More

Anwar Al-Awlaki Death Sparks Debate Among Muslim Americans

First Posted: 09/30/11 06:02 PM ET Updated: 11/30/11 05:12 AM ET

The U.S.-led killing in Yemen of al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S. born imam who was known for his Internet videos preaching violent jihad and his influence on homegrown American terrorists, has highlighted disagreements among Muslim-American leaders when to comes to the war on terrorism.

In the decade since 9/11, it's become customary for mosques and Islamic organizations to come out strongly against terrorists when plots against the U.S. are foiled or when terrorists are caught, such as when Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan in May. As surveys, including one from the Pew Research Center last month, continue to show that many Muslim Americans and the broader American public believe Muslim leaders don't condemn terrorism enough, formal denouncements and press conferences at Islamic centers have become a common part of the Muslim-American landscape.

But when news broke Friday of al-Awlaki's death, the reaction among Islamic organizations was far from unified or entirely supportive of the U.S. government's role in his demise. The death has also raised a theological debate about when killing another human is justified.

"As we have stated repeatedly in the past, the American Muslim community firmly repudiated Anwar al-Awlaki's incitement to violence, which occurred after he left the United States. While a voice of hate has been eliminated, we urge our nation's leaders to address the constitutional issues raised by the assassination of American citizens without due process of law," the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations said in a statement released Friday morning.

The statement was far more muted than that released when bin Laden was killed, after which CAIR leaders said they "join our fellow citizens in welcoming the announcement that Osama bin Laden has been eliminated as a threat to our nation and the world."

The death of al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and had served as an imam at mosques in Denver, San Diego and Northern Virginia before leaving for London in 2002 and later moving to Yemen, was also carefully addressed by officials at Dar Al-Hijrah, the Falls Church, Va., mosque where he was imam from January 2001 to April 2002.

"Upon the death of a person the Qur'an teaches us to say, 'innallilahi wa inna ilayhi rajioon,' translated 'from God we come and to God is our return,'" opened a statement from Dar Al-Hijrah imam Johari Abdul-Malik. The imam cautioned that Muslims "do not accept violence nor extremism and recommit ourselves to our message living our faith in peace," but added that he questioned "extra-judicial assassination of any human being and especially an American citizen, which includes Al-Awlaki." When Bin Laden was killed, Abdul-Malik blogged that "I guess I should be happy," but cautioned that "violence only begets violence."

Dawud Walid, the executive director of CAIR-Michigan, echoed the sentiment about killing a man born in the U.S.

"It's a scary proposition that the executive branch would kill an American citizen who is not on the battlefield and who was not even indicted on one criminal charge," he said. "We have taken a very clear position about violent extremism and Mr. Awlaki's rhetoric, but we have to say things at times that may be considered unpopular by some in the broader public. What are the limits and who is next?"

The killing of al-Awlaki and bin Laden has pulled some Muslims into a theological debate over how to deal with terrorists. Walid said he looks to Surat Al-Ma'idah, a portion of the Quran, for guidance.

"O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do," the Quran says.

But there are some Muslims who say Islam justifies the killing of al-Awlaki.

"As much as he is a U.S. citizen, we are are in a state of war. He was not on U.S. soil, he was elsewhere, and he has clearly driven Americans and others to kill American citizens," said M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the Phoenix-based American Islamic Forum for Democracy. "In a state of war, it is perfectly correct and moral to respond to that with a targeted killing. It's no different than what we did with with Osama bin Laden. Islamic history is full of examples of just war."

Harris Zafar, a spokesman for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, a minority Islamic sect, had a similar view.

"While the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community never celebrates or enjoys the death of any human soul, we are relieved that a voice calling for the death of innocent Americans has been silenced. Public peace and safety has to be our number one priority, and anyone inciting people towards chaos, disorder and death needs to be brought to justice."

