4 ms·

Saudi clerics declare Isis terrorism a 'heinous crime' under sharia law (2014)

21 points by ern 11y ago

rustynails 11y ago
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.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  Let's not pretend this is anything but the Saudis looking out for their own interests. They've been funding and supporting hardline terrorist groups for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saud... They just don't want ISIS targeting the House of Saud as their next victim. There are much better Muslim role models than this.
- ern 11y ago
  The Saudis were not the only ones who condemned ISIS. Hundreds of Moslem clerics signed an open letter condemning ISIS in 2014: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is-an-offence-to-islam-says-international-coalition-of-major-islamic-scholars-9756255.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is-... http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com
- crusso 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    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.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      Saudi Arabia has a very well documented history of supporting (not just tacitly) Islamic terrorism. They just don't like groups with territorial ambitions that include their own lands.
    - dlss 11y ago
      > 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_terrorism#Polls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terro... 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 11y ago
        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 11y ago
        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.
- obituary_latte 11y ago
  This is a strange post. First, the original posting is dated 2014 - almost 2 years ago. Second, you offer really nothing to defend the ideologues of the violent aspect of Islam that seem to be so rampant these days. Trash can come from all religions. Often does. Should you really be a true believer of Islam, your focus should not be converting us non believers of your virtues, but instead convincing your fellow believers that violence is more likely to sway non believers in the opposite direction than is intended. Edit: to the downvoters; I'd love to discuss how and why I am wrong. I'm likely wrong, admittedly, but would appreciate the opportunity to learn why.
totalkos 11y ago
Words and deeds; words and deeds...
- quaunaut 11y ago
  Maybe we should judge you by the worst of people who look like you.
  - totalkos 11y ago
    Go right ahead.
  - crusso 11y ago
    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 11y ago
      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.
nzp 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-file...), 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-that-flies-on-everything-that-moves http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol-pot-to-isis-anything...). 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-fatal-attraction-challenge-democracies-isis-barbarism http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/04/jihad-f... 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 11y ago
    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.
a-the-ist 11y ago
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.

21 points by ern 11y ago

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.

ceejayoz 11y ago
Let's not pretend this is anything but the Saudis looking out for their own interests. They've been funding and supporting hardline terrorist groups for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saudi_Arabia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saud... They just don't want ISIS targeting the House of Saud as their next victim. There are much better Muslim role models than this.
ern 11y ago
The Saudis were not the only ones who condemned ISIS. Hundreds of Moslem clerics signed an open letter condemning ISIS in 2014: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is-an-offence-to-islam-says-international-coalition-of-major-islamic-scholars-9756255.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is-... http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com
crusso 11y ago
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 11y ago
  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.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    Saudi Arabia has a very well documented history of supporting (not just tacitly) Islamic terrorism. They just don't like groups with territorial ambitions that include their own lands.
  - dlss 11y ago
    > 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_terrorism#Polls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terro... 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 11y ago
      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 11y ago
        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.
obituary_latte 11y ago
This is a strange post. First, the original posting is dated 2014 - almost 2 years ago. Second, you offer really nothing to defend the ideologues of the violent aspect of Islam that seem to be so rampant these days. Trash can come from all religions. Often does. Should you really be a true believer of Islam, your focus should not be converting us non believers of your virtues, but instead convincing your fellow believers that violence is more likely to sway non believers in the opposite direction than is intended. Edit: to the downvoters; I'd love to discuss how and why I am wrong. I'm likely wrong, admittedly, but would appreciate the opportunity to learn why.

totalkos 11y ago

Words and deeds; words and deeds...

quaunaut 11y ago
Maybe we should judge you by the worst of people who look like you.
- totalkos 11y ago
  Go right ahead.
- crusso 11y ago
  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 11y ago
    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.

nzp 11y ago

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 11y ago
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-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-file...), 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-that-flies-on-everything-that-moves http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol-pot-to-isis-anything...). 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-fatal-attraction-challenge-democracies-isis-barbarism http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/04/jihad-f... 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 11y ago
  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.

a-the-ist 11y ago

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.