Here’s an interesting piece from Arab News. It discusses how it happens that senior clerics might say one thing in public and another in private. For generations, this kind of behavior in the political realm was known as ’speaking to the market’, i.e., telling large groups both what they wanted to hear and that which was uncontroversial. This isn’t unknown in the American political realm, of course, as Obama supporters are discovering to their dismay—most recently in reaction to the Senator’s vote on a bill that would give retroactive immunity to telecon companies for their role in what some deem to be illegal wiretaps.
What’s interesting about this is that although the practice is quite and old one, it’s now being brought to public attention. In the past, before the days of near-instant global communication at everyone’s fingertips, it was quite easy to tell a domestic audience something quite different from what one told a global audience. Whether this was taqiya or just politics, it became quite frustrating for international actors to know just which statement represented the truth.
Now, the result of technological advancement—here, audio recordings—is backing a senior cleric into a corner over a statement he made (he says he didn’t) and a ‘clarification’ he offers when his statement caused an uproar. An astute piece.
A source of mercy
Samir Al-Saadi | Arab NewsJEDDAH: A wise man once told me, “If you want to ask a scholar a question whisper it in his ear to get an accurate answer. If you do it in public there is a chance you might get a different answer.”
Hadi Fakeeh, a journalist for Al-Hayat newspaper, recently asked Sheikh Abdul Mohsin Al-Obaikan, a prominent Saudi scholar, a question relating to the mixing of genders in Islam.
The question was asked on the sidelines of the Seventh National Dialogue.
Sheikh Al-Obaikan, who is also a member of the Kingdom’s Higher Religious Committee, replied that not every form of mixing is forbidden. Only if there is “fitna” (strife), citing that there is mixing at the Holy Mosques in Makkah and Madinah, and in the Kingdom’s malls.
He added that Shariah does not ban “intermingling,” it only bans “Khalwa,” which is when a man and a woman are in a state of isolation away from other people.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
12:37,
Al_Obeikan seems to be a man for all seasons in Saudi Arabia. Whenever there’s a complex issue, he’s asked to comment on it. He does so from a rather modern point of view, generally, in sharp contrast to official Saudi discourse.
He also holds important official positions, and therefore seems to be a spokesman for modernity, with an important support from Saudi groups which want things to change. So, whatever happened to him, that he holds now such a conservative discourse on such simple issues as men and women working together in offices, and things like that ?
He’s entitled to his views on the subject, of course, and even entitled to modify his views, for whatever reasons. After all, even the mufti of Egypt once said one thing on TV, and defended the opposite view on the same subject a few days later. But, it is to be regretted that these people pretend to defend the positions of religion on these issues, when in fact religion has nothing to do with the subject.
According to the article, al-Obeikan “said Shariah does not prevent women from working, as long as they do not mix with unrelated men. “We have to understand that the basic duty of women is to remain at home and look after the children,” he said.
He further called for the establishment of separate women’s sections at companies and offices — a position shared by the majority of scholars here.””
Such views are peculiar to Saudi Arabia, whose total population represents less than 20 million people. In contrast, there are one billion three hundred million people on Earth who do not think that shariah calls for “the establishment of separate women’s sections at companies and offices — a position shared by the majority of scholars here “
When will Saudis stop confusing their own customs and traditions with Islam ?
14:20,
- Saudi Arabia, whose total population represents less than 20 million people. In contrast, there are one billion three hundred million people on Earth who do not think that shariah calls for “the establishment of separate women’s sections…
I’m not at all in favor of shariah, but why should that make a difference? Muhammed was only one person when he started his career as a prophet. Every other person on Earth thought differently. Are you telling us that the majority is always right and the minority always wrong?
15:15,
Prophets are usually in the minority of one:) It is one of their few virtues.
That said, I think the point is that being of the minority viewpoint is not wrong. However, expecting the majority to fall in line with it is foolish and egotistical. I would say that even for minority viewpoints that I completely and wholeheartedly support.
17:02,
Solomon2 asks: “Are you telling us that the majority is always right and the minority always wrong?” The question is misleading. Of course, every truth begins somewhere in the mind of an individual, before it becomes the truth for millions of others. The transition from one individual to a larger number of believers in this truth is obtained on the basis of the proofs that the individual presents in supports of his propositions.
So, we should look at the proofs the Saudis offer in support of such propositions as “Islam prohibits car driving by women”, or “Islam prohibits men and women from working in the same area”.
My point is that if there are one billion people who think otherwise, it is worthwhile looking also into their proofs. Because, if the Saudis proofs were overpowering, the ulamas in the rest of the world would also be defending the same point of view, being of the same religion.
But this takes us far from your philosophical enquiry: is the majority always right? Very frequently, one is tempted to defend the opposite proposition. So, things are never easy to settle, when one talks only in general terms. One has to look at specific points and evaluate the points of views presented on the basis of their merit.
17:38,
Well written article which is uncovering an ugly truth like Al Waleed said, “It is to be regretted that these people pretend to defend the positions of religion…”
Yes, it is regrettable but it is worse that people follow like blind sheep from one side the other like a puppet with strings waiting for the next string to be pulled. It is high time to cut a few of those strings on the marionette and set for moves in accordance with some other criteria beside “such and such deems such and such thus = an infallible truth. NOT
16:08,
The question is misleading.
I don’t see how, since it led to a fuller explanation, thank you. Do you really think the majority of Muslims act or believe that “truth is obtained on the basis of the proofs that the individual presents in supports of his propositions”? If so, why is freedom of speech restricted in every majority-Muslim country?