And not just wrong, but really wrong. In fact, horribly wrong. In case you didn't know, a Fatwa (فتوة) is a ruling of jurisprudence, based on the Koran and Hadith, about a particular issue. They can be very general or very specific. Some deal with issues concerning religious rites and how to perform them. Details in such fatwas can be very precise, such as the sequence of movements in prayer. There are other fatwas that deal with issues in our daily lives, such as charity, conduct and even inter-personal communication and relationships. The Fatwa, along with Friday prayer speeches and television programming, has been one of the most important vessels of communication among Muslim brothers/sisters so they may live their daily lives in accordance with Islam's teachings as much as possible.
Fatwas aren't simple communiqués written out by muftis, sheikhs and other Islamic scholars and sent out to the public. Writing out a Fatwa requires credentials: you have to know how to apply the Koran and Hadith and other measures of jurisprudence (literature, balance, even commonsense) to issues of daily life. One must also keep in mind the context of Koranic verses and individual Hadiths in order to understand if it applies to the issue being studied or not, or if it really does have an association. One can't apply a specific Hadith to an even more general Fatwa, as the issue and the measure of jurisprudence should be mutually proportionate. Also, fatwas are debated and critiqued tens of times before they can be issued. The more a fatwa is debated and critiqued, the more controversial it could be, and the better the success of the error-checking efforts. In that way, they are as practical and also tying to good principles.
However, in the modern day, where pseudo-scholarly work is prominent and people just love to pursue immoral and selfish agendas, a few scholars have contravened the fatwa-making process in order to publish their fatwas. Only someone with a malicious intent would do something like this, as a scholar who writes up a good fatwa won't bother to have it critiqued because at least it is an honest, scholarly and, most of all, Islamic endeavor to publish such responsa literature (Fatwas). Also, others issue fatwas in non-conventional ways, as such ways are accessible by people in power. Still, other fatwas are issued by a group of non-credible sheiks who have set up a counter-culture of Islamic jurisprudence so they may justify agendas, extremist or un-Islamic as they may come. Fatwas can moreover be issued to perverse Islam, or to "make right what's wrong and make wrong what's right" (يحلّل الحرام ويحّرم الحلال), all for the sake of allowing things that are either doubtful or skeptical (mutashabihaat; متشابهات) or just simply wrong (haram; حرام). I'd like to call such fatwas Bogus Fatwas for obvious reasons: they are un-scholarly and intellectually dishonest attempts at producing documents dealing with specific issues of jurisprudence.
Fatwas are most commonly misunderstood as verdicts of execution against people who have defiled Islam or against "infidels" and the like; this is the case that is most commonly used by Muslim extremists. I find it shocking, but not surprising, that, like Jihad, the word Fatwa has taken a perverse meaning in the West, most particularly in rightwing media and P.R. (1) We can thank the extremists and perverse leaders, as well as hyped-up anti-Islamic media outlets, for doing this. The most famous Fatwa of this type was that issued on the head of Anglo-Indian author, Salman Rushdie (2). Granted, the book was blasphemous, and that was probably enough, but to order the killing of Salman Rushdie over a boycott of his books which would have been a better alternative? That is just pushing it to the limit. I mean, yes, the guy is a warmongering, anti-Islamic blaspheming runt, but that doesn't justify us, the Muslim community, to kill him. That sets a bad example for Muslims and goes against Islam's teachings. Moreover, the notion of a specific Fatwa over a case against a writer sounds like a court order more than anything else, including Fatwas.
However, other similar Fatwas have been issued, and Bin Laden was most famous for issuing the one to "kill infidels" (3). Bin Laden, while replying to the evident persecution and massacres of Muslim populations worldwide, also made the Fatwa look innocent enough to the oppressed Muslim. However, his Al-Qaeda agenda speaks much for itself; responding to violence on innocent Muslims by violence against innocent people of other faiths is not the way to go about it. Justice calls that if a Muslim was killed, the person(s) who killed him should be killed. Period. Islamic war ethic is all too clear on that issue (4). These Fatwas don't get as much airtime, and rarely have we heard another Fatwa of this type come up. Fatwas like this are usually issued by sheikhs and muftis who have certain rightwing and militaristic political agendas, such as the government of Iran, Morrocco (which has its own council of ulemas, or Muslim scholars) and the Taliban. The issuers of such Fatwas rarely have any credible credentials to justify their positions, or may be in a position of power to issue a fake Fatwa. Also, some of these fatwas bypass the critiquing process, making them totally unprofessional and, most of the time, ridden with rightwing out-of-control-nationalistic-style-emotion-driving... drivel.
