Bin Laden should be tried by Muslim judges, says Qaradawi

[ECH1969]

Noted Islamic scholar, Dr Yusuf Al Qaradawi has said the Al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Abu Musad Al Zarqawi, now based in Iraq, should be tried by Muslim judges if they are caught.

A local Arabic daily quoted Dr Al Qaradawi as telling a German magazine in an interview that most Muslims have sympathy for terrorists because of the atrocities being committed against the Palestinians.

Islam, he reiterated, did not preach terrorism at all. He clarified that a Muslim suicide bomber attacking a bus full of innocent civilians was to be differentiated from the one who was carrying out a suicide mission to resist foreign invasion.

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=Local_News&subsection=Qatar+News&month=September2005&file=Local_News2005092724742.xml

[ExclamationPoint]

1. In the sense that Islam is a peace religion at it's core

that makes sense. But I think that the religion of the judges doesn't matter as much as personal view, which we all know can differ from the dogma.

[Burning Water]

2. Absolutely not!

His crime was not against Muslims, but the American people, and they must judge him!! As was said, most(?) Muslims have sympathy for him.

[PsychoDad]

4. There were Muslim americans in the towers on 911

Who died in the attack alongside Jewish Americans, Christian Americans and Atheist Americans, among other Americans on that horrid day.

As for Muslims having sympathy for OBL, I have found few Muslims who sympathize with him, all I have met strongly denounce his actions as against the teachings of Islam. Who most Muslims have sympathy for are the victims of neo-con american aggression, both American and around the world.

I like most muslims would agree about the stink coming from OBL, but many of us wonder if he is "the head of the fish", and if he is still being paid by his old employers, the CIA.

[Burning Water]

5. There were Muslims

in the twin towers, but so what? What does that mean? Nothing!! They were not killed because they were Muslims, but because they got caught in an attack upon America and the American people.

I suppose Muslim Americans might well be on the jury, but to let a Muslim court try him is insane.

I won't address the rest of your comments as they are not relevant to the issue. Besides, I might agree with you on some of them.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

24. "Headchopping" ????

Is that a "moderate" concept?

[knitter4democracy]

25. Thank you for a thoughtful post.

I'm sorry trolls seem to be out today.

I've said all along it would make the most sense to use the international Islamic court instead of our own, making it clear that Bin Laden is attacking everyone, not just the U.S. and our people. He is against so many that he needs an international trial.

[PsychoDad]

3. OBL sentanced to death by a Sharia court

for his crimes, if proved (after all that's the point of a trial), would send a strong message to those who would do such atrocity in the name of Islam.

Particularly by a non-western Islamic court.

I guess it will all depend on who catches him and the extradition process in the end.

[TygrBright]

6. Exactly, PsychoDad!

A strong message indeed... and one that many Muslims I know are just aching to get delivered.

Even Muslims who detest American policy in the Middle East and despise our consumption-driven, out-of-control capitalist hedonism do not automatically approve of or even condone OBL and his band of Wahabbi nutjobs. Many have little use for the US but even less appreciation for this one of "their own" who is attempting to hijack their faith back to the middle ages.

appreciatively,
Bright

[Burning Water]

7. Well, he's in Pakistan.

Why don't the Pakistanis try and execute him, or turn him over to the Yanks?

[dionysus]

9. here's one for ya

if WE know he's in pakistan, our govt knows exactly *where* he is in pakistan, why don't we demand they hand his ass over or go get him oursleves.. hmmM?

[Burning Water]

11. I don't have the answer to that.

Possibly the State Department at work. Possibly the BFEE. Still, do we want to invade another sovereign country? Because that's what you are suggesting, hmmm?

[PsychoDad]

10. That's a very good question.

A very good question indeed considering what good friends they are of the administration. Another one would be, why don't we simply use force to get him ourselves?

It's not like "we" would be squeamish about a few hundred american deaths or a few thousand Pakistanis. If anything, Iraq should demonstrate that. Nor has this bunch ever shown a preference for diplomacy over slaughter.

A very good question indeed.

[Burning Water]

12. Unfortunately you are

getting off topic. The question is: should Osama be tried by a Muslim court? I think that a Muslim Pakistani court can get him easily if they want to. They don't. If he was tried by one, I think he would be found innocent by reason that the victims were infidels. Nope, America must try him, if we can get him. Perhaps the UN can help us. Certainly B*h has not been very successful, although I think it is bullshit he isn't trying. Think of what a successful capture of Osama would do to his poll numbers. And he needs the help.

[The Magistrate]

19. That Question, Sir

Is at bottom not much different from the question of whether U.S. citizens should be subject to trial by the World Court, which the current regime has answered, much to the discredit of the country, in the negative. The pretension at the heart of the protestation of these differing claims is the same: both feel they, as well as the potential defendant, are members of a superior order that lesser elements cannot rightfully exert authority over. Neither has any right to expect anyone outside their grouping to take this claim seriously, or more precisely, perhaps, neither has any more right to this than its capabilities to impose its will by violence or prestige or some combinatuion thereof can gain for it. The U.S. has the capacity to enforce this; this imam has probably not got that capacity. But neither has the right to expect acquiesence: Bin Laden will be tried by whomever catches hold of him at last, and it is right that that be so.

[PsychoDad]

22. Perhaps, Sir,

Usamma should, if caught, be brought before the world court for trial, as the various crimes, and operations he is accused of were not confined to only one state or people.

