On first thought, my immediate response is, "No". Having lived in Indonesia for many years I have seen many Muslims playing musical instruments, making music, and singing. In fact, each Ramadan there is a group called 'Debu' who do the rounds of the TV channels playing music and declaring their faith to the masses. Even more compelling is that Yusuf Islam, the former Cat Stevens, has realised that music is a powerful tool in getting out the message and has of more recent times returned to the gift that made him famous.
Nevertheless, it would seem that not all Muslims are on the same page when it comes to whether the faith (or Allah) condones the learning and playing of musical instruments and the making of music.
The Daily Telegraph in the UK has an article that claims Muslim students are being withdrawn from music classes in the UK because learning and making music is un-Islamic. The article claims that it is primarily Somalian Muslims that are withdrawing their children from classes. Yet, 'primarily' suggests that this is not universally only a Somalian Muslim issue.
Music is a compulsory part of the curriculum. So, there are some issues as to whether students can withdraw from compulsory curriculum subjects on religious grounds. There has to be a mechanism for dealing with this in a mutually acceptable fashion that is respected by all involved.
Personally, I cannot see what the drama is with music. Perhaps any Muslim readers who understand about these things can enlighten me as to what the problem is with music that some Muslims are of the belief that it is forbidden.
Somalia is a violent place, and with those who remain steadfast in their determination to meet and defeat the enemies of Allah wherever they maybe found in Somalia, it would not seem that the place is going to become any more peaceful, at least not in the short-term.
Sheikh Andullahi Alhaq was presenting the prizes to a group of winners in a recent Ramadan quiz contest organized by the Al-Shabaab insurgents where he hoped that their prizes would encourage and facilitate their participation in the Jihad against Allah's enemies. So, what sort of prizes might be so encouraging and facilitating, you ask; well, for the winners it was an AK-47, two hand-grenades, an anti-tank landmine, and some office supplies. The runners-up were not quite so lucky. They received just an AK-47 and some ammunition.
The quiz was a radio broadcast and consisted of questions on science, culture, and the Al-Quran.
I always was led to believe that Ramadan was the holiest of months, a month for reflection, and in essence a jihad of its own as one resists the everyday temptations of food and other things. A quiz where the prizes are weapons to be used in violent jihad seems to run counter to what many claim Islam to be about. I am not Muslim so perhaps I am missing something with respect to my understanding of how this quiz fits into the spirit of the holiest of months.
The question in my mind is this, "How do you convince people that a religion is a religion of peace if there is a concurrent promotion of violence or violent conflict?"
This does not have to be a question exclusively directed at Muslims or Islam. It just so happens that this is the context in this case. The question could be posed equally to other religions that have used violence as a means of resolving conflict. I do not think that any religion is immune, is it?
The idea of issuing a fatwa (edict) against terrorism is an appealing one. If for no other reason than it would serve to distance the more moderate adherents to the faith from the more radical. However, the big question is how binding are these fatwas on Muslims and what are the real world punishments for failing to adhere to them?
More importantly, how should Muslims respond to competing fatwas or competing interpretations of what is acceptable with respect to violence perpetrated in the defense of the religion of Allah? There are plenty of Muslim organizations, and Muslims, throughout the world that are seeking to issue fatwas against terrorism as a means of distancing the faith from the criminal acts of a few. The YouTube video below relates to a fatwa issued in India.
This post is not suggesting that terrorism is a Muslim issue alone or that only Muslims perpetrate terror. However, the post is dealing with the issue of fatwas and terrorism, and this is a discussion within the framework of Islam and the interpretation of what is forbidden (haram) and what is permitted / legitimate (halal).
This is an interesting question. I thank Harry over at Multibrand for, in essence, challenging me on the issue, and also Tikno over at Love Ely for pointing me to the Indonesia version of a 2004 Fatwa on terrorism issued by the Indonesian Ulema Council (Majelis Ulama Indonesia / MUI).
