
Saudi clerics declare Isis terrorism a 'heinous crime' under sharia law (2014) - ern
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/17/saudi-clerics-fatwa-declares-terrorism-heinous-crime-sharia-law
======
nzp
ISIS is not doing anything the Saudi regime isn't doing in terms of
oppression. They are rivals, thus the declaration. If ISIS claim of caliphate
is legitimate under Islamic law, then the Saudi regime isn't (or any other
Muslim regime for that matter). Furthermore, ISIS ideologues have spoken
openly about the fact that the Saudi regime implements only one side of
Sharia, the punitive side, leaving the mandatory social benefits aside (the
state under Sharia is under obligation to provide shelter, food, and clothing
for all). It's one way ISIS strongly appeals to Muslims under Salafi
influence.

~~~
kaz1
Daesh have no more relation to salafism than what Bush and Blair's murderous
excursions have to do with WMD or democracy. Daesh apparently attracts two
categories of people:

1\. people suffering from PTSD who have lost much of their capacities to think
clearly; specifically, part of butchered Sunni community in Iraq following the
sectarian war fuelled by US invaders after years of deadly sanctions (they
also include former members of Saddam's secular stasi-equivalent
[http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-
file...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-
structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html)), and some of the Syrians
going through Assad's butchery. This is no different from how a bunch of
peaceful villagers turned into brutal group that was Khemer Rouge
([http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol-pot-to-isis-
anything...](http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol-pot-to-isis-anything-
that-flies-on-everything-that-moves)).

2.A tiny western group who are largely clueless about the world (almost
entirely about religion), seeking certain warped sense of glory:
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/04/jihad-f...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/04/jihad-
fatal-attraction-challenge-democracies-isis-barbarism)

On a different note related to welfare, Saudis are probably not that worse off
in certain ways: any (poor) Saudi is eligible to receive funding/stipend from
his/her government for studying in world's top universities, unlike many rich
capitalistic states that are effectively no less of an oligarchy.

~~~
nzp
Oh, I agree that it would be naive to think that the force behind IS is merely
some form or interpretation of Salafism, and I'm aware that there is a strong
voice against IS among Salafis around the world (not just in Saudi Arabia). My
point was that Saudi clerics denounciation of IS has little to do with them
being the "good guys" or with religious reasons. Islam, in whatever form, here
is being used by all nominally Islamic sides as an ideological gift wrap for
various political and economic power struggles in the region the way that
suits them the most.

~~~
kaz1
There are apparently religious reasons for the clerics' positions that go back
to as early as the Prophetic statements regarding the emergence of the
Khawariz, the passionately brutal yet religiously clueless group of newcomers
that emerged within the broader Muslim community and caused chaos. There are
pertinent religious texts regarding keeping up with the legitimate rulers
(without taking part in their misdeeds) and the general obligation on shunning
anarchy, militant rebellion and chaos. The jurisprudential rules of wars
regarding prohibition of killing women, children, non-combatants, priests are
widely studied in the academically oriented circles, and I haven't come across
evidences that suggest that prominent/mainstream salafi academics of the past
or present have remarkably contradicted on these issues.

Given the turmoil that has lately (and long been) transpired in the form of
militant experiments and perceived revolutions around the region (and the
globe), the tradition that promotes mass-education, deeply-rooted revival and
collective rectification doesn't seem to be a bad idea as the feasible choice
for societal betterment.

------
rustynails
This is fantastic news! This is the best news I've heard in a while. I have
friends who don't like Muslims because "Muslim = terrorism". I've always
struggled to argue the lack of denouncing terrorism by Muslim leaders. While
there is protest by the Muslim community, the message is never driven home. I
also want to add that some disgusting people posted some hateful messages
toward all Muslims on Al Jazeera. It just re-enforces my beliefs that trash
comes from all religions and genders.

~~~
crusso
_This is fantastic news!_

Notice the article is over a year old. It's hard to see if it has had any
impact whatsoever on the situation.

~~~
ern
Maybe it deterred a few donations to ISIS, or prevented some recruitment.
Regardless, it certainly does help belie claims, oft repeated, that the silent
majority of Moslems tacitly support Islamist terrorism, or are silent in its
face.