Perhaps that would be the only possibility of anything even approaching a fair and impartial trial.

Peace

[The Magistrate]

23. That Would Be Acceptable To Me, Sir

Though as a practical matter, it is not going to occur, unless some power other than the U.S. lays hands on him first. And it is not wrong for a power that seizes him to try him for crimes against its citizens. The partiality of such a trial is one of the hazards people who venture to levy war in criminal wise against a state must accept when embarking on the venture.

[Burning Water]

28. Now this would

be acceptable to me, also. Except for the fact that he would not get the death penalty that he deserves. However, America would still have the right to try him if they ever got him.

[Burning Water]

27. I respectfully disagree

with your analysis. The situations are not at all the same. Osama planned a crime which took place on American soil against the American people. The USA has the legal authority to pursue and punish this evil man.

On the other hand, the World Court needs for the US to consent to its authority before it has any over Americans, and they have conducted legal negotiations with other countries to grant exemptions for Americans. The wisdom of that is up for debate, of course, and I am not saying the US should not join the World Court. Just that the fact that it has refused to do so does not necessarily imply the racist reasons you seem to see.

Still, I don't care if Osama ever comes to trial. Dead is good enough for me.

[The Magistrate]

30. With All Due Respect, Sir

You seem to have missed the point. Both this cleric, and the current regime in the U.S., are in fact stating the same thing, namely, that members of their body, in the one case the Moslem congregation and in the other this country, are above judgement by members of any other body. Both these pretensions, it seems to me, are simply arrogance, and have no other foundation but a sense of superiority to others.

We would seem to be in agreement both that the U.S. has legal authority to act against Bin Laden, and that the legalities are not of much importance: such actio would be taken whether there was a legal justification or no, because it lies within the power of the nation to do the thing, and its citizenry would likely settle for nothing less.

[Burning Water]

31. I think

that went right over my head.

But I do not believe that refusing to recognize the authority of the world court implies any kind of superiority of one people over another. Perhaps it implies that one system is preferred over another. Rather a reluctance to submit American personnel to the authority of international law where American guarantees of due process are not observed. And where the crimes being tried have not yet been unambiguously defined.

In short, whether it is right or wrong about this, and I admit I am undecided on this myself, this administration, and let's face it, this Congress, feel that such trials would be political.

I might be wrong about it, but this is my interpretation of the administration thinking on the issue.

[PsychoDad]

20. Should he be tried in a Muslim country

Sure, if he is guilty of a crime in that country. Otherwise extradition procedures should go forward as with any criminal wanted by another country.

The reality of it tho is I doubt Usamma will ever see any court, here or anywhere else, and no, I don't think bush is trying to catch him, considering that bush himself made the statement that UBL doesn't matter anymore. Why would he, bush already had what he wanted, Iraq.

As for UBL, the CIA met with him in July at a US Navy hospital in Dubai UAE before Sept 11. The US had knowledge of his whereabouts at Tora Bora, from which he escaped, http://meaindia.nic.in/bestoftheweb/2002/04/17bow01.htm and http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5583
and what was up in Kunduz with the Pakistani Al-Quida we airlifted out before we took the city. http://www.msnbc.com/news/664935.asp?0si=-Prior%20knowledge&cp1=1

And of course there are the ties between the bush and bin Ladan families and their mutual friends, the house of saud.

I think it much more likely Usamma will be found dead or simply remain elusive, much like a phantom who can be brought back out to terrorize the proles when needed. So far, that seems to have been the full extent of the bush administration's interest in him.

But your earlier question does remain a good one. Why exactly don't we have him yet?

Peace

[Burning Water]

29. Yes, why don't we have him??

That's a good question, and, I think points more towards the incompetence of the * administration in this regard than a desire to se himi stay free for any reason. Think of the poll numbers

[knitter4democracy]

26. There's an international court of Islam.

I remember hearing about it on NPR a couple of years ago. That would be the appropriate venue.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. What message would an acquittal send?

[PsychoDad]

21. In a fair trial....

Anything is possible. Although I think the chances of Usamma having a fair trial to be slim to none.

Even so, no matter the decision, people will see it the way they want, and use it as evidence for whatever they want. :(

Peace.

[ECH1969]

13. Here is another question

What will the US do if it ever catchs either of them?

Show trial? Military tribuneral? Or, would they end up like Khalid Sheikh Mohamed and disappear of the face of the Earth.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

14. I agree...

This will make it clear that we are not engaged in a holy war...to Muslims and "Christians" alike.

It may also serve to educate some who are inclined toward bigotry against Muslims, though my faith in those who choose ignorance over tolerance is limited.

[pinniped]

15. Chimpy Jr. needs to be tried in Iraq.

BS, no one has ever seen them there. It was al-Zarqawi's body-double that escaped the shot-up taxi cab with his notebook puter earlier this year.

--Al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Abu Musad Al Zarqawi, now based in Iraq--

[rfkrfk]

16. just go ahead, they don't need shrub's permission

the more trials, the better.

try him now, or when caught, don't matter to me

[cascadiance]

17. Given the choice I'm sure Iraqis would like to try Bush for war crimes!

... instead of us! And I would oblige handing him over to them in letting them do it too!

But the bottom line is that if we catch Bin Laden, he should be facing trial in the U.S. for crimes committed against the U.S.!