The Fiqh Council of North America’s

Washington Fatwa

 Against “Terrorism” Fails to Please its Master

Islam—is it the Deen of Peace and Pacifism, or the religion of the blood-caked sword? Unfortunately, there has never been an answer to the question that fits on a bumper-sticker. Before anything else, we must remember that Islam is a Deen of Challenge to the man-made status quo of every age. As the Companion Rab’i bin ‘Amer (RAAH) told the Persians’ top general, “Allah dispatched us (Muslims) to free people from every form of slavery imposed by…anything that isn’t Allah Himself.”

But this course has often been painful, because the status quo dislikes challenge and tends to push back—hard! Thus, Muslims of every generation have faced the arrogance, rage, and even oppression of taghuti (unjust) rulers. This has been a hard test for the Ummah, even when the foes were merely Pharaoh, the Quraysh, Caesar, Khusrau, or the Great Khan. The situation is even worse today when Muslims have no state to protect them. Indeed, they are naked before the military-industrial complexes of at least one superpower and several wannabes, all of whom openly embrace violence as a means of controlling potential rivals, if they’re weak enough. The leaders of the superpower even seriously debate about the uses of torture and small nukes against their enemies, both real and imagined.

And so, Believers trying to leave our present Dark Age behind must deal with the same questions that their forebears had to handle. For example, what role, if any, should violent force play in reviving the Ummah and defending it against its enemies right now? Who must apply that force, and how? Against whom must that force be directed, and who must be spared? Are there situations where using force will make things worse and set Muslims back? These are serious matters, worthy of our best-trained minds.

Ironically, these are the very questions that today’s would-be spokesmen for Islam are doing their best to duck.              

As an example, on July 28, 2005, the “official” leadership of Muslims in America issued a document billed as a “fatwa against terrorism.” Released in Washington, it stated, “Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians’ life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram – or forbidden - and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not ‘martyrs.’”   

But a lot of things were missing, For a fatwa, it was very short, just a page of text[1]. There were a few ayahs of the Qur’an mentioned, and a few soothing ahadith, but there was no room provided to discuss how the Prophet (SAAW) carried out his wars against the Quraysh and other hostiles. Above all, there was no serious attempt to address the arguments of the jihadis and show where and why the car-bombers are wrong. A document that might have enlightened and galvanized the Ummah instead read very much like a shorter version of one of those “Islam Means Peace” tracts handed out at suburban masjids to suspicious neighbors and FBI agents.

The “business end” of the “fatwa, however, was the four pages of signers and endorsers that followed the text. These included the superstar shaykhs on the Fiqh Council itself, followed by the names of the big national organizations for Muslims, as well as a number of local bodies. The message was clear enough: Islam is against “terrorism” mainly because we Muslim leaders say it is; so count on our loyalty, Mr. Bush. (By the way, please have us back to the White House for coffee, okay?) 

For us here at HF2T, it all smells like opportunists and their organizations at work. Unfortunately for the Fiqh Council of North America, the political establishment of this country came to the same conclusion. Right after the “fatwa” appeared, The Washington Times published an op-ed piece criticizing the “Washington Fatwa” for not going far enough to criticize terrorism, for being too vague, for not being published in Arabic as a sign of seriousness, and for not admonishing American Muslims to serve in the Armed Forces as “real citizens” of the USA. Many other news outlets followed the Time’s lead[2]. Clearly, the Movers and Shakers did not care whether Islam meant Peace at all. Instead, they wanted to know whether Muslims in America would give up jihad for Islam, and substitute “jihad” for Washington in its place.

This is a harsh lesson for any Muslim leader wannabe expecting to get rewards from the “political participation” game just by political word juggling. Their new masters in Washington won’t be fooled so easily. The US does not stay a superpower by being naive. Its leadership is ready to strengthen and replenish itself by allowing new groups attain positions of power, though rogue elements must stay out, lest capitalist society become volatile and unstable. Any newcomer that wants to climb the political ladder must assimilate and stay within the limits of the prevalent American political culture. “Litmus tests” are often a good way for the political establishment to take the measure of up and coming groups or candidates. For example, the legitimacy of Israel is an old litmus test for Muslim groups playing the political game. Those who reject both the 1948 and 1967 occupations of Palestine, and who call for Israel’s removal are cast into the outer darkness as extremists: they get no carrots, but they will get the stick from time to time. On the other hand, the organizations that say “Palestine is not a Muslim issue,” and that twist the meanings of the Qur’an and the Sunnah to support Israel’s existence might be invited to the mainstream as melted, assimilated tools, to be used and abused at the masters’ will.

Assimilation into the US political process gains nothing of real value for Muslims. In fact, trying to please Washington, 10 Downing Street, or the Elysées Palace will only result in more slavery for Muslims and further delay for Islam’s revival. The grants, political jobs, and other carrots offered by the establishment are a poor trade for the peace and dignity of Muslims and Islam. Is seeing more Muslim “talking heads” on network TV news payment enough for abandoning Palestine forever? No! Will putting the State Department (or the Presidency) under the charge of some Muslim sell-out justify America’s next invasion of an Islamic country? Certainly not! Can Washington offer anything to our collaborationist “American-Islam” organizations that would be worth facing Allah’s punishment for “reinterpreting” (i.e., twisting) Islam? Never!

Postscript: As the Washington Fatwa reveals, the super-militant jihadis are not the only extremists in the Muslim Ummah. There are also the sellout extremists who only care about preserving their privileges and themselves. They are all over the place, too. After 9/11, a number of scholars came out to declare that taking hijab off in public was halal. Others support America’s so-called “War on Terror.” Tragically, many Muslims today believe that all they can do is choose one extreme or the other. They don’t realize the potential power of a third alternative, the true Middle Path, which is to engage in the intellectual revival of Islam. It should go without saying that ideas are the most powerful weapons of any society. The ultimate goal of America’s war against Islam is winning the war of ideas, thereby winning the peace. Muslims too must understand the importance of the intellectual struggle. Rather than blowing themselves up or selling out, they must come together to debate and discuss the key ideas that will bring Muslims back to their feet as the superpower of the world.