Muslim Scholars Issue Fatwa Declaring No Conflict Between Islamic Law And U.S. Constitution

Islamic scholars tired of conservative charges that Muslims in the United States constitute a radical fifth column bent on subverting American values and obligated by their religion to launch jihadist terror attacks are fighting back by issuing a fatwa.

The Islamic religious ruling, a "Resolution On Being Faithful Muslims and Loyal Americans," is a response to what its authors call "erroneous perceptions and Islamophobic propaganda" that has built up for a decade following the 9/11 attacks and subsequent terrorist plots by adherents of al-Qaida and other extremist groups. It was issued in Virginia late last month by the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA), a group of Islamic scholars who meet several times a year to draft opinions on issues of concern to American Muslims.

"As a body of Islamic scholars, we the members of FCNA believe that it is false and misleading to suggest that there is a contradiction between being faithful Muslims committed to God (Allah) and being loyal American citizens," the fatwa declared.

"Islamic teachings require respect of the laws of the land where Muslims live as minorities, including the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so long as there is no conflict with Muslims’ obligation for obedience to God. We do not see any such conflict with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. The primacy of obedience to God is a commonly held position of many practicing Jews and Christians as well."

Muslims make up less than 1 percent of the nation, according to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, yet the fast-growing community has been a constant target of right-wing groups. From protests against the so-called "ground zero mosque," to efforts in more than a dozen states to ban Sharia law in courts, to recent Capitol Hill hearings on Islamic radicalization that brought comparisons to McCarthyism, Muslims have had to assert their loyalty.

And that troubles members of the Los Angeles Police Department, who in recent years have been at the forefront in building bridges to the Muslims in order to combat radicalization and enlist the community in the fight against terrorism.

Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck and other law enforcement officials will attend a meeting Thursday at the Islamic Center of Reseda to talk about the new fatwa as part of his department's Muslim Community Forum. Muzammil Siddiqi, director of religious affairs of The Islamic Society of Orange County and the president of the Fiqh Council of North America, will be on hand to discuss the origins of the fatwa.

For many non-Muslims, perhaps the best-known fatwa was the one against author Salman Rushdie for his book "The Satanic Verses." Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini declared it blasphemous and called for Rushdie's death.

This new decree might face a warmer welcome.

"We’re always fighting two sides of extremism. There's the violent ideological side and the neo-conservative side that is creating hate campaigns against American Muslims ...which is a bunch of BS," said Michael Downing, commander of the LAPD's Counter Terrorism and Criminal Intelligence Bureau. "The majority of American Muslims are as patriotic as you and I. This declaration says it is not a conflict to be a faithful Muslim and loyal American."

Comments

[TheKurgan9]

11:49 AM on 10/29/2011

Arafat and the Palestinia­ns rejected a deal where they got ~ 95% of what they wanted. Whoever gets 95%? NOBODY! However, Arafat did and the reason why he rejected it was because the deal required that the Palestinia­ns had to acknowledg­e Israel's existence .­...Well, Arafat and the Palestinia­ns would never and will never do that it appears. There was an opportunit­y for peace, and the Palestinia­ns (m0slims) rejected it. Until Israel is "wiped" off the map, there will never be peace. Why? Because your holy book, the Qu'ran specifical­ly states "Do not befriend the Jew or the Christian" Until that statement remains in the qu'ran then peace will never exist. Also, Arafat knew that if he took the deal between the Israeli's and Clinton, then he would have been assassinated. The bottom line is that your book, has verses that are very hostile toward non-m0slims. Please don't even try to say "so does your book" ummmm, NO.. I challenge you to find one word in the New Testament where Jesus says to do harm to a non-believer. I can find many verses that says to do harm to non-believers in your book.