Even more prevalent are Fatwas that are present in modern-day Islamic societies, moreso than places ripe with extremism and political bloodshed. Fatwas like this tend to justify what's wrong and defile what's right in accordance with Islamic teachings. While I am not a Muslim scholar, but a Muslim nonetheless, I find it easy to distinguish between good Fatwas and bogus Fatwas 90% of the time. I say that because I'm not a scholar, but have educated myself and been educated (parents, school, etc.) on Islamic beliefs and tenets enough to know what is obviously wrong. For example, there are the "Muslim" Zionist "Fatwas" that call for no resistance towards Israel's actions and acceptance of Israel's control over all of Palestine. Such Fatwas have sinister political motivations behind them, and I have debunked such "work" before (view archives, 2006).
A more recent bogus Fatwa, which I will use for the sake of explaining my above points, came about in Egypt, in one of the most prominent Islamic institutions today, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt. Al-Azhar University has a reputation of graduating both good and just outright dumb scholars of Islam, of which the latter is a result of corruption, or bribery, or just fake credentials. But the one I'm about to write about has completely lost it: Dr. Izzat Attiya (5. He quoted a Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), stating that a woman who breastfed a young child indirectly fostered with that child a maternal relationship. However, this "scholar" forgot that context is indeed everything. The Hadith mentions the story of Abu Hudhaifa, one of the Prophet's (pbuh) companions, his wife and their adopted son and servant, Salem (6). Salem was a young child who was raised by his foster parents. When he reached his teenage years, his foster mom should veil herself from him because, according to Islamic Shari'a, he has no concrete (maternal) relation with her, and thus can't see her hair if not her face. Abu Hudhaifa grew envious and his wife went to the Prophet (pbuh), complaining that her husband was annoyed at Salem seeing her all the time. To relieve this tension, the Prophet (pbuh) offered an Islamically acceptable way out of this: she was told to indirectly breastfeed him by supplying her milk to him 5 times. After this, a maternal relation was thus established, and she didn't need to cover herself every time she saw him.
But that's about it.
This Hadith applied to a specific context at a specific time and place. Today, it applies to foster parents of infants. Other than that, it doesn't apply. However, this "scholar", Dr. Attiya, extended the limit to adults of almost equal age, and not just any adults, but strangers. In Islam, it is known that a woman and a man who are strangers can't sleep with each other let alone go out on a date. So, I would consider it commonsense, then, based on this Islamic teaching, that a strange woman can't breastfeed a man let alone show him her breasts; this could even promote adultery and other illegitimate sexual relations. Apparently, the "scholar" didn't even take into account whether or not the woman had donned the hijab, which means the covering of her whole body including the breasts, but save for her face and hands (although it is recommended by some scholars that she does so; 7). Even if this happened, what would be the benefit? Breast milk is only effective on infants, as it builds up their immune systems and supplies them with a variety of nutrients needed for growth and maintenance of their fragile bodily tissues. Men can get that from normal milk and other food ten times over. Obviously, this is just another form of Bid'ah (بدعة, or insincere innovation), in which the scholar attempts "Islamically" at justifying what does not have any basis let alone a legal basis in Islam (8). Seeing this as a defiling of Islam and its principles, the Azhar University unanimously decided to fire the scholar.
Why was he fired? For one, he was being academically dishonest. Second, he was going away from rationality in supporting such disgusting acts of "public relations", and also undermines professional business dealings... wait, I think I just repeated myself... Anyways... And yet, many people have accused Islam of being "perverted", which it absolutely isn't, as the cleric got fired for showing the slightest sense of perversion, since Islam only allows for sex within marriage, and only then is it permissible, even though there are limits to this as well(9 and 10).
The same applies with all Fatwas, as they have to be scrutinized carefully in order to bring out the best in Islamic Jurisprudence: logic, compliance with correct Islamic Law, reason, practicality, and virtue. So, real Fatwas aren't death threats, nor political agendas, nor suggestive, nor green lights to do what's obviously wrong in Islam let alone illogical elsewhere. While the Koran and Hadith are indeed open to interpretation, they must be interpreted in a way that keeps the contexts in mind, is logical, and is consistent with basic Islamic teachings. In order to avoid a(n) (unnecessary) backlash, I believe that Fatwas coming out from Islamic universities and institutions should be more focused on our daily lives and bettering ourselves as Muslims instead of petty political issues that have absolutely no meaning in the Afterlife whatsoever, and that they seek to unify Muslims and enhance their relations with others instead of worsen them. Fatwas can apply to non-Muslims as well, as they might benefit from some of them (11).
