The Research and Religious Studies Council at the Dar al-Ifta, Libya’s highest religious authority, recently issued a fatwa – or a religious order – that forbids anyone to sign the latest peace agreement in Libya. The fatwa makes clear reference to the United Nations-sponsored draft of a peace agreement which ignored the Libyan Supreme Court’s decision to dissolve the Libyan Parliament.

The Research and Religious Studies Council at the Dar al-Ifta, Libya’s highest religious authority, recently issued a fatwa – or a religious order – that forbids anyone to sign the latest peace agreement in Libya. The fatwa makes clear reference to the United Nations-sponsored draft of a peace agreement which ignored the Libyan Supreme Court’s decision to dissolve the Libyan Parliament.

The religious council’s statement said the submission of a Muslim country to a foreign one is forbidden and that compliance with international conventions and agreements must depend on those conventions’ adherence to Islamic law, or Sharia.

Before issuing this statement, leading Libyan cleric, Sheikh Sadeq al-Ghariani, who heads the Dar al-Ifta, also criticized a statement released by a group of militias in Misrata in mid-May. The militias said that they planned to begin to reconcile with their enemies. However al-Ghariani says the militias were ordered to fight by the Libyan army and that they should not stop fighting without getting permission from the Libyan army first – if they did, this contravened Sharia rules that said soldiers must obey their ruler. “A soldier cannot stop the bloodshed without referring to religious doctrine,” the statement said.

Despite al-Ghariani’s inflammatory statements, the Misrata council has stressed that dialogue is the only way forward.

Attempts at peace welcome

Meanwhile another group of religious scholars, the League of Libyan Ulema, that is not affiliated with the Dar al-Ifta, put out a statement saying they welcomed any attempts at peace and reconciliation. In a more roundabout way they condemned “blood fatwas” issued by other religious officials. Forcing people to comply with despotic, individual and partial fatwas is a form of political despotism itself, they stated.

Hamza Treki, a member of the Libyan Society for Human Rights in Misrata, argues that it is very clear what locals should do: That is, they should reject al-Ghariani’s fatwa and support the position taken by the League of Libyan Ulema.

We are against any position that leads to more fighting, says Mahmoud Fhelboom, spokesperson for the Movement to Stop Bloodshed. Any position that doesn’t help to stop fighting should be condemned, Fhelboom says.

Peace doesn’t need fatwas, says Libyan MP Khalid Osta. Those who don’t want this war to stop lack trust and only serve their own interests, Osta argues.

Channels of communication now open

The statements encouraging peace are also supported by Sheikh Ayoub Share of the Libyan Senate. Share says he has been in constant contact with military leaders for the past six months, trying to stop the fighting. As soon as the militias in Misrata issued their statement professing peaceful intentions, communication channels were opened. Afterwards they held a meeting to stress their unlimited support for the Misrata brigades’ statement.

Meanwhile the GNC’s presidency issued a statement in which it denied responsibility for “any municipalities, brigades, parties or individuals, who make agreements or truces without any regard for the state’s sovereignty and prestige,” adding that those bodies are responsible for the results of any such agreements – and this includes “bringing criminals to justice and opening the door to foreign intervention”.

Abdulrahman Suwaihli, a member of the GNC which rejected the UN draft, said the main reason for the failure of all of the reconciliation initiatives in Libya so far, is that the majority of those responsible for them lack goodwill; instead they use them as a cover to support personal interests and settle political scores. Most of these initiatives, he added, are based on equality between evil and good and they mostly come at the behest of the victims which goes against the Sharia, logic and law.

Treki also notes that inciting people to go to war is a crime and a breach of the principles of Islam, which call for peace if the enemy is willing. Those who take the first step are more rewarded by God.

Treki also speculated about the UK’s intention to ban al-Ghariani from that country.

All part of political ploy and self-interest

“These things are part of a clever political game,” Treki explains. “However Britain should certainly freeze his accounts and ban the activities of his society and all the institutions linked to it. They should also expand the ban to include other groups, operating under his umbrella. They are equal to him and their work goes beyond simple incitement to planning and financing.”

Treki also believes that the kinds of statements that al-Ghariani and others make are linked to the fact that if there was an election tomorrow, they wouldn’t actually have the support of the Libyan people. The statements they make arise because they are confronted with so-called secular competition, Treki suggests.

Share concurs. “Discourse filled with hatred and violence suits religious and political factions who want to gain influence,” he notes.