Posted on 08/05/2006 6:58:24 AM PDT by AZRepublican
A top Saudi Sunni cleric, whose ideas inspired Osama bin Laden, issued a religious edict Saturday disavowing the Shi'ite guerrilla group Hizbullah, evidence that a rift remained among Muslims over the fighting in Lebanon.
Hizbullah, which translates as "the party of God," is actually "the party of the devil," said Sheik Safar al-Hawali, whose radical views made the al-Qaida leader one of his followers in the past.
"Don't pray for Hizbullah," he said in the fatwa posted on his Web site.
The edict, which reflects the historical stand of strict Wahhabi doctrine viewing Shi'ite Muslims as heretics, follows a similar fatwa from another popular Saudi cleric Sheik Abdullah bin Jibreen two weeks into the conflict with Israel.
"It is not acceptable to support this rejectionist party (Hizbullah), and one should not fall under its command, or pray for its victory," bin Jibreen said at the time. That fatwa set off a maelstrom across the Arab world, with other leaders and people at the grass roots level imploring Muslims to put aside differences to support the fight against Israel.
There have been daily demonstrations in support of Hizbullah around the region, including in predominantly Sunni and generally pro-western countries like Jordan.
Even the Saudi government, which initially condemned Hizbullah for sparking the fighting by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers in "uncalculated adventures," backed down and said it warned the United States the region would be headed toward war unless Washington halted the Israeli attacks.
Last week, al-Qaida deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri issued a videotape that urged all Muslims everywhere to rise up in holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza.
Mohammed Habib, deputy leader of Egypt's largest Islamic Sunni group, the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, immediately rejected al-Hawali's new religious edict, saying Hizbullah is defending "the whole Islamic nation."
Al-Hawali is receiving medical treatment in Jeddah and could not be reached for comment.
In remarks published Saturday, Kuwait's prime minister, Sheik Nasser al-Mohammed al-Sabah, also warned that if the conflict does not end soon, it could give rise to new radicals.
"I believe that if this Israeli war on Lebanon goes on, it could contribute to creating new terrorists, and that of course would pose a new danger in the area," he told Egyptian magazine el-Mussawar.
Yeah right! "If Israel doesn't stop" mentality. That's rich! The islamics create the world's problems and then yell "foul" when someone has to clean their a**es because they refuse to do so. Then these crazy islamics blame everyone but themselves. GGGGGrrrrr!!!!
In general, is religion helpful or is it the cause of a great deal of poverty, hatred and warfare in history?
Depends.
both
It seems to me that religion is short on "helpful" and long on ignorance, poverty, disease and war itself.
I have been sending them messages. Too bad I can't send a computer virus or something.
mediarelations123@yahoo.com
Hez-Ebola Media Relations Dept
The Saudi leaders term for the Jordanian royal family was 'hashemite scum' if I recall properly. Honor, honesty etc is 'among their own,' not applicable to infidels. It is simple to imagine the 1000's of Saudi royalty sitting around in private and laughing at "The West' every day as they wake up and struggle to find ways to spend our money they have, by accident of geography, 'inherited.'
People are the cause of a great deal of poverty, hatred and warfare in history.
The religious United States of America, or the atheistic Soviet Union?
Rubbish. The United States was founded by profoundly religious people. And the most murderous dictatorships in the 20th century (i.e. communism) were all based on official atheism.
BTTT
related:
Saudis Blame Hizbullah for Lebanon Crisis (SHOCKER!!)