Zafar continued: "The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community wants Muslims to keep in mind that Anwar al-Awlaki was not a Muslim leader. He did not represent Islam. So his death is in no way an attack against Islam."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST RELIGION

The U.S.-led killing in Yemen of al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S. born imam who was known for his Internet videos preaching violent jihad and his influence on homegrown American terrorists, h...
The U.S.-led killing in Yemen of al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S. born imam who was known for his Internet videos preaching violent jihad and his influence on homegrown American terrorists, h...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 463
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
10:34 AM on 11/02/2011
Goat humping idiots!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mmayrising
listen,truth,watch,think,care,love
03:58 PM on 10/29/2011
some people who say they are muslims say its ok to kill any person who is not a muslim. Others who say they are muslims say Islam is a faith based on peace and love. I always wonder whose Islam is the real Islam. the Islam that many Muslims in America speak of is laughed at by many who say they are muslims and living in other parts of the world. How in the world would a person know, there are so many loud voices each professing to speak the one truth. Its very confusing. Even the Koran is subject to different interpretations. Its sad but the image many see when they hear Islam..is an explosion. Who is the blame for this.
09:28 PM on 10/28/2011
Is the death of Gadafi up for debate amongst m0slim Americans? Did Gadafi receive a "Proper" moslim burial like they were concerned how Bin-Laden's body was handled? I guess when moslims ki|| a supposed m0slim then how the body is disposed of and how the moslim was ki//ed is not an issue. Ridiculous.
01:42 PM on 10/06/2011
The only debate among muslim "americans", is how to stop the USA from killing the next muslim traitor, like anwar al-awlaki. There is no joy among muslim communities that this al-awlaki who called for the deaths of Americans is dead...He was a muslim, therefore, it is outrageous that an infidel power killed him. Met with 9/11 hijackers...doesn't matter. Met with the Christmas Underwear Bomber...doesn't matter. He is a muslim, and that is the only thing that matters to muslims. Debate ? My a**....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Sandlin
We see the world not as it is, but as we are.
07:02 PM on 10/06/2011
You don't actually know any Muslims, do you?

Why do you make these assertions when there's no evidence that American Muslims feel the way you suggest?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:08 AM on 10/07/2011
Where can I get the 600 page fatwa against terrorism that you have spoken about?
Can one get it in printed form?
04:19 PM on 10/07/2011
I know you and I know many more.
02:43 PM on 10/05/2011
Perfect subjugation to the will of the allah till death. How many more will follow his steps?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Sandlin
We see the world not as it is, but as we are.
07:05 PM on 10/06/2011
==
"Perfect subjugatio­n to the will of the allah till death."
==

What's that supposed to mean? Mainstream Islam utterly condemns murder of all kinds, and terrorism - period.

And so, a terrorist like al-Awlaki did not live in "Perfect subjugatio­n to the will of the allah till death." --- His life was a warning to all Muslims and non-Muslims of how far extremist thinking can take anyone away from the peaceful principles of all religions that are practiced by almost all religious people in the world.

http://clarifyingislam.com/2011/04/30/600-page-fatwa-condemning-terrorism-by-internationally-respected-islamic-legal-scholar/

When terrorists act in the name of religion, this tells us about the terrorists ... not about the religion.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:06 AM on 10/07/2011
The more important thing is what is written in the Quran. It does say nasty things about infidels and muslims should kill them. I can quote the verses but like I said before you already know about them.
02:15 PM on 10/07/2011
Doug in the same manner you consider yourself a muslim or (in case you object) know Islam then so does the fundamentals and Talibans and the Salafis. They have their interpretation of Islam which is as valid as yours or the Sufis or the Ahmadias or the Bahais.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:53 PM on 10/05/2011
Treason has been mentioned as a crime Awlaki committed.

His actions were also seditious, in my opinion:

"Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one's state. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws.
.

On October 1, 1995, Omar Abdel-Rahman and nine others were convicted of seditious conspiracy.[27]
.

On March 28, 2010, nine members of the militia Hutaree were arrested and charged with crimes including seditious conspiracy. [33]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:22 PM on 10/05/2011
Jan, in scrolling through the comments I see that you have picked up a number of criticisms, many of which are ad hominem. I just want you to know that I consider you to be one of the more rational commenters on this forum, as well as on other forums related to Islam. Keep up the good work, and please know that there are readers out here who appreciate you.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:10 PM on 10/05/2011
Thanks for the kind words, SB.

Sometimes I feel like the duck at a carnival shooting gallery, but I gives as good as I gets.

Considering that I am criticizing Islam on the Islam pages, everything is just as it should be.

Thanks again.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pyrum
01:14 PM on 10/06/2011
That's why Awlaki should have been arrested, charged and tried.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:19 PM on 10/06/2011
The other view is that killing or capturing are both equally legal.

