Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Saturday, July 09, 2005

Friedman Wrong About Muslims Again
And the Amman Statement on Ecumenism


Tom Friedman is a Middle East expert who knows a lot about Islam. Why, then, does he keep saying misleading things? He wrote in his latest column, "To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden."

A "fatwa" is simply a considered opinion of a Muslim jurisconsult. Such opinions are numerous. First of all, almost all the major Shiite Grand Ayatollahs have condemned Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. You could say that is easy, since Shiites don't generally like Wahhabis. But they are the leaders of 120 million Muslims (some ten percent of the 1.2 billion). So that is one. Tracking these things down is time-consuming, but this should do:
Ayatollah Muhammad Husain Fadlallah of Lebanon condemns Osama Bin Laden.

So then what about the Sunni world? The leading moral authority for Sunnis is the rector or Grand Imam of the al-Azhar Seminary/ University in Cairo, Egypt. Al-Azhar is perhaps the world's oldest continuous university and has been since the time of Saladin a major center of Sunni religious authority. The current incumbent is Shaikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi. So what about Tantawi and Bin Laden?

Grand Imam of Al-Azhar seminary, Shaikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, condemns Osamah Bin Laden. And:

The Grand Imam of al-Azhar Seminary, Shaikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, condemns Osamah Bin Laden.

What about Pakistan? Admittedly, it has some clerics who are fans of Bin Laden, or at least who would avoid condemning him. But the allegation Friedman is making is that no major cleric has condemned him. Try this: Prominent Pakistani Cleric Tahir ul Qadri condemns Bin Laden.

I don't personally care for Yusuf al-Qaradawi. He is an old-time Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood preacher who fled to Qatar and now has a perch at al-Jazeera. But he does have some virtues. He is enormously popular among Muslim fundamentalists. And, he absolutely despises Bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Al-Qaradawi has repeatedly condemned the latter. He even gave a fatwa that it was a duty of Muslims to fight alongside the US in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda! See also:
Yusuf al-Qaradawi condemns al-Qaeda.

There are also substantial Muslim communities in Europe with leaderships that have explicitly condemned Bin Laden. E.g.:

Spanish Muslim Clerical authorities Issue Fatwa against Osamah Bin Laden. There are on the order of 250,000 Muslims in Spain.

High Mufti of Russian Muslims calls for Extradition of Bin Laden. The Russian Muslim community is about 20 million strong, or 15 percent of Russia's 143 million population, and is growing rapidly, so that in a century Russia may be 50 percent Muslim. So this is not a pro forma thing here.

A good round-up on this sort of issue has been put up by al-Muhajabah.

See also Charles Kurzman's page.

Friedman also does refer to a major conference of Muslim clerics, thinkers and notables wound up just Wednesday that made a powerful statement about religious tolerance and condemned everything Osama Bin Laden stands for. But he seems oddly unaware of the significance of having Grand Ayatollah Sistani, Grand Imam of al-Azhar Seminary Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, and many other great Muslim authorities sign off on this epochal statement of Muslim ecumenism.

The statement forbids one Muslim to declare another "not a Muslim" if the believer adheres to any of the mainstream legal rites of Sunnism and Shiism. The whole basis of al-Qaeda is to call the Muslim leaders of countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as Shiites, "not Muslims." The statement also demands that engineers should please stop pretending to issue fatwas, which should be left to trained clerical jurisconsults. This para. is also a slam at Bin Laden.

PS As for Friedman's main point, that Muslims haven't done a good job of fighting jihadi ideology and terrorism, it is bizarre. The Algerian government fought a virtual civil war to put down political Islam, in which over 100,000 persons died. The Egyptians jailed 20,000 or 30,000 radicals for thought crimes and killed 1500 in running street battles in the 1990s and early zeroes. Al-Qaeda can't easily strike in the Middle East precisely because Syria, Egypt, Algeria, etc. have their number and have undertaken massive actions against them. What does Friedman want? And, besides, he is wrong that this is only a Muslim problem. In the global age all problems are everybody's. That's part of flat world, too, Tom.

10 Comments:

At 10:48 AM, Blogger Veritas said...

Juan Cole does a service by exposing the canard that there are no fatwas against terrorist acts. But in understanding the issue the stance of Islamic law on terrorism is hardly exhaustive.
Robin Hood is popular not because we approve of theft, but because the tyranny of the the Sheriff of Nottingham exceeds all limits. In the same way while all Muslims will condemn terrorism, they cannot help but sympathise with those who avenge the deaths of Muslims by American arms and American-supported tyrants.