Jerusalem Post | 7/13/06
Posted on 07/13/2006 7:44:17 PM EDT by areafiftyone
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1665314/posts
Text: Official Saudi Statement criticizing Hezbollah
IMRA.org | 7-13-2006
Posted on 07/13/2006 10:02:01 PM EDT by Hadean
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1665398/posts
Arab states take dim view of 'adventurism' by Hizbullah
Beirut Daily Star | July 15, 2008
Posted on 07/14/2006 7:27:04 PM EDT by Shermy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1665991/posts
Saudi blames Hizbollah, Hamas for Israel attacks
reuters | 6/17/06 | reuters
Posted on 07/17/2006 3:26:07 PM EDT by freedom44
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1667335/posts
'Lebanon crisis an international conspiracy'
[Not just the Jews anymore, US and Sunnis involved]
Aljazeera | 7-17-06 | Firas Al-Atraqchi
Posted on 07/18/2006 11:30:45 AM EDT by SJackson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1667846/posts
Saudi Arabia: Lebanon Should Extend Authority Over Country
Ynet | 7/18/06
Posted on 07/18/2006 1:41:10 PM EDT by areafiftyone
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1667927/posts
Leading Saudi Sheik Pronounces Fatwa Against Hezbollah
New York Sun
Posted on 07/20/2006 8:07:20 AM EDT by Sub-Driver
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1669059/posts
Leading Saudi Sheik Pronounces Fatwa Against Hezbollah
The New York Sun | July 20, 2006 | Eli Lake, Staff Reporter
Posted on 07/20/2006 11:33:49 AM EDT by tessalu
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1669210/posts
Hezbollah Finds Opposition From a Surprising Corner of the World
Fox News | July 20, 2006 | Brit Hume
Posted on 07/20/2006 11:58:16 PM EDT by Ooh-Ah
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1669631/posts
Arab leaders fear rise of Hezbollah
BBC | 28 July 2006 | Roger Hardy
Posted on 07/29/2006 1:50:00 PM EDT by ncountylee
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1674291/posts
position transition:
Saudi king holds talks with Iran's top security official
Yahoo News | 7/15/2006 12:14 PM ET | AFP Yahoo News
Posted on 07/15/2006 6:25:23 PM EDT by Woodstock
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1666382/posts
Strategic geopolitical confusion [Tony Blankley]
The Washington Times | July 19, 2006 | Tony Blankley
Posted on 07/19/2006 3:43:26 AM EDT by La Enchiladita
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1668315/posts
Saudis threaten war with Isreal
Saudi Press Agency | 07/25/2006 | Saudi Government
Posted on 07/28/2006 6:32:53 PM EDT by Rednail
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1673983/posts
European front in the war:
While Lebanon Boils, Watch Bosnia
http://www.douglasfarah.com/
Posted on 07/19/2006 4:16:40 PM EDT by kronos77
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1668684/posts
regarding iraq, an oldie:
The Good Ayatollah
Front Page Magazine | 7/12/04 | Stephen Schwartz
Posted on 08/01/2005 10:28:21 AM EDT by Valin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1454716/posts
an oldie, regarding Saudi Arabia's phony war / civil war:
CONFUSION REIGNS IN THE KINGDOM
July 2, 2004 | Robert Stevens
Posted on 07/02/2004 3:45:17 AM EDT by ganeshpuri89
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1164174/posts
Hey Saudi, you all provoked the war with your islamic attacks and world imperialism adventures.
Read Thomas Woods, How the Catholic church built western Civilization. It is a solid treatment of the subject you bring up by a qualified historian.
See also, The Theme is Freedom: Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition by M. Stanton Evans. Highly recommended.
The problem isn't religion per se; it's expansionist dogma. An atheist dogma in the case of the Communists, a religious one in the case of the Islamofacists and, in the distant past, of some Christians.
So let me ask this. Our profoundly religious forefathers, were they Christian, or were they Deist? Or, does it make any difference? And, if there is any great difference, what difference would it make?
The problem is not religion, per se, It is oppression or totalitarianism which can be wielded by any power. In the Middle East Islam supports tyranny of a rich court over all the poor shlubs.
That's cool, but what I'm asking is--and I do not know the answer--was our founding fathers not mostly Deist? And how does that differ from what we all assume Christianity to be today? And if there is any great difference, are we attempting to define things differently than what they had in mind?
"So let me ask this. Our profoundly religious forefathers, were they Christian, or were they Deist? Or, does it make any difference? And, if there is any great difference, what difference would it make?"
There was no unanimity of opinion on religion among the Founding Fathers. Some were Deists, some were theists, some were agnostics. Some were Catholics, most were Protestants, some made no comments on religion at all.
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
-Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
No, they were *not* mostly "Deist" (whatever that is supposed to mean). The only one who could have been said to have had "Deist" tendencies was Jefferson. The majority of the others were members in good standing of various churches, of various denominations...
I get so tired of hearing this "the founding fathers were Deist" propaganda that I could just projectile vomit...
the infowarrior
I hope Israel can wrap up this war before this Saudi cleric goes back on his meds.
I hate to see you hunched over your bucket all weekend, but there are a lot of articles that I have uncovered since I orginally asked that question that do not agree with you. Here's hoping you get to feeling better.
You wrote: If the Muslims quit fighting, the fighting would end. If the Israelis quit fighting, Israel would end.
Exactly right!
They came out of an overwhelmingly Christian (Protestant) background, and certainly Protestantism was the most common worldview of the day.
It is safe to say that there would be no USA as we understand it without that essentially Protestant sensibility and historical background.
Say what you want about some of the founders being "Deists," but most were not, and virtually none of them were atheists.
Does it make a difference? I don't know. Not being a Christian, I do not personally believe in the Resurrection. But I thank God that this country was founded by people who mostly did.
I think they may have been deist in an intellectual way, but they lived in a society that was Christian and they honored that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.