In the Indonesian context, a fatwa is not binding in a strict legal sense. The government may consider them and may even adopt them if they are so inclined. However, adoption would require the codification of the fatwa into law. This is something that happens to a certain degree in matters relating to Islamic finance where the MUI plays a role in determining what financial products are legitimate under the rules of Islam. These are then codified in laws and regulations enacted by the state.
Furthermore, Indonesia already has an Anti-Terrorism Law (Interim Law No. 1 of 2002 / Law No. 15 of 2003) so is there a need for a fatwa forbidding conduct which is already prohibited in the criminal legal sense? For an interesting paper on the subject you can read Simon Butt's paper by downloading it from here.
I have taken the time to translate the MUI fatwa and would be happy to send it out if anyone wanted a copy in English. I am reluctant just to post it here because I am hopeless at formatting and "stuff" within the blogspot framework.
The fatwa is interesting because it does not forbid in an absolute sense the killing of oneself in the defense of the religion of Allah. Yet, the fatwa goes to considerable lengths to try and point out that random suicide bombings with undefined targets is absolutely against the teachings of Islam.
The primary difference in the fatwa between terrorism and jihad is that terrorism is used for destructive purposes and to cause chaos and fear whereas jihad is a legitimate struggle to defend the faith. Unfortunately, the violence perpetrated in both cases can be the same, but the intent of the perpetrator is what makes the difference. If the perpetrator is amaliyah al-istisyhad or undertaking the action in search of syahid, then this is acceptable. In contrast, where the perpetrator is one who kills themselves and others because they are a pessimist has therefore sinned in the eyes of God and has committed a crime that can never be permitted by Allah or Islam.
Therefore, the violence is a matter of perception with respect to whether it is legitimate or forbidden. Yet, the fatwa states that the act of suicide bombing is an act of despair and is therefore forbidden under the laws of Islam irrespective of whether it is done in a time of peace or a time of war or in an area dominated by Muslims or in areas dominated by other faiths.
But, in the next point of the fatwa a suicide death where the losses inflicted on the enemies of Islam are greater than those inflicted upon Islam would constitute amaliyah al-istisyhad. However, this is seemingly modified by the phrase dar al-harb which is reasonably translated as regions at war. Yet, it can also be translated to places where Muslims are in the minority and are therefore in constant struggle to practice their faith.
What is interesting about the MUI fatwa was that it was issued in 2004 and even today it is not widely known and has not been widely discussed. It is interesting because wider and more open discussion of the fatwa and terrorism could have made a significant contribution to the understanding of the "problem" of terror and how the Indonesian Muslim community is seeking to deal with it.
There are plenty of sites dedicated to debunking fatwas on terrorism as nothing more than fakes of ways of diverting attention from the real intents and purposes of terrorism. To each their own.
Pareidolia is the phenomenon of seeing or perceiving something significant in something insignificant. While I was out surfing the Internet I came across this image that is posted with this entry, here. This is not some new psychological phenomenon and as such there are plenty of sites on the web that publish the images. You can find images here, here, and here.
The three Bali Bombers that are destined for the firing squad in the very near future, perhaps in just days, have expressed no remorse about their actions and the deaths of 202 innocent people. Amrozi, Samudra, and Muklhas have stated unequivocally that they have no regrets for the bombings of 12 October 2002.
The bombings were designed to punish the US and its allies. Seeing that the majority of those that died were allies of the US then the objective was achieved. Samudra is the most vocal of the three, always has been, and he added that he will never have any regrets. Unfortunately for him, he won't have too much longer to hold that thought. The three of them then offered their support and praise for the recent bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Pakistan.
The time is nigh and the end is ever-closer. You will soon know if Allah is pleased and has prepared the legendary 72 virgins for your eternal pleasure. Then again, if Islam is a religion of peace and abhors the slaying of the innocent then I cannot see your eternity being all that enjoyable!
I would still prefer that they rot in prison but it is not within my power to make that call. So, 'selamat jalan' and may God have mercy on your misguided and murderous souls (yes, the very mercy you did not show 202 innocent souls on 12 October 2002).
