments to all the points. Its not that detailed but what I can safely say is that not a single point has been written honestly. It is all BULLSHIT. So if that's all you wanted to know, then stop reading here. But if you want brief reasons into why its BS, then read on.
1- Says who? No Quranic evidence for this is presented, already weakening their case even if they were trying to be honest about this which I doubt very much.
2- This is like the Catholic church before the reformation. Nothing in the Quran to support this exists.
3- Uh...The Quran says that Islam and QUran are easy to understand and remember. Maybe these idiots should go read their lard covered book before talking about it. PS: There is no such thing as "Islamic sciences". A flux capacitor is more real than Islamic sciences.
4- Yeah like the six pillars of Islam. But WTF are does this have to do with anything?
5- In Islam, this only refers to needs. Something one can't live without. An example is: In normal times it is forbidden in Islam to eat horse meat, but one can consume horse meat if there is nothing else around to eat. This does not pertain to modernization or acceptance of 21st century Western principles of freedom, it just means "put up with the situation until you can change it".
6- This is more misleading bullshit. Two things: One, the bastards writing the letter quote verse 17:33 and 6:151 which is talking about murder within society without "just" cause. And two, "just cause" and "innocence" are defined by Islam, not by universal standards. Then the verse about "killing one soul, killing the whole universe, and saving one soul saving everyone" you know, whatever the muzzies stole from the Talmud. Even the Quran says it applies to the Israelites, not to muzzies.
Anyway, coming back to the meat of the matter. It is forbidden to murder in Islam without just cause but offending Allah is just cause for killing, offending Mohammed is just cause for killing. And guess what, not converting to Islam and not believing in Allah is offensive to both Allah and Mohammed. This is why I said this is misleading, I can bet a million dollars every one writing this letter knows that they're spewing bullshit.
7- Nothing here from the Quran (even though they state earlier in the letter than if something is not found in the Quran then it does not carry a lot of weight). The only quote that is contained in this section is from a dubious hadith which says "don't kill emissaries".
Deception is allowed and permitted in Islam and if killing an emissary furthers the cause of Allah and Mohammed then its allowed. Read up on how Ka'b Ibn Ashraf was murdered if interested.
8- This section is full of bullshit about greater jihad and lesser jihad. It half quotes a hadith where a dude is told my Mohammed to go take care of his parents instead of going to war. What these bastards forgot to mention is that this is only applicable in case your parents are sick (which that dude's parents were) and would die if you weren't around.
Weird thing is, they are pretending to write a point on how jihad is all defensive and spiritual yet all but one verse quoted in this section say that Muslims should go out and fight the disbelievers.
Now on to what really is defensive in Islam. It is actually true, if you could suspend logic for a second and think of it like a Muslim, that jihad is ALWAYS defensive in Islam. No one will ever say that its offensive warfare. How is it defensive though? Well, if a Muslim tells a non Muslim about Islam and "invites him to revert" to Islam, and the non Muslim refuses, the non Muslim has actually declared war against Allah and it is hence the duty of all Muslims to DEFEND Allah. See how this lunacy magically turns into defensive warfare?
Anyway, later on in this section the so called scholars actually go on and make the case for Baghdadi's campaign by quoting verses such as "Fight till there is no more sedition and religion is Allah's". That is, fight till everyone on the land follows Allah and Islam. And the hadith is also quoted where MOhammed said that he was ordered by Allah to fight till everyone was Muslim.
9- This is true for Muslims. In Islam you cannot declare a Muslim a non Muslim (that has a lot of implications related to property and life in that a non Muslim has not inherent right to life and property under Islam. It is always up to the Muslim leader in the area to decide which of the non Muslims live and which ones die). A Muslim can only be considered a non Muslim depending on their actions or if they have vocally declared that they're not Muslim anymore.
What sort of actions are we talking about? Well, a couple of examples will help clarify that. During Mohammed's time whenever Mohammed went on one of his killing spree of innocent people, if some of the Muslims didn't want to go kill innocent people, he declared them "hypocrites". Later, those that did not apologize and stop being such party poopers and start killing some innocent people were considered non Muslims or "the same as the pagans". Another example is those Muslims who after Mohammed died, turned away and went their own merry ways not giving a shit about Mo the idiot. The first caliph of Islam, Abu Bakr, declared them all non Muslim and declared "defensive jihad" against them during which a crap load of these folks were killed.
