Since the tragic and deplorable London bombings of July 2005 there has been sudden and widespread demads in the West that Muslim clerics denounce terrorism and issue Fatwa against it. Muslim clerics and spokesmen are paraded on TV or radio and pressured to clearly denounce whatever the program presenter thinks is appropriate at the moment. Many presenters have repeatedly asked why no one has issued Fatwa against terrorism until recently.
For their information, there has been plenty of Fatwas and condemnations by high ranking sources earlier. Here are two examples:
(1) Fatwa by Saudi religious body. News of this Fatwa has been hosted by the Saudi embassy in USA since July 2004.
https://www.antiwarblog.info/2005/08/02/saudi-religious-body-issues-fatwa-against-terrorism/
(2) Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah issued Fatwas condemning attacks immediately after 9/11 and Madrid attacks (in middle of the following article).
https://www.antiwarblog.info/2004/05/12/from-mistake-to-mistake/
This MSNBC article is interesting reading otherwise too. Fadlallah is openly against occupation and state terrorism but rejects attacking civilians who are not in state of war.
If you have not seen or heard about these web pages before then don’t be surprised. Western media is heavily biased against Muslims, that’s why you did not know of these pages’ existence. It’s revealing that even statements by obscure Al-Qaeda affiliates get better coverage than the above mentioned two rather important articles.
Here is the question one should be asking instead: Why is there sudden demand that Muslim clerics should openly and clearly denounce terrorism (something they have already been doing in various ways) ?
The reason is that there is a growing realisation that the so called “War on Terror” is impossible to win! The neocon excuse for invasion “we must fight them over there so that we don’t have to fight them over here” has been fully exposed as a total failure! So, the pressure is now on Muslim clerics to “do something responsible”. The bad news is that even a coerced duplication of Fatwas from clerics is not going to change anything. Why? Because terrorists don’t follow Fatwas, they issue their own, like when Osama bin Laden co-signed a Fatwa against USA despite the fact that he is not widely regarded as a Mufti (=religious scholar with proper authority). Of course, there is a very small minority of unscrupulous clerics who have been actively helping the cause of terrorists but even stopping them will not stop the terror planners because to them unscrupulous clerics are just a disposable tool.
The terrorist network has been growing like a cancer ie. it takes over vulnerable life and then turns it into something that does not obey the basic rules of life!
But, what triggered this cancer? Surely, cancer does not grow in places that are not conducive to cancer! Something has to mutate under “foreign influence” for the cancer to take hold!
I think the reader knows the answer already. But just incase, here is an article that does great analysis of a Chicago Tribune editorial that was printed in September 2001.
This article effectively de-bunks many myths and baseless accusations that were floated by neocons few years ago.
https://www.antiwarblog.info/2005/08/02/why-they-hate-us-a-re-examination/
What becomes clear after reading the above article is that terrorism is mainly caused by occupation and the humiliation that the occupied people are routinely subjected to as a result of occupation. Some Western commentators have been trying to brush aside the effects of occupation by saying that two wrongs don’t make a right. Well, that’s a noble thought but it cannot be applied here due to obvious reasons. This is not about one or two wrongs. If one party keeps on commiting wrong violently and arrogantly over a period of more than 100 years then someone is bound to lose sanity sooner or later. Long term subjection to violence can have only one result: more violence.
Some Western commentators have also been saying that occupation can not be ended because that would be “seen” as giving in to terrorism and religious fanaticism.
That’s a lame excuse due to following reasons:
(1) What is more important, innocent lives on both sides or the Western ego ?
(2) This is not about giving in, this is about doing what the West should have done voluntarily long time ago ie. go home! What kind of suicidals would insist upon remaining in harms way ? Is it too difficult to understand that Western foreign policy needs some serious improvement ?
(3) The West had no trouble being “seen” supporting religious fanatics of Afghanistan financially and militarily as long as they were fighting against the Soviets. Infact, Afghan insurgents were routinely refered to as Mujahedin (=Holy Warriors) in Western media.
(4) The West had no trouble being “seen” supporting the Butcher in Baghdad financially and militarily as long as he was fighting against the Mullahs in Iran. This was despite the well documented fact that Saddam used poisonous gas to kill thousands of Kurds.
The list goes on and on…
It seems clear that the West is more than willing to break their high moral rules whenever the reward is big enough. Does “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” ring a bell anyone ? If the West cannot follow their own golden rules despite living in relevant comfort and luxury, how can others who are forced to live in desperate conditions be expected to follow their golden rules ?
Khalid M. Syed
Canberra, Australia
