Voice of America’s Judith Latham has found a bit of news that seems rather significant but has received little attention from other more mainstream news outlets.

Muslim scholars in the United States and Canada released a judicial ruling — or fatwa — last week saying that Islam condemns terrorism, religious extremism, and violence against civilians. A response to last month’s bombings in London and Egypt, the fatwa also reflects the gravity of the struggle within Islam between moderates and extremists.

Speaking with host Judith Latham of VOA News Now’s International Press Club, Egyptian journalist Mona Eltahawy, a columnist for the London-based pan-Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat, said she sees the war on terrorism since 9/11 as a small part of a much larger religious and intellectual struggle within Islam. She described that struggle as being waged between people like herself, who believe in a “more moderate, progressive way” of following a religion they hold dearly, and others who claim their interpretation of Islam is the “only true one.” And furthermore, she said, they don’t believe in pluralism and “hate anyone who is against the ideology they follow.”

Yes, VOA is a government news organization, but that does not mean the bit of news Latham has uncovered is any less significant. The interview with Eltahawy gives us a glimpse of the ideological struggle within Islam. From what I know, some argue that Islam never went through a reformation and others say Islam lacks a central authority figure akin to the Pope. Whatever it is, Islam is going to struggle with the issue of radical terrorism for some years to come.

Update: The Associated Press is carrying a story that says critics within the Muslim community in the United States are saying the “fatwa” condemning terrorism is too broad.

The fatwa condemning religious extremism recently issued by American Muslim groups was so broad it was meaningless, and should have denounced specific terrorist groups including al Qaeda, critics within the U.S. Muslim community say.

Critics also say the declaration seemed geared more toward improving the faith’s image rather than starting an honest discussion about Islamic teaching.

“The bulk of the Islamic tradition as it exists does stand against these lunatic, savage attacks on civilians,” said Omid Safi, a Colgate University religion professor and chairman of the Progressive Muslim Union, an American reform group.

Imagine that, a divide among Muslims over the issue of extremism.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. writes in an op-ed that the Saudi government uses American mosques to promote jihad. In the article I linked to in yesterday’s post on construction of Muslim mosques, the writer mentions deep into the story that the funds for one particular mosque were raised from the local community. But the story explains little about this other than delving into the particular difficulty Muslims have in constructing religious buildings due to the ban on borrowing money in Islam.

Now either the mosque being constructed in the Post piece is fairly unusual, the reporter is being deceived and has not been very thorough or the study isn’t as “superb” as Gaffney states:

A superb study released in January by Freedom House documented that the Saudi government is also using American mosques — by some estimates 80% of which have their mortgages held by Saudi Arabian financial institutions — to promote jihad. Materials officially produced and disseminated to such mosques by the kingdom are filled with calls to hate Christians and Jews. Those who fail to conform are threatened with violent punishment as apostates. Saudi-trained and -selected clerics serve as enforcers in our mosques and in our prisons and military as recruiters for a rabidly anti-American Wahhabi creed.

The point of Gaffney’s column is that the Saudis are not with the United States in fighting terrorism. But that raises the question of why and he does not answer it very well. What would be the motivation of the Saudi leadership to undermine our efforts to neutralize the more radical elements of Islam? In their public statements, they make efforts to show their support, but actions speak louder than words.

Unfortunately, under the leadership of King Fahd (actual or nominal), Saudi Arabia demonstrated that it was possible to be with us and with the terrorists.

Gaffney says that the Saudi leadership believes that promoting attacks outside their country will keep attacks from happening within their country. But that doesn’t answer the economic questions involved in a terrorist attack and its effect on the Saudis ability to sell their oil abroad.

The article also does not examine the lack of common sense in a theory that has the Saudi government directly funding terrorism. If this were true, wouldn’t the American government do something about it? We certainly did not hesitate in invading two large countries, spending billions of dollars in the process. Certainly the terrorist element in Saudi Arabia is alive and well, but that is different from official government endorsement. What gives?