Anyway, seeing these two scenarios, seems to me that Baghdadi is actually following Islam's definition of when and how to declare people non Muslim pretty accurately and doing what Mohammed and his fellow murders would have done.
10- This is total and utter bullshit. This section is so full of bullshit that all I need to say is read the Sira and read 9:29, 5:51 etc. Any Christian or Jew, or anyone else for that matter who does not bow to the rules of Islam for them such as no public symbols of worship displayed, their buildings of worship lower than mosques, their churches and synagogues can't be repaired without permission from the Muslim leader etc can be killed. No questions asked. This is the same bullshit, as previous points, they seem to only want to mislead and not really engage in actual debate.
11- No its not. Magis were different people. Yazidis spawned from Islam and added pagan crap to it. Yazidis can be killed just like any other pagans can be.
12- They mention freeing a slave as a good deed as evidence that Islam is against slavery. No, that is not what it means. It is just another thing you do to get your 72 virgins. It says doing good is freeing a slave or giving food to the hungry. It does not talk about abolishing slavery. In fact it talks about freeing a slave as a form of punishment for the slave-owner.
Anyway, Mohammed had a slave all his life called Bilal. Refused to free him till the idiot (Mohammed, not Bilal, although Bilal was just another Muzzie so screw him) died.
Then they talk about how Islam respects conventions and treaties...right, just like they respect the treaty at Hudaibiyah.
13- That's correct. They either convert on their own or kill them. There is no compulsion in religion only applies within Islam. Because Islam = bliss apparently. It does not apply outside of Islam.
14- What rights? You mean, the same rights as your property (2:223)? All it talks about is that Allah created men and women...Anyway, they know they're bullshitting, couldn't even come up with enough of it for this section. They just end with "Mohammed said treat women well". Because you know, they're like fields that you can go into however you like. And also because most of the occupants of hell are women...wonder why they didn't include these gems from the champion of women's rights. /sarc off
15- Muslim children or those who join Islam and its evil forces. Mohammed killed children from a Jewish tribe in Medina. Decapitated them actually. With that said though, killing babies was not a practice but colateral damage was completely fine.
16- Internal Islamic bullshit I don't care about.
17- Again, no evidence for this. Besides, Mohammed tortured a Jewish leader just to find out where the gold was.
18- No evidence from the Quran or the hadiths. Just more BS out of their asses.
19- Right but evil according to whom? What ISIS is doing is awesome according to the demon called Allah.
20- Mohammed said it was that it was horrible that there were people who worshipped at the graves of their prophets and teachers. He called it idolatry.
21- Again, more BS, Mohammed carried out warfare against Mecca (his leaders) only because they weren't converting to Islam. Contrary to bullshit taught about Mohammed's life in Mecca, it is clear from most history about him that he was free to do whatever he wanted as long as he let everyone else around him in peace. Oh but just like the Muslims of today, he couldn't let that happen, now could he!
22- Its from a few Muslims actually not all. Few educated Muslims. Abu Bakr was appointed caliph by one idiot Mohammed. Rest followed by consultations behind closed doors.
23- I'm pretty tired of repeating the same thing over and over but this is bullshit again. Mohammed and his "loyalty" to Mecca is one such example where he forced the leader and this the population of Mecca to convert at the point of a sword. Loyalty to an Islamic state is fine. Loyalty and friendship with infidels is not.
24- WTF? I am sure they know this is bullshit. After the conquest of Mecca no one is required to emigrate means and meant that like MOhammed had to leave Mecca to go to Medina, after he took over Mecca no one would ever have to do that again. This has got nothing to do with moving to a Muslim state. It just means that no Muslim will have to run away from Mecca because of their religion. Get your shit together you freakin so called "scholars".
There you go folks, that's my thoughts on it. Have fun.
Here's what Nico sent me:
---
Sorry its taken me a while, I've been extremely busy.
After going through the whole document, I am convinced that this letter was written as a PR stunt because maybe Muslims were feeling the heat from questions on why they are not criticizing the Islamic State if they are so against Islam.
This letter is full of misleading texts, it is as if someone with zero knowledge of Islam wrote it. OR it could be that it was written for not Al Baghdadi but leftist idiots in the West. Which would make more sense because otherwise this document makes absolutely zero sense.