~~~
dlss
> Regardless, it certainly does help belie claims, oft repeated, that the
> silent majority of Moslems tacitly support Islamist terrorism, or are silent
> in its face.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terro...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism#Polls)
might be a better source to cite.

* In France, 19% of muslims think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets can sometimes be justified, and 6% thought it could be justified often.

* In the UK: 12% sometimes, and 3% often

* In Egypt: 20% sometimes, and 8% often

* In Nigeria: 38% sometimes, and 8% often

So you're right that it's not the silent majority. It's the silent 25-46%.

~~~
ceejayoz
The "sometimes" there is a pretty big qualifier.

I run across a lot of Americans who think civilian casualties are justifiable
in some situations, like hitting a terrorist with a drone when there are
civilians nearby. From the link you cite:

> John Esposito, using poll data from Gallup, wrote in 2008 that Muslims and
> Americans were equally likely to reject violence against civilians. He also
> found that those Muslims who support violence against civilians are no more
> religious than Muslims who do not.

~~~
dlss
I would think American acceptance of civilian casualties would be contingent
on agreeing that the war was justified, and I'll remind you the survey data we
are talking about is specifically in reference to terrorism.

To grab a specific example from that page:

> almost one in four British Muslims believe that the 7/7 attacks on London
> were justified

Which you can read about here if you're not familiar:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings)

> On the morning of Thursday, 7 July 2005, four Islamist extremists separately
> detonated three bombs in quick succession aboard London Underground trains
> across the city and, later, a fourth on a double-decker bus in Tavistock
> Square. Fifty-two civilians were killed and over 700 more were injured in
> the attacks, the United Kingdom's worst terrorist incident since the 1988
> Lockerbie bombing as well as the country's first ever Islamist suicide
> attack.

Your counterargument that American's feel similarly to _unintended_ casualties
in war when targeting enemy combatants is very very weak. Who were the enemy
combatants on the three subway trains? Who were the enemy combatants on the
double-decker bus?

To put that another way: a large portion of muslims seeing terrorists in the
same light that Americans see the US Armed forces _means_ they approve of
terrorists.

~~~
ceejayoz
> almost one in four British Muslims believe that the 7/7 attacks on London
> were justified

The same line states "although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to
carry out the atrocity", which is a pretty important thing to omit.

> Your counterargument that American's feel similarly to unintended casualties
> in war when targeting enemy combatants is very very weak. Who were the enemy
> combatants on the London subway system? Who were the enemy combatants on the
> double-decker bus?

I'm simply arguing that the wording "can violence against civilians sometimes
be justified" is vague enough it could encompass precisely those sorts of
unintended casualties.

I'd be more interested in a poll asking "can violence _specifically targeted_
against civilians be justified". I'd also be interested in the reasons cited
by those answering yes. Plenty of Americans feel today that the bombing of
Hiroshima was appropriate, despite it falling well within that category.

~~~
dlss
> I'd be more interested in a poll asking "can violence specifically targeted
> against civilians be justified"

The survey we're discussing asked "can suicide bombing and other forms of
violence against civilian targets to defend Islam be justified". Note "against
civilian targets".

> The same line states "although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to
> carry out the atrocity", which is a pretty important thing to omit.

That was from a different survey, done a year prior to the one I quoted. I
don't debate that moods shift in the muslim population, hence the link to all
the surveys I'm aware of.

~~~
ceejayoz
> The survey we're discussing was "can suicide bombing and other forms of
> violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified". Note
> "against civilian targets".

I'd reiterate that Americans believe that themselves.

[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/04/70-years-
aft...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/04/70-years-after-
hiroshima-opinions-have-shifted-on-use-of-atomic-bomb/)

> [T]he share of Americans who believe the use of nuclear weapons was
> justified is now 56%, with 34% saying it was not.

~~~
dlss
> I'd reiterate that Americans believe that themselves.

You really don't see the difference?