Long story, short: be careful where you read a Fatwa from, and make sure you have a credible source that fills the qualifications and is certified by reputable institutions. Also, read the content carefully. A true Fatwa upholds Islamic principles and at the same timecomes across as applicable and practical to our daily lives. If it doesn't fill any of the qualifications above... well... it's just bogus.
Salaam, from Saracen
Fatwas aren't simple communiqués written out by muftis, sheikhs and other Islamic scholars and sent out to the public. Writing out a Fatwa requires credentials: you have to know how to apply the Koran and Hadith and other measures of jurisprudence (literature, balance, even commonsense) to issues of daily life. One must also keep in mind the context of Koranic verses and individual Hadiths in order to understand if it applies to the issue being studied or not, or if it really does have an association. One can't apply a specific Hadith to an even more general Fatwa, as the issue and the measure of jurisprudence should be mutually proportionate. Also, fatwas are debated and critiqued tens of times before they can be issued. The more a fatwa is debated and critiqued, the more controversial it could be, and the better the success of the error-checking efforts. In that way, they are as practical and also tying to good principles.
However, in the modern day, where pseudo-scholarly work is prominent and people just love to pursue immoral and selfish agendas, a few scholars have contravened the fatwa-making process in order to publish their fatwas. Only someone with a malicious intent would do something like this, as a scholar who writes up a good fatwa won't bother to have it critiqued because at least it is an honest, scholarly and, most of all, Islamic endeavor to publish such responsa literature (Fatwas). Also, others issue fatwas in non-conventional ways, as such ways are accessible by people in power. Still, other fatwas are issued by a group of non-credible sheiks who have set up a counter-culture of Islamic jurisprudence so they may justify agendas, extremist or un-Islamic as they may come. Fatwas can moreover be issued to perverse Islam, or to "make right what's wrong and make wrong what's right" (يحلّل الحرام ويحّرم الحلال), all for the sake of allowing things that are either doubtful or skeptical (mutashabihaat; متشابهات) or just simply wrong (haram; حرام). I'd like to call such fatwas Bogus Fatwas for obvious reasons: they are un-scholarly and intellectually dishonest attempts at producing documents dealing with specific issues of jurisprudence.
Fatwas are most commonly misunderstood as verdicts of execution against people who have defiled Islam or against "infidels" and the like; this is the case that is most commonly used by Muslim extremists. I find it shocking, but not surprising, that, like Jihad, the word Fatwa has taken a perverse meaning in the West, most particularly in rightwing media and P.R. (1) We can thank the extremists and perverse leaders, as well as hyped-up anti-Islamic media outlets, for doing this. The most famous Fatwa of this type was that issued on the head of Anglo-Indian author, Salman Rushdie (2). Granted, the book was blasphemous, and that was probably enough, but to order the killing of Salman Rushdie over a boycott of his books which would have been a better alternative? That is just pushing it to the limit. I mean, yes, the guy is a warmongering, anti-Islamic blaspheming runt, but that doesn't justify us, the Muslim community, to kill him. That sets a bad example for Muslims and goes against Islam's teachings. Moreover, the notion of a specific Fatwa over a case against a writer sounds like a court order more than anything else, including Fatwas.
However, other similar Fatwas have been issued, and Bin Laden was most famous for issuing the one to "kill infidels" (3). Bin Laden, while replying to the evident persecution and massacres of Muslim populations worldwide, also made the Fatwa look innocent enough to the oppressed Muslim. However, his Al-Qaeda agenda speaks much for itself; responding to violence on innocent Muslims by violence against innocent people of other faiths is not the way to go about it. Justice calls that if a Muslim was killed, the person(s) who killed him should be killed. Period. Islamic war ethic is all too clear on that issue (4). These Fatwas don't get as much airtime, and rarely have we heard another Fatwa of this type come up. Fatwas like this are usually issued by sheikhs and muftis who have certain rightwing and militaristic political agendas, such as the government of Iran, Morrocco (which has its own council of ulemas, or Muslim scholars) and the Taliban. The issuers of such Fatwas rarely have any credible credentials to justify their positions, or may be in a position of power to issue a fake Fatwa. Also, some of these fatwas bypass the critiquing process, making them totally unprofessional and, most of the time, ridden with rightwing out-of-control-nationalistic-style-emotion-driving... drivel.