Guantanamo exists because war is not conducted like a criminal investigation.

The battlefield is not a crime scene and the rules of evidence cannot be observed. Guilt is not an issue that needs to be proven. If you are on the other side, you can be killed or captured--you get no trial.

Although he had committed crimes according to American law, Awlaki was treated like an enemy soldier, not a common criminal--just as Confederate soldiers in our Civil War were treated. The decision to kill or not on the battlefield is made for political and strategic reasons, not for reasons of law.

I would not want to be the POTUS who sent Americans to their death in an attempt to capture Awlaki, or the Secretary of Defense who asked for the money to capture each American traitor.

Jihadists try to kill us because of what they believe, not because they are murderers. They fight for a cause--the defense of Islam from the encroaching threat of liberal democracy and the killing of the enemies of Allah who invade Muslim homelands.

They are doing what they believe Sharia law tells loyal Muslims to do for their religion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Plankeyes
12:24 PM on 10/04/2011
Is that a picture of the fortune telling machine from the movie 'Big'?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bokhattak
Novelist, Muslim, Nerd.
06:19 PM on 10/03/2011
Al-Awlaki was a man who allegedly committed crimes. I say allegedly because he had never been arrested, tried or convicted of the crimes of treason, etc. That being said I find no misdeed in the actions of our troops who, as they do, neutralized an enemy combatant.

To maintain balance and some measure of justice in all of this, however, we as Americans must be careful that we follow the due process of law as established in our Constitution and guaranteed to all citizens (which Al-Awlaki was) or we will continue to chip away at the system of justice that differentiates us from terrorist and extremist organizations.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pyrum
01:22 PM on 10/06/2011
The problem with Awlaki being assassinated without due process is it sets a bad precedent. Under the Military Commissions Act, any American citizen can be deemed an "enemy combatant" by the president for any reason (the president is under no obligation to explain) and stripped of his or her habeas corpus rights. So, who's next? We can't afford to deny any American citizen his or her rights just because that person happens to be unlikable. Zero.
photo
bigmacha
Truth through research.
05:13 PM on 10/03/2011
Actually should be little debate because, as an American citizen, he was committing treason.

US Constitution - Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. The United States Code at "usc|18|2381" states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." This same act did away with the "witness by 2 persons" part.

Bottom line is good riddance.

PS. Much simpler to understand/defend then the Islamic definition of treason which is "apostasy".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bokhattak
Novelist, Muslim, Nerd.
05:56 PM on 10/03/2011
Your post actually brings about reason for debate. If he was committing treason, he needed to have been arrested, tried and convicted of that crime before having become a target. The quote you've provided doesn't do away with an American's right to due process of law.

This is the American process and every time we abrogate it for a win like this, we become a bit more like our terrorist enemies.
10:17 AM on 10/04/2011
It's war. You don't have a right to be captured unless you surrender. Al-awlaki wasn't laying down his arms or surrendering(At this point, we can only assume he and his friends were going to pick up a prostitute.)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gui Montag
Former Palestinian Supporter
03:39 PM on 10/03/2011
He joined an organization at war with this country. That is treason. He declared himself to be an enemy of America. That makes him a legitimate target. Anyone who sides with their coreligionists against their own country are traitors and should be treated as such.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bokhattak
Novelist, Muslim, Nerd.
05:58 PM on 10/03/2011
People who commit crimes, including treason, are arrested, tried and convicted if found guilty. That's the American process... not painting on a bulls-eye the moment someone joins a terrorist group. If that were the case, we could start a shooting spree the next time some Neo-Nazis or the KKK have a meeting.
10:18 AM on 10/04/2011
Not in war. In war, traitors are killed when the opportunity presents itself.
12:09 PM on 10/03/2011
A good test of the perceived credibility of the perpetrator, is to observe the boundaries of personal moral limits the victim is driven to abandon, to STOP the effects generated by the perps.

The examples that come to mind are Hiroshima and Dresden. Why would good people do such evil things? To stop something reasonably perceived as even WORSE from occuring. After Nazism and Japan aggression were stopped, sanity regained it's position of prominence.

The evil Islamists had better figure out soon, that the good people of the world will not tolerate them and their Allah death cult and may become TEMPORARILY evil to stop them cold.