 
At 5:33 AM, Blogger kabel said...

The problem with pseudo-experts like Friedman is that they allow themselves to air sweeping generalizations on huge and hopelessly heterogeneous entities like Arabs, Muslims, Islam, the Middle East.They want to bring order and surgical precision to a diverse and unreductive reality. Saying that no important Muslim cleric has condemend Bin Laden is, to say the least, sheer ignorance, as amply shown by Juan. But this is symptomatic of a more general tenedency amongst a lot of the so-called experts to pontificate about other cultures with unrestrained bias and hostility.
Most of these experts lack a working knowledge of the relevant languages (Arabic, Farsi, Urdu etc). Second, Most of them overlook or simply ignore the diversity and dynamicity of cultures ( Islamic, Arabic...). Third, rarely has anyone of those lackeys had first-hand experience with Arabs and Muslims. The knowledge (if any) they get is either derivative or completely false. They also have no sense of compassion or humanism necessary to study and write about other peoples ad cultures. Little-brain sized lackeys of the Friedman breed are mere puppets in the hands of government propaganda and slaves to quench the thirst of a somewhat ill-informed public opinion. They are, knowingly or unknowingly, just conspiratorial agents, not different from Shakespearean villain characters. Neither intellectual anemia nor flagrantly rusty Arab/Muslim bias can allow Friedman to talk about Islam, Arabs and the Middle East. Knowing and writing about 'others' needs far greater talent, intellect and compassion, none of which, alas, Friedman has.

Ahmed Kabel
Casablanca,
Morocco

 
At 7:32 PM, Blogger Uzair said...

Very nice, thank you for this compilation. It confirms what I believed and is something I can point to for anyone who cares to argue the point -- Islam is sort of like Maths, in that every statement has to have proof!

 
At 4:46 AM, Blogger Bornemix said...

See

http://www.fatwa-online.com/worship/jihaad/jih004/index.htm

For a lot of condemnations of Terror from Saudi Religious Scholars

 
At 10:05 PM, Blogger stephen said...

Friedman is not only poorly informed about stubborn particulars, he also reminds me of of those tedious, smug people whose primary mode of discourse is, "If only someone would do what I advise ...."

In this case, of course, they already have.

 
At 8:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to assure Mr. Kabel that we are capable of reading writers like Mr. Friedman and sorting through the biases. After all, I read this site, too.

You do make a good point about the troubling lack of personal experience with Muslims by Americans, and/or American pundits. But there are those among us who have lived in Muslim lands (Pakistan, in my case), and we know that human beings everywhere are very much concered with the same life issues. Don't think for a moment that we are all as stupid and evil as those occasional embarrassing creatures who manipulate the levers of power here. We the people do still have the means to correct the problem.

 
At 10:32 AM, Blogger DMark said...

Unfortunately, there is something disingenuous in these condemnations from Islamic religious scholars. It is politically easy to condemn a renegade sheikh like Bin Laden, especially when your government is bringing pressure to bear on you to make such a statement. It is quite another thing for a Muslim cleric to condemn ALL forms of terror by ALL people calling themselves Muslim.

Yes, I know that as soon as whoever reads this finishes, the response will be that Israel is a terrorist state and that the poor benighted Muslims under its occupation have no choice. My counter is, why can the Muslim clerics not worry FIRST about their own morality, or that of their correligionists? There are plenty of Jewish and Israeli rabbis, philosophers, etc., as well as other Westerners, who are willing to take on actions by the Israeli government on the general principle that attacks against civilians are immoral, no matter what the provocation. Where is the corresponding major Muslim religious voice? That is, where is the voice who will say that no matter what, bombing a school bus is unjustified?

I do not believe that Mr. Cole makes the case.

 
At 6:45 AM, Anonymous web design India said...

thanks u r information

 
At 1:13 PM, Blogger UmerSultan said...

You wrote this whole article in Friedman's respond, you could have just posted this
http://www.masnet.org/takeaction.asp?id=2649

Simple :)

Thomas Friedman is some really wierd views about the Muslim world. He keeps accusing Muslims of staying silent about terrorism as if the people support this craziness.

He is also no expert on Muslims and Middle East, half of the stuff he says are just plain same old rhetoric of expecting more and the nobility from Muslims no matter what is inflicted upon them in a particular area or country.

 
At 2:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why all this turmoil? Just because these dominians have cheap hydro-carbons that most of this world at this current time are intrested in! This might be a blessing as well a curse... Imposition of ideas alien to the native culture is always a problem, without allowing adequate time for them to evolve on their own...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home