Thomas Friedman on the recent fatwa?
Thomas Friedman has written repeatedly that even moderate Muslim leaders haven't stepped up to condemn Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. His July 8 column, "If It's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution" (I'd link, but you know that NYT charges for old articles), minced no words.
The condemnation he's specifically asked for is a fatwa, the formal Muslim edict of an imam's opposition. Fatwas were issued against Salman Rushdie, Friedman points out, but there has been no such charge against the Sept. 11 hijackers or Osama bin Ladin.
(There have been statements by Muslim leaders against terrorism. A pretty thorough list is found here. But no fatwa, Friedman stresses.)
After the London bombings, though, North American Muslim scholars and jurors -- representing 120 Muslim groups -- came together and issued a fatwa against any terrorists, including suicide bombers.
In Friedman's columns since the fatwa, he has discussed comparative liberaliztion in the Middle East and increasing cell phone and wifi access.
Where's the fatwa analysis?
Where's the attaboy?
Some friends have suggested that the fatwa was disingenuous, and perhaps Friedman agrees... but say it!
Perhaps after making enemies on the left and the right, in Ramallah and in Jerusalem, he decided to go back to writing about globalization. ("We need better cell phone reception in NYC!") I know global communication is a big issue, but he's had an ear to the ground in the Middle East for so long that his opinion on related topics holds much weight.
(For the record I'm a huge Friedman fan, but perplexed by his silence on the fatwa.)
The condemnation he's specifically asked for is a fatwa, the formal Muslim edict of an imam's opposition. Fatwas were issued against Salman Rushdie, Friedman points out, but there has been no such charge against the Sept. 11 hijackers or Osama bin Ladin.
(There have been statements by Muslim leaders against terrorism. A pretty thorough list is found here. But no fatwa, Friedman stresses.)
After the London bombings, though, North American Muslim scholars and jurors -- representing 120 Muslim groups -- came together and issued a fatwa against any terrorists, including suicide bombers.
In Friedman's columns since the fatwa, he has discussed comparative liberaliztion in the Middle East and increasing cell phone and wifi access.
Where's the fatwa analysis?
Where's the attaboy?
Some friends have suggested that the fatwa was disingenuous, and perhaps Friedman agrees... but say it!
Perhaps after making enemies on the left and the right, in Ramallah and in Jerusalem, he decided to go back to writing about globalization. ("We need better cell phone reception in NYC!") I know global communication is a big issue, but he's had an ear to the ground in the Middle East for so long that his opinion on related topics holds much weight.
(For the record I'm a huge Friedman fan, but perplexed by his silence on the fatwa.)
posted by bp at
10:36 AM
1 Comments:
I agree. Friedman should at least acknowledge the fatwas (despite any perceived flaws) as at least a step in the right direction. The danger for moderate Muslims (like most moderates of any stripe, I think) is that they're "damned if they do, damned if they don't" by both sides. But certainly moderate Muslims (who are probably the vast majority) have taken stands, and they need to be supported as much as possible.
And I also like Friedman.
By
Miguel Centellas, at 5:48 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home