Philo

No, a Fatwa does not "mean a death sentence to the accused."

The rest of your post therefore becomes moot; for example, your interpretation about the Kora'n (sic) teachings.

The anti-terrorism Fatwa by Professor Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri pulled no punches, declaring that terrorism was "haraam," or forbidden by the Quran, and that suicide bombers would be rewarded not by 72 virgins in heaven, as many terrorist recruiters promise, but with a suite in hell.

"There is no place for any martyrdom and their act is never, ever to be considered Jihad" - in Arabic, the word jihhad is a noun meaning 'struggle'.

"It's about time Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda realise that Muslims will not allow their faith and identity to be hijacked by a bunch of thugs masquerading as holy men."

Philo, have you actually read the English preface to Professor Muhammad-Tahir-ul-Qadri's Fatwa, or are you just shooting from the hip?

This is a real problem for us 'Westerners'. We see a Fatwa issued and immediately think it is a death sentence. In the mean time many innocent people are being vilified simply for coming from another culture. Western society seems to think that everyone else should be 'like them', good Christians, whatever.

This man, Professor Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, has got guts. He is a true peace maker. Unfortunately, as you have so aptly demonstrated, he will be a target for what he has said.

They pinned a bloke up to a cross two thousand years ago for doing something similar.

qanda,
Warring tribes of Islam is not new it has been happening for thousands of years. Take the Sunnies and the Shi'ite branches they declare FATWA on each other as both believe they are right and hold the truth. Outspoken condemnaton is not going to bring peace just further violence. Talking peace is not peace or talking revenge on violence is not peace. Take a look at a true Peace Maker Nelson Mandella in his story in the movie "Invicta"

If what Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri,said was merely to settle tensions with Western culture then he is unlikley to achieve that because what Islam ought to be doing is rising up to put down terrorism in its own back yard not merely allowing the West to give their young men to the slaughter.

Until Islam eradicates its threat to Western society by themselves dealing with terrorists then words are merely retoric.

He is trying to do what you want.
Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that?

Arjay and Pelican are right. The west needs to denounce the use of violence and engage in non violent conflict resolution.

I guess you must be a recent arrival, qanda.

No offence, but Philo has a long history of this sort of thing.

>>He is trying to do what you want. Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge that?<<

I strongly suspect that the very last thing that Philo wants is that Islam loses its image of being the religion of terrorism. It would be a substantial blow to his own take on religion, which has been taking every opportunity to tar all Muslims with the same brush.

Here's a recent example of his thought process:

>>If the two fastest growing world views are atheism and Islam then we can expect World War 3 as both believe it is legitimate to destroy unbelievers of their world view.<<

What would he do if he didn't have Islam to tub-thump about, to whip up the fear-and-loathing that he feels is necessary to make his own position somehow attractive.

Just think about it for a moment. Let's say (and indeed, fervently hope) that Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri is spectacularly successful. Peaceable Muslims, who vastly outnumber the terrorists, will quickly put their aggressive brethren on the outer. Much the same as happened, albeit on a smaller scale, in Northern Ireland, where pressure from wives, families and the community had far more impact on eliminating the sectarian hatred than any political settlement.

If - let's say when - that happens, the vast majority of Christians will also rejoice. But it will be very interesting to see whether the Philos of this world - and there are a few about - will continue to stir up hatred wherever they can. A bit like the last few IRA and UDA fanatics, who cannot let go.

I'd be fascinated to see whether he could ever accept that his own religious belief was special only to him, and that other perfectly normal people trod a different religious path

I wonder if he could live with it?

What say, Philo?