"Imams and teachers who have used Islam to bolster and preach their political beliefs have done so by perverting traditional Islamic texts. Declaring fatwas permitting suicide bombings goes against everything at the heart of Islam. These so-called Muslim scholars must be and are condemned. They are violating the most dearly held principles of Islam Imams and teachers who have used Islam to bolster and preach their political beliefs have done so by perverting traditional Islamic texts. Declaring fatwas permitting suicide bombings goes against everything at the heart of Islam. These so-called Muslim scholars must be and are condemned. They are violating the most dearly held principles of Islam." Turki al-Feisal and George Carey
"George Carey?" Ghosts should be more invisible.
The new Saudi ambassador to Washington in this piece in the "Beirut Daily Star" takes his stand against Jihadi claims to speak for Islam, the world’s Muslims, and for his country. He also takes the position that he is not in favor of the idea that the Jihadi War is a "clash of civilizations," in other words a war between the culture and countries of the West and the world of Islam.
Well, good for him. This is certainly a praiseworthy sentiment. Unfortunately, the Jihadis DO think that what is in progress is a "clash of civilizations," and since we are fighting THEM and not the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia the opinion of the Jihadis in this matter is of somewhat greater importance.
Prince Turki, a former prep school boy at a prestigious east coast boarding school, also gives as his opinion (or Carey’s) that he knows exactly what Islam is and that the Jihadi version is just wrong.
Interesting. The problem with that from our point of view is that Prince Turki’s opinion as to what is Islam, is just that, Prince Turki’s opinion.
At the risk of sounding like a man with only one tune to whistle, I will say again that in Islam there are no clergy, only scholars. There is no priesthood, only officials (Muftis, etc.) and there is no hierarchy.(no pope, college of cardinals, bishops, etc.) There is no ecclesiastical "chain of command." This is altogether true in Sunni Islam (where the jihadis and Prince Turki live) but it is also true in Shia Islam where the array of ayatollahs somewhat obscures the view of the real situation.
There a number of "roots" of the Islamic law. I will reserve that for another time, but suffice it to say that in the end, opinion on the exact meaning and application of Islamic law depends on what, in Arabic, is called "Ijma’" or Consensus. This is the Consensus of groups of scholars, the Consensus of "universities" like Al-Azhar in Cairo, the Consensus of groups of Muslims in accepting the view of their group or the most persuasive among them. There is no pope or archbishop of Canterbury to say which Consensus is best among others. There is only opinion among the the adherents of various Consensus positions.
In other words, Islam is what your Consensus group says it is. Islam is what you can make "stick" in terms of how much power and influence your Consensus group has and/or can exert.
So, in Saudi Arabia, PrinceTurki’s Consensus probably has a lot of traction, but less so among the expatriate Muslims of Western Europe which, unfortunately is where the TATP is mixed.
Well put on the shortcomings of non-hierarchical religion. I believe that you overstate the case with Shi’a Islam, which despite the array of Ayatollahs and Mara’jaah, does have a more defined hierarchy and pecking order.
Sunni Islam shares the same problems that befall evangelical christianity and rabbinical judaism — all you need is charm and a book to start your own ministry.
Perhaps Sunnis really do need to bring back the Caliphate…
Is that a Myers-Briggs type?
It is true that 12er Shiism has more structure but I do think that compliance to “dogma” is a sometimes thing dependent on willingness to accept the opinion of a varied “Marjayiah.” pl
Some quickly grabbed links.
A selection of articles on the new ambassador at:
These stories do not strss his roles with Pakistani intelligence, his ties with the Taliban or long term relationship to Bin Ladin, though he also sought to have the Taliban deport Bin Ladin in 1998.
Obviously there are many conspiracy theories around, a number of victims of 9/11 hold him responsible and one alleged reason for his appointment as Britain’s ambassador was protection of law suits. He was removed as head of Saudi intelligence right before 9/11.
Several stories tie him to Prince Abdukllah who Bush is evidently close to, but who is also associated with the religious faction.
Some facts here, but a conspiracy bent.
data on 1998 meeting:
Thw wilder conspiracy theories tie Turki to an alleged block on Afghanistan/Taliban information to cover up an alleged (Enron pipeline) through Afghanistan. Cheney is held responsible in this claim that 9/11 could be prevented.
I suspect Turki is going to attract a lot of fire as both legitimate and rather wild concerns resurface. The appointment does not seem to show much concern for prsident Bush. This guy is likely to be a lightning rod for trouble if things get tough in the middle east.
The Washington Times has already expressed less than enthusiasm and this could spark a lot of the wacky right, the same people who helped Bush by claiming McCain was a N. Viet agent. These people feed on conspiracy as the explanation of all failures and they were not too keen on the president’s father.
“So, in Saudi Arabia, PrinceTurki’s Consensus probably has a lot of traction, but less so among the expatriate Muslims of Western Europe which, unfortunately is where the TATP is mixed.”
What is “TATP?”
It is the “bath tub gin” of explosives, one easy to make by terrorists. pl