[jediknightkhan]

03:10 AM on 12/07/2011

If what you say about Arafat and a deal they gave him is true, which I'll believe is true considering I think the guy was no better than some Israeli politicians, that is downright stupid and foolish of him and his supporters. As for your interpretation of the Quran (yes, your interpretation), if it was the Palestinian and Lebanese Muslim interpretation of the Quran, they would take similar nonsensical stances on every other non-Muslim country out there but they don't. The interpretation is of the religious nature that one should not be such friends with them as to acquire their practices and beliefs and inclinations to leave one's own faith or betraying someone of your faith.

Furthermore, there is in fact a sizable non-Muslim, mostly Christian, minority that lives in Lebanon and Palestine who similarly hate Israel and no doubt help them. I haven't fully read the Bible yet so I don't know why they do it but I'll tell you why I think they would. The fact of the matter is that they have this hate built up from past actions which is fueled by current zealots of all faiths and idiot politicians/military leaders such as Arafat who hinder the peace process and push it back further.

[Oblongato]

07:34 AM on 10/29/2011

Cont. from below:

In my view, there is nothing that may be considered sacred in the context of the secular state. The secular state thrives on vigorous debate over the laws and persons governing the state. As soon as we lose the ability to criticize or mock any individual or belief, whether out of kindness and political correctness or misguided laws, we have staked out an area where criticism no longer functions to reveal, revile and control excess. Just look at the deteriorating state of individual rights in Islamic states where criticism of the government is interpreted as criticism of Islam. If forbidding the criticism of Islam were conducive to individual rights, Iran would be a paradise (for Muslims) today. Why non-Muslims do not want to live there should be obvious.

I therefore believe that, while you have the right to feel hurt and express your hurt when your beliefs are criticized or mocked, criticism and mockery by those who do not share your views is a natural and healthy aspect of the secular state. Criticism and mockery of one’s own views should also serve as a constant reminder that one’s own truth is not necessarily seen as truth by any measure by others, or by the secular state.

[Oblongato]

05:01 AM on 10/29/2011

Tolerant, you wrote:

"Practicing Muslims take our religious faith very, very seriously.

So know that. You may mock us, and 99.999% will be patient about it and will act kindly as the Prophet did to that woman who used to throw garbage at him, or those who threw stones at him and injured him quite a bit, but just know that mocking our Prophet, our religion, is something that is not part of our tradition, for those Muslims who do that, put themselves in danger of losing their "iman" (inner convictions and certainty).

We consider mocking Prophets and Messengers of God and God's religions a malice of the heart."

-----------------

I read this as a plea and attempt to persuade me and others who are critical of Islam not to mock it, and I suggested that this was a form of arrogance.

I'd like to apologize if I have misinterpreted your comment. It is not true, as you suggested, that I don't care how Muslims feel. I am not here to insult and wound Muslims or anyone else. However, I see in your comment aspects whose compatibility with the secular state are for me at best questionable.

As a strong supporter of the secular system, I recognize the right to freely criticize and mock anyone and anything as essential to the continued existence of a secular state. I see any attempt to squelch the expression of an opinion, which can include mockery, as an attack on essential secular principles.

[Damn Damien]

06:03 AM on 10/29/2011

I don't think there was any need for your apology. In fact, it should have been @Tolerant apologizing for the behavior of his coreligionists. Instead, he was informing you about how seriously they take "mocking the Prophet." Why, then, would it come as a surprise to anyone that a certain segment engages in overt expression of their convictions. In order to be called fit to live in a democratic, and secular society, one has to grow a sense of humor, and repeated offense-taking should deserve no sympathy.

[Oblongato]

07:56 AM on 10/29/2011

My apology applies only in the case that I have misinterpreted his post, i.e. if he is not, in fact, trying to persuade me or others not to mock his prophet, holy book or beliefs. If he really has no problem with these things, then he has the opportunity to say so.

If he is not OK with them, he will indeed have a difficult and hurtful time living in a (reasonably) free secular society.