Paraphrasing Bush...what did Al Queda expect us to do, sue them?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Abdul-Halim Vazquez
05:24 PM on 10/04/2011
The examples that come to mind are Hiroshima and Dresden. Why would good people do such evil things? To stop something reasonably perceived as even WORSE from occuring.
----------------

Part of the reason (arguably the main reason) such acts are considered immoral is because the produce huge amounts of human suffering but with minimal tactical justification. In the case of Hiroshima and Dresden, the cities didn't have much in the way of military factories so they weren't really contributing to the Axis war machine. The bombings killed a bunch of people but didn't significantly affect their ability to continue to make war.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jay Patel
08:22 PM on 10/04/2011
Abdul Halim Vazquez,

I forgot to mention something on my previous post to you on the topic of Primordial religion. I have all of Schuon's books on my computer and would be more than happy to email them to you so you don't have to buy them. If you are interested please let me know and I would be happy to send them to you!!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:36 PM on 10/05/2011
Sorry to disappoint you on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as you are not from Asia, you may think that the generally Asians would side with you on considering such acts as immoral. Most Asians, especialy the Chinese, Koreans, Philippines,Burmese, Thais would not shed a tear for the Japanese as they have caused destruction, horrendous atrocities in Asia. They caused, yes theJapanese , caused huge amounts of human suffering in Asia.You should ask the Germans and Japanese first why they would do such evil acts on other people. They were not angels, as you try to portray them to be.
12:30 AM on 10/03/2011
He wasn't missed, and he's not missed.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
08:02 PM on 10/02/2011
Good riddance. The irony of a hellfire missile taking him out is too delicious.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joe Goforth
04:16 PM on 10/02/2011
Religions that are divided into camps of which some hostile to non believers are not really religions in my mind but political movements and should be treated as such. I think most Muslims agree that a totally Islamic world would not be a bad thing the question is how to achieve the goal. I think we need to look at the big picture here.
06:03 PM on 10/02/2011
how do you know "what most Muslims think"? please don't post things based on ignorance. If you are not going to bother to know Muslims (which shows in your post) then speak for Christianity or atheism or whatever it is you claim to believe and leave what you don't want to bother to learn alone please.
photo
Tolerant
See perfection in every situation
08:11 PM on 10/02/2011
"please don't post things based on ignorance."

============================================

LOL!

These forums are full of comments that have been posted based on ignorance.

Shaykh Google has cause many, many to be in the delusional state that they know and have command on the subject matter they are writing about.
11:43 AM on 10/03/2011
Ibrahim Hooper
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of
the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to
do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Sandlin
We see the world not as it is, but as we are.
06:39 PM on 10/02/2011
Don't all the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), at least, qualify as being "divided into camps of which some hostile to non believers"?

And your guess about the attitudes of "most Muslims" is just a guess -- one that I, at least, see no evidence to support.
photo
Tolerant
See perfection in every situation
08:29 PM on 10/02/2011
Doug,

Can you please counsel me on responding to Jan Allen:

Is it worth it?

I like him. He is a fine human being, but he and I have been going in circles.

Thanks,
12:53 PM on 10/03/2011
@ Doug. You wrote in a post elsewhere that only "got a feel, a bit over a year ago" for these issues, so I went and checked out your clarifyingislam web site to get a better understanding of your views. Your over-simplification of things is troubling. You wrote, "Simply Put: if you have any general sense of distrust, dislike or fear concerning Muslims, you have believed some untrue statements about Muslims or Islam that anti-Muslims want you to believe." That statement, along with your frequent references to Islamophobia and the Fear, Inc. report, make it clear that you believe that those of us who have concerns about Islam have concerns ONLY because we are: uninformed, unable to distinguish truth from lies, and have been manipulated by the anti-Muslims and their "Islamo-fiction." I need to tell you that you're wrong.
Like you do today, I used to strongly defend Islam by telling others that the Qur'an espouses peace and is only being manipulated or misinterpreted by those Muslims who say that it justifies their violence and killing. Then I stopped parroting what some American Muslims had told me the Qur'an says and read it for myself. I was shocked by what I found, but I rationalized it (just as you do) by saying "Well, there's violence in the Bible too." Then I dug in deeper (cont'd)