Americans justify the use of nukes on the basis of the war being just. For
example, if we'd nuked Japan because we thought sushi was an abomination,
approval of our use of nukes would plummet. If we'd nuked Japan after the war,
approval would plummet. If we killed Japaneese Americans rather than
Japaneese, approval would plummet. This is why it's dishonest to equate
approval of the wartime use of nukes to the approval of the suicide bombing of
civilians on a subway. The foundational beliefs have no similarity.

Also, saying that a large percentage of muslims feel like they are in combat
with their countrymen doesn't make it any better... if anything it just makes
the survey data scarier.

From [http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-
armag...](http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-armageddon)

> More British Muslims have joined the ranks of ISIS than have volunteered to
> serve in the British armed forces.

~~~
kaz1
This is a defensive 'just war', in view of some of the perpetrators, as
articulated by one here: "...If the United States does not get out of Iraq,
Afghanistan and other countries controlled by Muslims, he said, "we will be
attacking U.S.," ([http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/06...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/06/21/AR2010062102468.html?hpid=moreheadlines) also
[http://www.salon.com/2010/06/22/terrorism_22/](http://www.salon.com/2010/06/22/terrorism_22/))
There are very similar statements from the likes of bin Laden, Aiman al-
Jawahiri, and even the brutal crazies of Daesh also reportedly made similar
claims.

In my brief explorations, I found that Jews found shelter in the Muslim Spain
in an era when Europe was in full force to get rid of the 'Jewish problem'.
Fair share of the likes of Andrei Breivik and Dylann Roof are also in the
present Muslim world, especially in this neo-colonial era.

------
a-the-ist
Last year, another brand of barbarism, which happens to be state-sanctioned,
also rubber-stamps public stoning, decapitation, floggings and has notorious
religious police, expressed sour grapes for being left out that Daesh gets
more wingnutter YouTube and chat-room credit for gratuitous murder, mayhem,
raping, enslavement and pillaging. Religions vie for converts, money and state
support.

------
totalkos
Words and deeds; words and deeds...

~~~
quaunaut
Maybe we should judge you by the worst of people who look like you.

~~~
crusso
I wish we would stop equating Islam with race. It's a set of ideas that are
adopted to various degrees by members of every race.

Generalization based upon the adoption of sets of ideas would seem to be a
great deal more logical than generalization based upon race.

[edited to clarify first paragraph]

~~~
kristopolous
It's part of victimhood where it's also, uniquely, a valid accusation. For
instance, the idea of the black-lives-matter movement is that all black lives
suffer (and by extension, all lives), not just those that are individually
victimized by the police/state in explicit narrative ways.

It's the [black] families they have and the [black] communities they live in
and the [black] friends that they have who also suffer ... there's a community
net that gets pulled whenever a member has a tragic event --- in that sense
the community suffers as a whole - regardless of their underlying diversities
--- it's like tugging at a fabric ... the parts that are nearest go the
furthest, but the entirety of the fabric reacts - not always in perceptible
ways.

I as a relatively wealthy person, for instance, am affected by homelessness
because those people are potential teachers to my children, coworkers,
mentors, or customers for my business ... their plight is also my own. Their
immense suffering inescapably trips the community as a whole.

Also in that way, an assault on judaism is an assault on israel, an assault on
hinduism is an assault on india, and so on ... you can't isolate the victim in
a systemic narrative - there's an integral effect.

~~~
crusso
So all questions about ideas are racist on some level? Doesn't that then make
racism meaningless since I could say that questioning any belief whatsoever
impacts some race that commonly holds that belief?

~~~
kristopolous
I was talking with the explicit context of victimhood. The idea here, which is
a few steps removed, is that any kind of indiscriminate prejudice against any
group at all is problematic ... it's the prejudice that's the problem.

Nothing really groundbreaking other than for the specific insight that the
targeted group is impossible to isolate.

Bystanders are integral to conflict.

~~~
crusso
_indiscriminate prejudice_

But the key word there is "indiscriminate", since by definition you can't
target criticism properly ever if you're indiscriminate.

 _the targeted group is impossible to isolate_

Not when you're talking about people who self-select by claiming belief in
certain ideas. It's not at all like generalizing based upon race.