I agree that repeated offense-taking deserves no sympathy. In fact, as I have tried to express here, I believe it represents a form of struggle against the secular state - even if it does not violate the law.

[Jelle NL]

03:59 AM on 10/28/2011

It is rumoured that some here intend to become member of the FCNA. Which brings up the question: How do one do that? -- Personally, I support the candidacy of Ms Sooraya Qadir ("Dust").

[truesabil]

09:43 AM on 10/28/2011

"And please, don’t tell us how to read the Qur’an. We can all read and understand the Holy Book ourselves.­"
----------­----------­----------­----------­-
Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him) said: "the best of you are those who learn the Qur'an and teach it to others".

Our Prophet Muhammed taught that one learned man in the religion is harder on the devil than a thousand ignorant worshippers.

Allah says:
Holy Qur'an - 22:52 Never did We send an apostle or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom:

[HaleemK]

01:14 PM on 10/28/2011

Contradictions in the book brought to you by a man who married a nine year old.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GYZ79c8E2s

[HaleemK]

01:20 PM on 10/28/2011

Interestingly the messenger of god also taught other things.

Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)

[HaleemK]

03:58 PM on 10/27/2011

All the other people who live in this country who are non muslim don't need such fatwas. Muslims look at their residency in the US as an agreement between the muslims and the a non muslim state. Is this normal anywhere?
Maybe they should nail this agreement and a copy of the fatwa on the doors .

[Damn Damien]

07:34 PM on 10/27/2011

Consider yourself LOL'ed. Apart from nailing the said fatwa to the door, they should include a note for kids to stay away on Halloween.

[bill15]

09:41 AM on 10/27/2011

"Islamic teachings require respect of the laws of the land where Muslims live as minorities, including the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so long as there is no conflict with Muslims’ obligation for obedience to God. We do not see any such conflict with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I'm so happy they see no conflict, for now at least. And what does he mean by where muslims live as minorities, does this imply that if they become the majority they will change the political system to reflect Islamic law ? I view this statement as a veiled threat. What does he mean, "so long as there is no conflict with muslims obligation for obedience to god" ? Isn't that what the Islamic extremists use as an arguement every day, that they are being obedient to allah? And that allahs law trumps secular laws ? And if the two conflict ........ Maybe I am reading too much into it, but to me the wording is perculiar. Yes, the primacy of God is paramount to Jews and christians as well, but in more of your acts as individuals relationship with other people and with God. Render unto Ceaser what is ceasers, render unto God what is Gods. If Allah wants to be Ceaser as well, we are going to have a problem.

[AnilaAli]

01:42 PM on 10/26/2011

This fatwa is a huge and bold step forward for the American Muslim community and shows true leadership. It should be given the wholehearted support of all Muslim organizations who claim to be leaders of American Muslims. Unfortunately, many advocacy groups have a single agenda- to create a rift between law enforcement and the Muslim community. They take isolated incidents and use them as tools to incite hatred and create mistrust of law enforcement. It is also in the interests of many to keep this rift because it helps in their fundraising goals. These advocacy groups should also highlight the great work being done by our law enforcement, the White House, FBI,and the DOJ. It must not be forgotten that we, as Muslims are freest in America and if we were to go back to our native Muslim countries, certain Muslim minorities would be targeted and not allowed religious freedom, like the Shias in Saudi, the Ahmedis in Pakistan. Thus it is in our interest to work in collaboration with our law enforcement and civil rights administrations. Only then can we truly be Americans.

--
Anila Ali

[HaleemK]

09:05 AM on 10/27/2011

Good post

[Tolerant]

06:45 PM on 10/25/2011

altoplano: "I should have said that literary constructs and "deeper meaning" are not exclusive to *Quranic* Arabic."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody made such a claim.

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

altoplano: "I'll stop criticizin­g when you stop posting comments that reek of cultural and religious supremacy, deal?"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are free to criticize whatever and whenever and however you so desire.

No one has requested that people stop criticizing.