Baghdadi probably didn't even bother reading it. Or maybe he read just the one part that actually told him, in this document, how brave and valorous he and his fighters were. Or those parts about jihad that actually encourage what he's doing because in trying to prove that he is not following Islam, they in fact prove that he really is following Islam, more so than the so called scholars.
Anyway, I am just leaving my comments to all the points. Its not that detailed but what I can safely say is that not a single point has been written honestly. It is all BULLSHIT. So if that's all you wanted to know, then stop reading here. But if you want brief reasons into why its BS, then read on.
1- Says who? No Quranic evidence for this is presented, already weakening their case even if they were trying to be honest about this which I doubt very much.
2- This is like the Catholic church before the reformation. Nothing in the Quran to support this exists.
3- Uh...The Quran says that Islam and QUran are easy to understand and remember. Maybe these idiots should go read their lard covered book before talking about it. PS: There is no such thing as "Islamic sciences". A flux capacitor is more real than Islamic sciences.
4- Yeah like the six pillars of Islam. But WTF are does this have to do with anything?
5- In Islam, this only refers to needs. Something one can't live without. An example is: In normal times it is forbidden in Islam to eat horse meat, but one can consume horse meat if there is nothing else around to eat. This does not pertain to modernization or acceptance of 21st century Western principles of freedom, it just means "put up with the situation until you can change it".
6- This is more misleading bullshit. Two things: One, the bastards writing the letter quote verse 17:33 and 6:151 which is talking about murder within society without "just" cause. And two, "just cause" and "innocence" are defined by Islam, not by universal standards. Then the verse about "killing one soul, killing the whole universe, and saving one soul saving everyone" you know, whatever the muzzies stole from the Talmud. Even the Quran says it applies to the Israelites, not to muzzies.
Anyway, coming back to the meat of the matter. It is forbidden to murder in Islam without just cause but offending Allah is just cause for killing, offending Mohammed is just cause for killing. And guess what, not converting to Islam and not believing in Allah is offensive to both Allah and Mohammed. This is why I said this is misleading, I can bet a million dollars every one writing this letter knows that they're spewing bullshit.
7- Nothing here from the Quran (even though they state earlier in the letter than if something is not found in the Quran then it does not carry a lot of weight). The only quote that is contained in this section is from a dubious hadith which says "don't kill emissaries".
Deception is allowed and permitted in Islam and if killing an emissary furthers the cause of Allah and Mohammed then its allowed. Read up on how Ka'b Ibn Ashraf was murdered if interested.
continued....
8- This section is full of bullshit about greater jihad and lesser jihad. It half quotes a hadith where a dude is told my Mohammed to go take care of his parents instead of going to war. What these bastards forgot to mention is that this is only applicable in case your parents are sick (which that dude's parents were) and would die if you weren't around.
Weird thing is, they are pretending to write a point on how jihad is all defensive and spiritual yet all but one verse quoted in this section say that Muslims should go out and fight the disbelievers.
Now on to what really is defensive in Islam. It is actually true, if you could suspend logic for a second and think of it like a Muslim, that jihad is ALWAYS defensive in Islam. No one will ever say that its offensive warfare. How is it defensive though? Well, if a Muslim tells a non Muslim about Islam and "invites him to revert" to Islam, and the non Muslim refuses, the non Muslim has actually declared war against Allah and it is hence the duty of all Muslims to DEFEND Allah. See how this lunacy magically turns into defensive warfare?
Anyway, later on in this section the so called scholars actually go on and make the case for Baghdadi's campaign by quoting verses such as "Fight till there is no more sedition and religion is Allah's". That is, fight till everyone on the land follows Allah and Islam. And the hadith is also quoted where MOhammed said that he was ordered by Allah to fight till everyone was Muslim.
9- This is true for Muslims. In Islam you cannot declare a Muslim a non Muslim (that has a lot of implications related to property and life in that a non Muslim has not inherent right to life and property under Islam. It is always up to the Muslim leader in the area to decide which of the non Muslims live and which ones die). A Muslim can only be considered a non Muslim depending on their actions or if they have vocally declared that they're not Muslim anymore.