Even more prevalent are Fatwas that are present in modern-day Islamic societies, moreso than places ripe with extremism and political bloodshed. Fatwas like this tend to justify what's wrong and defile what's right in accordance with Islamic teachings. While I am not a Muslim scholar, but a Muslim nonetheless, I find it easy to distinguish between good Fatwas and bogus Fatwas 90% of the time. I say that because I'm not a scholar, but have educated myself and been educated (parents, school, etc.) on Islamic beliefs and tenets enough to know what is obviously wrong. For example, there are the "Muslim" Zionist "Fatwas" that call for no resistance towards Israel's actions and acceptance of Israel's control over all of Palestine. Such Fatwas have sinister political motivations behind them, and I have debunked such "work" before (view archives, 2006).
A more recent bogus Fatwa, which I will use for the sake of explaining my above points, came about in Egypt, in one of the most prominent Islamic institutions today, Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt. Al-Azhar University has a reputation of graduating both good and just outright dumb scholars of Islam, of which the latter is a result of corruption, or bribery, or just fake credentials. But the one I'm about to write about has completely lost it: Dr. Izzat Attiya (5. He quoted a Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), stating that a woman who breastfed a young child indirectly fostered with that child a maternal relationship. However, this "scholar" forgot that context is indeed everything. The Hadith mentions the story of Abu Hudhaifa, one of the Prophet's (pbuh) companions, his wife and their adopted son and servant, Salem (6). Salem was a young child who was raised by his foster parents. When he reached his teenage years, his foster mom should veil herself from him because, according to Islamic Shari'a, he has no concrete (maternal) relation with her, and thus can't see her hair if not her face. Abu Hudhaifa grew envious and his wife went to the Prophet (pbuh), complaining that her husband was annoyed at Salem seeing her all the time. To relieve this tension, the Prophet (pbuh) offered an Islamically acceptable way out of this: she was told to indirectly breastfeed him by supplying her milk to him 5 times. After this, a maternal relation was thus established, and she didn't need to cover herself every time she saw him.
But that's about it.
This Hadith applied to a specific context at a specific time and place. Today, it applies to foster parents of infants. Other than that, it doesn't apply. However, this "scholar", Dr. Attiya, extended the limit to adults of almost equal age, and not just any adults, but strangers. In Islam, it is known that a woman and a man who are strangers can't sleep with each other let alone go out on a date. So, I would consider it commonsense, then, based on this Islamic teaching, that a strange woman can't breastfeed a man let alone show him her breasts; this could even promote adultery and other illegitimate sexual relations. Apparently, the "scholar" didn't even take into account whether or not the woman had donned the hijab, which means the covering of her whole body including the breasts, but save for her face and hands (although it is recommended by some scholars that she does so; 7). Even if this happened, what would be the benefit? Breast milk is only effective on infants, as it builds up their immune systems and supplies them with a variety of nutrients needed for growth and maintenance of their fragile bodily tissues. Men can get that from normal milk and other food ten times over. Obviously, this is just another form of Bid'ah (بدعة, or insincere innovation), in which the scholar attempts "Islamically" at justifying what does not have any basis let alone a legal basis in Islam (8). Seeing this as a defiling of Islam and its principles, the Azhar University unanimously decided to fire the scholar.
Why was he fired? For one, he was being academically dishonest. Second, he was going away from rationality in supporting such disgusting acts of "public relations", and also undermines professional business dealings... wait, I think I just repeated myself... Anyways... And yet, many people have accused Islam of being "perverted", which it absolutely isn't, as the cleric got fired for showing the slightest sense of perversion, since Islam only allows for sex within marriage, and only then is it permissible, even though there are limits to this as well(9 and 10).
The same applies with all Fatwas, as they have to be scrutinized carefully in order to bring out the best in Islamic Jurisprudence: logic, compliance with correct Islamic Law, reason, practicality, and virtue. So, real Fatwas aren't death threats, nor political agendas, nor suggestive, nor green lights to do what's obviously wrong in Islam let alone illogical elsewhere. While the Koran and Hadith are indeed open to interpretation, they must be interpreted in a way that keeps the contexts in mind, is logical, and is consistent with basic Islamic teachings. In order to avoid a(n) (unnecessary) backlash, I believe that Fatwas coming out from Islamic universities and institutions should be more focused on our daily lives and bettering ourselves as Muslims instead of petty political issues that have absolutely no meaning in the Afterlife whatsoever, and that they seek to unify Muslims and enhance their relations with others instead of worsen them. Fatwas can apply to non-Muslims as well, as they might benefit from some of them (11).
Long story, short: be careful where you read a Fatwa from, and make sure you have a credible source that fills the qualifications and is certified by reputable institutions. Also, read the content carefully. A true Fatwa upholds Islamic principles and at the same timecomes across as applicable and practical to our daily lives. If it doesn't fill any of the qualifications above... well... it's just bogus.
Salaam, from Saracen
0 comments:
Post a Comment