The roots of Modern Terrorism:

I was both shocked and unsurprised by a recent Fatwa (religious decree) authored by one of the most prestigious Muslim scholars in England, Sheikh Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri. Ul-Qadri claims that

“Today’s tragedy is that terrorists, murderers, mischief-mongers and rioters try to prove their criminal, rebellious, tyrannous, brutal and blasphemous activities as a right and a justified reaction to foreign aggression under the garb of defense of Islam and national interests,” (jposthttp://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=169984) This blanket statement shocked.

He continues by stating that "It can in no way be permissible to keep foreign delegates under unlawful custody and murder them and other peaceful non-Muslim citizens in retaliation for interference, unjust activities and aggressive advances of their countries,”(jposthttp://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=169984)This qualification is what engendered my lack of surprise.

What makes this Fatwa just another piece of paper, is that it confirms the usual semantic contortions of past Fatwas. For example, the refrain that Jihad can not be waged against peaceful non-Muslims is just another way of saying "innocent civilians". A term used and abused by myriads of past Fatwas.

Putting aside the fact that, for most of the civilized world-the statement that "one can not murder innocent people"- is superfluous, the phrase peaceful/innocent is ambiguous at best. After all who is a "civilian/peaceful" human?

Perhaps reserve soldiers who are not serving are not innocent? Maybe every American tax-payer is not peaceful because they pay for the military? One could say that children of tax payers, because they strengthen the family and therefore a society which supports a war, are not civilians?!

Thus this Fatwa is unsurprising, and will likely have little affect on curbing terror. Both because of its ambiguity and because militant Muslims couldn't care less about some Imams ambiguous statement.

The real question is why the ambiguity? At best, the Imam is simply reflecting the ambiguity of the Koran. At worst the Imam is intentionally leaving a loop-hole for acts of terror! BUT WHY?

Indeed if the Imam did make a blanket statement it would have to include Israeli civilians. I wonder whether the Imam realizes this and would rather just be ambiguous for the sake of justifying terror against Israel?! It is a scary notion, but it must be explored.

Until the Imam's of today recognize that Israeli civilians are just as innocent as British, Arab, and American civilians, I would argue that, EVERYONE WILL SUFFER THE SCOURGE OF ISLAMIC TERROR. MOST OF ALL MUSLIMS WHO ARE THE MAIN VICTIMS OF ISLAMIC TERROR. After all the Imam may intend to provide the loophole to only target Israelis but it will be exploited to target all.

The roots of modern terrorism, specifically the type that intentionally targets and kills civilians, started in Israel and will continue to affect ALL civilians. Until IMAMS acknowledge what they know and issue a FATWA against all terrorism. They must proclaim a BLANKET FATWA:

For those that scream "oh but the only weapon Muslims have is terror" know this!

Colonial era American-patriots and British-mandate era Jewish-fighters attacked British forces ONLY (that parallel is often overlooked)BUT NEVER DID THEY INTENTIONALLY TARGET CIVILIANS, DESPITE THE OVERPOWERING FORCE OF THE BRITISH THEY WERE VICTORIOUS.

To defeat modern terror those partly responsible for it, namely the Imams and their undefined fatwas, must recognize the price of not challenging terror targeting Israel.