I have only pointed out that there is a difference between criticism that is based on knowledge and the one that is based on lack of knowledge.

There is no supermacy, none what so ever!

Your comment clearly indicates that you have not read my comments about Transcendent Unity of Relgions and "there are as many ways to the Reality as there are hearts", and that every heart has light, and that everyone has access to the Truth, etc.

This is a recognition of universality and diversity.

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

altoplano: "And for the record, I agree with many Muslims, for instance, Tareq Fatah, Irshad Manji, Wafah Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, to name only a few.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These people have either left Islam altogether or are close to leaving it.

What they have in common is that they have all sold themselves to "Fear Inc."

They do not represent Traditional Islam, mix truth and falsehood, and aren't even scholars.

Overwhelming majority of pious Muslims have rejected them all because of their negativism and lack of scholarly knowledge.

You won't find out about the original authentic Islam from them.

[truesabil]

07:23 PM on 10/25/2011

"You won't find out about the original authentic Islam from them."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
altoplano knows that. Thats why those are the people he agrees with. He agrees with them because they are anti-Islam. Its no coincident that he agrees with them when they all have the same thing in common.

Allah speaks of those who have betrayed their trust. Altoplano is allowing himself to be used as an advocate by those who have betrayed their trust, and these once Muslims have allowed themselves to be used by a media that have betrayed their trust to the American people by not doing fair and balance reporting. They only seek out these type of muslims or once muslims to put before the misinformed public.

4:105 We have sent down to thee the Book in truth, that thou mightest judge between men, as guided by Allah, so be not (used) as an advocate by those who betray their trust;

[Jelle NL]

02:10 PM on 10/26/2011

Since when do you operate the box office in Islam?

[Jelle NL]

02:34 PM on 10/26/2011

Have you already read Irshad Manji’s new book: "Allah, Love and Liberty" or Mustafa Akyol’s: "Islam without Extremes"? These book became available some weeks ago here in the Netherlands.

[Joe Goforth]

01:07 PM on 10/24/2011

When the Jews and the Muslims hold hands and prey together in Israel I'll believe it.

[Tolerant]

04:03 PM on 10/24/2011

Some do.

Jews are also not monolithic and many want peace with the Muslims and all strive for joy and happiness, just like everybody else.

Islam is the closest to Judaism at their core.

[HaleemK]

04:17 PM on 10/24/2011

That ain't ever happening for sure.

[Dr. David Liepert]

10:16 PM on 10/24/2011

Haleem, I know a Jewish man who gave up his Israeli citizenship to marry a Palestinian woman: they hold hands and pray all the time and have many friends on both sides of the wall.
What's going to bring us all together in the end isn't our politics, it's that we're all people and sooner or later we're going to start treating each eachother that way- even on these Huffington Post comment forums!

[velocitygrrl]

03:47 PM on 10/24/2011

If you are in all probability blaming the Jewish folks, then you yourself are spreading propaganda. Not even coming up with anything original either. The exact same people were blamed for almost all of the same things not too terribly long ago in Germany under Hitler. The Nazis are still out there, people, and they have started working together with the Islamists. World War 2 isn't truly over. We're still deep in it. Wake up and smell the Jihad, people!!!

[innara]

11:21 PM on 10/25/2011

the last time i checked nazism ment white superemacy. and what does that have to do with muslims or islam?

[AlsoSprach]

11:01 PM on 10/23/2011

"Islamic teachings require. . ., so long as there is no conflict with Muslims’ obligation for obedience to God."

-Does anyone not see the wriggle room in this? What does their obligation demand? What actions does it prescribe? Given the behavior and beliefs of large segments of the greater Muslim world (though certainly not all of them), I find myself a tad skeptical.