What sort of actions are we talking about? Well, a couple of examples will help clarify that. During Mohammed's time whenever Mohammed went on one of his killing spree of innocent people, if some of the Muslims didn't want to go kill innocent people, he declared them "hypocrites". Later, those that did not apologize and stop being such party poopers and start killing some innocent people were considered non Muslims or "the same as the pagans". Another example is those Muslims who after Mohammed died, turned away and went their own merry ways not giving a shit about Mo the idiot. The first caliph of Islam, Abu Bakr, declared them all non Muslim and declared "defensive jihad" against them during which a crap load of these folks were killed.
Anyway, seeing these two scenarios, seems to me that Baghdadi is actually following Islam's definition of when and how to declare people non Muslim pretty accurately and doing what Mohammed and his fellow murders would have done.
10- This is total and utter bullshit. This section is so full of bullshit that all I need to say is read the Sira and read 9:29, 5:51 etc. Any Christian or Jew, or anyone else for that matter who does not bow to the rules of Islam for them such as no public symbols of worship displayed, their buildings of worship lower than mosques, their churches and synagogues can't be repaired without permission from the Muslim leader etc can be killed. No questions asked. This is the same bullshit, as previous points, they seem to only want to mislead and not really engage in actual debate.
11- No its not. Magis were different people. Yazidis spawned from Islam and added pagan crap to it. Yazidis can be killed just like any other pagans can be.
continued ---
12- They mention freeing a slave as a good deed as evidence that Islam is against slavery. No, that is not what it means. It is just another thing you do to get your 72 virgins. It says doing good is freeing a slave or giving food to the hungry. It does not talk about abolishing slavery. In fact it talks about freeing a slave as a form of punishment for the slave-owner.
Anyway, Mohammed had a slave all his life called Bilal. Refused to free him till the idiot (Mohammed, not Bilal, although Bilal was just another Muzzie so screw him) died.
Then they talk about how Islam respects conventions and treaties...right, just like they respect the treaty at Hudaibiyah.
13- That's correct. They either convert on their own or kill them. There is no compulsion in religion only applies within Islam. Because Islam = bliss apparently. It does not apply outside of Islam.
14- What rights? You mean, the same rights as your property (2:223)? All it talks about is that Allah created men and women...Anyway, they know they're bullshitting, couldn't even come up with enough of it for this section. They just end with "Mohammed said treat women well". Because you know, they're like fields that you can go into however you like. And also because most of the occupants of hell are women...wonder why they didn't include these gems from the champion of women's rights. /sarc off
15- Muslim children or those who join Islam and its evil forces. Mohammed killed children from a Jewish tribe in Medina. Decapitated them actually. With that said though, killing babies was not a practice but colateral damage was completely fine.
16- Internal Islamic bullshit I don't care about.
17- Again, no evidence for this. Besides, Mohammed tortured a Jewish leader just to find out where the gold was.
18- No evidence from the Quran or the hadiths. Just more BS out of their asses.
19- Right but evil according to whom? What ISIS is doing is awesome according to the demon called Allah.
20- Mohammed said it was that it was horrible that there were people who worshipped at the graves of their prophets and teachers. He called it idolatry.
21- Again, more BS, Mohammed carried out warfare against Mecca (his leaders) only because they weren't converting to Islam. Contrary to bullshit taught about Mohammed's life in Mecca, it is clear from most history about him that he was free to do whatever he wanted as long as he let everyone else around him in peace. Oh but just like the Muslims of today, he couldn't let that happen, now could he!
22- Its from a few Muslims actually not all. Few educated Muslims. Abu Bakr was appointed caliph by one idiot Mohammed. Rest followed by consultations behind closed doors.
23- I'm pretty tired of repeating the same thing over and over but this is bullshit again. Mohammed and his "loyalty" to Mecca is one such example where he forced the leader and this the population of Mecca to convert at the point of a sword. Loyalty to an Islamic state is fine. Loyalty and friendship with infidels is not.
24- WTF? I am sure they know this is bullshit. After the conquest of Mecca no one is required to emigrate means and meant that like MOhammed had to leave Mecca to go to Medina, after he took over Mecca no one would ever have to do that again. This has got nothing to do with moving to a Muslim state. It just means that no Muslim will have to run away from Mecca because of their religion. Get your shit together you freakin so called "scholars".
Post a Comment