Jalal Talabani Quotes

Theological & Legal Expert. The Sunnah, like the Koran, has statements of the Prophet, Mohammad. A fatwa is a religious legal ruling. This particular Fatwa shows the great difference between the Islamic State and a Republic or Democracy. In the latter forms, any religious practices must be consistent with the Constitution. Even though blasphemy might be prohibited by a religion, the United States Constitution for example protects anyone’s right to be blasphemous. In the Islamic system any constitution or law is subservient to and must be consistent with, the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. In that sense, unless the Muslim populated nation is secular like Turkey, then the governments are partial or total theocracies.

This is a very important point as most Muslims believe that the actual wording of the Sharia—Islamic Law—comes from the Prophet directly and are not the words of various legal scholars which is just what they are. Needless to say, there are many differences and even contradictions depending on time and the particular scholar. Islam however has no authority that religiously is higher than any other. In that respect, it is like Judaism. There is not a recognized religious hierarchy as there is in Christian churches.

The doctor argues that the problem of public health in the Islamic world is in large part due to the fact that health care is not organized any more under the control and governance of an Islamic institution—one which is guided by the Koran and Islamic tradition. Other physicians and public health experts believe one central obstacle to public health in Muslim nations is the strong influence that the Mullahs have over the behavior of the population and the medical and health practices that are acceptable and desirable to them are those of the Arabian Desert of the 7th Century or in some more modern interpretations, the medicine of the Islamic world of the 12th century when Islamic Medicine was the best in the World.

Said was commenting on the furor that developed in 1989 when Iran Ayatollah Khomeini issued a Muslim legal opinion—a fatwa--calling for the death of, and offered a bounty on, Salman Rushdie whose book, Satanic Verses, contained material to which they objected as blasphemy:

A fatwa is a religious legal ruling.

In September of 2005 a Danish Newspaper published some political cartoons showing the hypocrisy of some Muslims who use Islam to justify murder of innocents and terrorism. Months later, in January of 2006 many in the Middle East protested vehemently and Muslim riots broke out because the Prophet Muhammad's visage was depicted against Islamic tradition. Many Muslim nations started a boycott against Denmark. Many Muslim leaders claimed that insulting religion was an “abuse” of freedom of speech including those from nations which regularly publish material that is virulent against Christians and Jews. The Sheikh along with many other Muslims called for the death penalty for the cartoonist who was exercising his Danish right of freedom of expression.

Ironically, without the word “wicked” most people would regard the first sentence as a good description of elements of a modern democracy. It illustrates that for the Islamic fundamentalist democracy substitutes the rule of man for the rule of God, freedom of speech allows heresy and blasphemy to to uttered and communicated, and religion which is supposed to inform and direct politics. So what is good for the lover of democracy is the very thing that is bad for Islam. This is not a uniquely Islamic viewpoint. It has been and is held by fundamentalist Christians and Jews as well who would return to Biblical law punishing blasphemy and heresy with death and have religion drive all politics.

It passed with 70 percent of the vote. It was triggered by a case in New Jersey where a Muslim man assaulted and raped his wife, and the Judge found that he did not have the “Criminal Intent” because he was brought up under Sharia law which allows a husband for beat a wife and force her to have sexual relations if she refused. The New Jersey appellate court overturned the judge’s decisions, but the Oklahoma advocates for the Question argued that this initiative would be sure that no judge in Oklahoma would make a similar judicial decision.

Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, 1943-2010, was an modernistic Egyptian Islamic Scholar and a Professor at the University of Cairo. One of his writings argued that the discriminatory tax that the Koran specified for Christians and Jews in an Islamic nation was not fair or consonant with modern thought regarding freedom of religion and the rights of minorities. Some fundamentalist were outraged and charged him with Apostacy for criticizing a Koranic prescription. He was convicted and lost his professorship. That was the least of his problems. Since he was an apostate, he was not a Muslim the Egyptian Courts ruled, and therefore his wife, a Muslim, could not legally remain married to her. His marriage was legally dissolved and he was threatened with death by fundamentalists forcing him and his wife to go into exile in Holland where he taught at the Utrecht University. He never returned.

Ahmad denied saying this although the reporter who wrote the original story insists that he did and she wrote it down at the time. Ahmad did not deny the statement when it first appeared in the Fremont Argus, but only did so several years later.

Abdul Rahman, Afghan citizen, had converted from Islam to Christianity 16 years before. Conversion from Islam is a capital crime under Sharia Law which was the law of Afghanistan even after the Taliban had been overthrown. He was jailed and threatened with death. Statements like this and others made directly to the government persuaded the Afghan politicians to go against their mullahs who demanded the death penalty as is proscribed by Islamic Law—Sharia. The judges tried to get Rahman to recant and he would not (see {589518}). So they finally decided that he must be mentally insane and therefore could not be tried, and the problem was solved that way.

It is precisely for these reasons that large numbers of Muslims consider Ghannouchi and other reformers to be threats to Islam and in need of suppression in order to protect their religion.