Say, for argument, that obedience by a religion to a given god (hypothetical) would include sewing shut the mouths of those who speak against the faithful. We'll call them Sewists. The leader of Sewism then makes an equivalent statement to that of the scholar quoted above. The Sewists, then, could remain well within the stated principle; they'll respect every other right, but the primacy of their obedience to the Sewist god demands that they violate others' first amendment rights. And so on.

"The primacy of obedience to God is a commonly held position of many practicing Jews and Christians as well."

-This is exactly what worries me about all religions. 'Nothing is more justified than serving the will of the great unquestionable, unchallengeable high seat.' What a terrifying idea!

The basic existence of this entity cannot be demonstrated in the first place; that much should be rather clear, and I invite anyone to research the matter.

The 'primacy of obedience' principle seems self-evident enough, given the premise of such a being's existence; but the question remains, what does this obedience entail?

[HaleemK]

11:59 AM on 10/24/2011

Well said

[BCEXHAX]

07:31 PM on 10/23/2011

Son of hUMMUS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge8oEsbxnF4&feature=related

[Don Harry Santiago]

07:12 PM on 10/23/2011

I tell you what this ain't going no where in the US now with what is going on across seas, with Arab countries, pump your breaks. Jihad ain't opening its doors in America!

[Tolerant]

08:28 PM on 10/23/2011

"Jihad ain't opening its doors in America!"

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The word Jihad simply means doing your utmost or striving.

Are you saying that there will no more striving for anything in America now?

So no one will strive to become better persons, strive to reach the summit of a peak, strive to invent things, strive to get education, strive to solve the economic problems, etc. in America now?

[velocitygrrl]

03:53 PM on 10/24/2011

"The word Jihad simply means doing your utmost or striving." -What total BS.

[truesabil]

12:03 PM on 10/25/2011

Defining "Jihad" or "Holy War", both historically, and in present day terms.

Historically and in present day terms, "Jihad" has meant struggle. Struggle to maintain life that G'D prescribed for Muslims. That struggle goes from following the simplest principle of our religion. The simplest principle of kindness, the principle of devotion, whatever, to actually defending your way of life with your hand or with your arm, or with a weapon. So, Prophet Muhammed (Peace Be On Him and the Righteous Servants of G'd), Prophet Muhammed also said that the Pilgrimage to Mecca is a Hajj. The word comes from an Arabic word which means to struggle. I think the Crusaders have given us a lot of misconceptions and have stretched the terms out of there correct proportions. I think we ought to look at what scholars are saying in our religion today to really see what our religion is. WDM

[Oblongato]

12:27 PM on 10/29/2011

"Struggle to maintain life that G'D prescribed for Muslims. That struggle goes from following the simplest principle of our religion. The simplest principle of kindness, the principle of devotion, whatever, to actually defending your way of life with your hand or with your arm, or with a weapon."

------

The part of Jihad that people have a problem with, based on your explanation, would be the defense of whatever the individual Muslim interprets as the "life that 'G'D prescribed for Muslims" with a hand, arm or weapon.

A few Muslims have even seen this as sufficient justification for flying airplanes into buildings.

By the way, if the retaking of the countries of the Islamic Empire is referred to as the Crusades, what what do Muslims call the Islamic conquest that that preceded them?

[Tolerant]

02:50 PM on 10/23/2011

PART 3 of 3:

Now, my own explanation:

The word "Jihad", which literally means striving is part of a phrase, Jihad fi Sabih Lillah, which means striving for the sake of God [alone], that is, NOT striving for OTHER-THAN-GOD.

Since God represents goodness and justice, any striving for other than goodness and justice is not striving for God.

Since a piece of land and world's resources are not God, any striving for them is not striving for God.

Since God does not represent the lower qualities of the self, striving because of, or for, anger, revenge, arrogance, etc. is not striving for God.

From the term Jihad came the term Mujahida.

Mujahida is often used in Sufi literature to refer to one's striving to control the tendencies of one's lower self, e.g., self-ego, anger, arrogance, revenge, lack of respect, etc.

