Slightly along the lines of an older post on why sharia is “bad for society”, here is a fantastic article I came across yesterday. It appeared in the Foreign Policy (FP) magazine in April 2009. Neil MacFarquhar writes about how the concept of fatwa, originally meant to signify any direction from a learned cleric interpreting complex matters of Islamic law in the light of contemporary situations, has been twisted in popular imagination to mean, essentially, “Kill ‘em all.” Much thanks, as MacFarquhar points out, to the Ayatollah’s issue with Mr. Salman Rushdie …
But actually a fatwa, which simply means a legal opinion drawn from religious law, can be devoted to any topic, large or small, and the devout seek them out constantly like grease that smoothes all manner of daily decisions. Throughout the Islamic world, religious scholars issue fatwas on questions ranging from household quandaries to major issues of public policy. Often expressed in one terse sentence, fatwas can address mundane questions like whether a Muslim woman should ride a bicycle (usually not — too publicly physical) or if a man ought to wear soccer shorts (only if they modestly come below his knees even when he sits down).
Do take some time out to read the rest of the piece, it’s brilliantly written, and winds up with an ironical admission of exactly why the term has come to signify the battle between tradition and modernity, between Islam and the West, between Us and Them.
The variations on a common theme seemed endless. One pamphlet declared that having music as your cell phone ring tone was forbidden; another denounced the Western practice of bringing flowers to hospital patients. (No Muslim ever did so in ancient times so it was clearly aping the infidel rather than benefiting the patient and therefore taboo.) Ceremonies modeled on Western practices, like passing out awards to 47 exceptional teachers on something called International Teachers Day, were decried as shameful. I read one tract that fulminated against credit cards, saying it was a sin to use them because it meant paying interest, which Islam bars. Another leaflet, distributed by an organization called The Office to Propagate Spiritual Guidance in Jidda, warned, “If non-Muslims greet you on the occasion of Christmas or the New Year, you should not reply to them,” explaining, “What you think might be courtesy in these matters is actually acquiescence in religion.”
It is precisely the interpretive nature of the fatwa itself that leads to all its problems in today’s world. Allowing such a huge amount of discretion in the hands of (usually) one man smacks of danger prima facie – the fatwa, as far as I see it, leaves practically no room for debate. Individual fatwas are strictly speaking legal opinions (“the law says this, therefore you should or should not do this this this”) – the problem begins when they take on the directive and mandatory character that they do.
I have no idea how Muslim countries manage to function at the public level. Full credits to those that do, given the almost limitless scope for conflict in terms of opinion regarding the Way to Live Life.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Facebook comments:
Powered by Facebook Comments