[Damn Damien]

04:22 PM on 10/23/2011

With apologies, everything in your comment is utter and complete BS.

[Tolerant]

06:34 PM on 10/23/2011

Yeah, really scholarly, sober, exhaustive and mature "criticism" and "critique"!

[Tolerant]

07:38 PM on 10/23/2011

By the way, may I ask you to please un-fan me?

You are not really a fan of mine, so why fan me.

Thanks,

[Aeons]

05:13 PM on 10/23/2011

That "lower quality of self" is the entire basis of Individual rights in a Human Rights based democratic country.

And Proud Of It.

[Tolerant]

05:43 PM on 10/23/2011

But these are destrucvite qualities.

For example, anger.

Sure, an individual has the right to get angry but it has an effect on the person who is angry, especially when it is out of control.

Selfishness and greed.

Sure, it is an individual's right to be selfish and greedy, but look what the selfish and greedy bankers did to the American economy?

Arrogance.

Sure, it is an andividual's right to be arrogant, but it has its negative effects on the person who is arrogant and the person to whom arrogance is displayed.

Lack of forgiveness, eats one up and doesn't allow a person to grow.

I have been watching Gene Simmons reality show lately, and Gene's lack of forgiveness towards his father shaped his entire life and he did some very destructive things to divert his anger and lack of revenge issues, to the point where his partner almost left him and the kids told him that they'd take their mother's side.

He was able to get rid of his anger and forgive his father through counselling after he realized that forgiveness was for the person who forgives.

The low qualities of the self cause a lot of destruction in the persons and others depending on how bad they are.

And good qualities of the person, selflessness, forgiveness, compassion, giving, love, peace, justice, sharing, giving to others what one loves, etc. create a lot of positive energy in the person and that spreads out.

[Tolerant]

05:54 PM on 10/23/2011

Addendum:

I am not why the field and techniques of self-knowledge needs to be placed alongside human rights and compared against each other.

These are two different domains.

Do we place other fields of human psychology side by side with human rights and pass a judgment on human psychology on the basis of human rights?

Self-knowledge is a field to study the human self; there is a lot of modern psychology employed in it; it then becomes a spiritual path and provides remedies for the heart, just like medicine provides medicine for the mind and body.

Self-knowledge also integrates with healthy and natural living. Many a Sufi master has been trained in traditional medicine, like in herbs, as well as forms of meditation and other relaxation exercises.

No one is imposing these things on anyone, and people turn to them for their own sake, for their own personal and spiritual development.

There is no mind control.

Spiritual remedies are provided and people are free to use them or not.

From his post, it is as though you have not taken the time to fully understand what Sufism (aka self-knowledge) is.

Perhaps, these websites may help you:

http://www.askonline.co.za

and

http://www.shaykhfadhlallahaeri.com

and

http://sufism.org/

[Tolerant]

02:49 PM on 10/23/2011

PART 2 of 3:

The following is from an eminent scholar of our times, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, a great teacher and and scholar of the school of Transcendent Unity of Religions, a school I follow:

"And those who perform jihad for Us, We shall certainly guide them in Our ways, and God is surely with the doers of good. (Quran XXXIX; 69)

You have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad. (Hadith)

The Arabic term jihad, usually translated into European languages as holy war, more on the basis of its juridical usage in Islam rather than on its much more universal meaning in the Quran and Hadith, is derived from the root J-H-D whose primary meaning is to strive or to exert oneself.

Its translation into holy war combined with the erroneous notion of Islam prevalent in the West as the 'religion of the sword' has helped to eclipse its inner and spiritual significance and to distort its connotation.

Nor has the appearance upon the stage of history during the past century and especially during the past few years of an array of movements within the Islamic world often contending or even imposing each other and using the word jihad or one of its derivative forms helped to make known the full import of its traditional meaning which alone is of concern to us here.

The full article is at http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/jihad-nasr.htm