1. 1
   Andrew Said:
   December:02:2008 - 14:48 
   

   There is unwarranted focus on the bizarre fatwas that self-proclaimed religious experts issue.

   And, while it is useful to re-emphasize the fact that a proper fatwa requires the issuer to posses and be widely acknowledged to posses genuine theological scholarship, I think it misses the point.

   The problems facing believers from the often kleptocratic or corrupt behaviour of the ulemaa do not, in general, stem from bizarre fatwas. (Of course there will be some exceptions to this.)

   Fatwas do not, in general, defend corruption of other bad activities. Rather, it tends to be the culture of impunity that surrounds all activities of the ulemaa.

   So, while I do not believe that this conference will actually accomplish very much, I think it is also a misperception to believe that bizarre fatwas that appear are actually supported by many Muslims.

   What is condoned, and by too many Muslim believers, is an unwillingness to critically examine and analyze how the actions and statements of all types (not particularly fatwas) of the ulemaa differ from what the message of the Rasulullah was.

   Careful and analytical thought, including in a theological context, would be helpful.

2. 2
   John Burgess Said:
   December:02:2008 - 15:10 
   

   As you said, the problem isn’t just with the bizarre fatawas. The extremist fatawas, the judgments that try to dice and slice ritual so finely that, while well intended, result in people wondering if they’ve earned damnation for farting in the mosque.

   And then, of course, are the fatawas used to justify anything the cleric seems to want justified: jihad, suicide bombings, marriages of convenience, etc.

3. 3
   Solomon2 Said:
   December:02:2008 - 17:16 
   

   The fatwas may seem crazy, but I don’t think that means that the person issuing them is necessarily crazy. They may just be deluded. Reading the Pakistani press about the Mumbai bombing today, one sees what starts out as speculations and opinions at the beginning of a story touted as fact by the end.

   So I found out, for example, that the Indians carried out the Mumbai attacks by themselves, that New Delhi nearly suffered a coup, that it was the fault of the Indians for not stopping the attacks, and so on so forth. I imagine that if I was a Muslim who could be snowed by such rubbish (assertions unsupported by facts or evidence) and believed everything I read, I might issue a “crazy” fatwa, too!

   While I’m mildly interested in this conference, I doubt it will have a lasting impact. All too often the true issues are political, religion is just a tool, so the rule-book gets thrown out the window in favor of, “Hey, whatever I say is holy, so do what I say!” To reduce or eliminate that factor requires the encouragement of a healthy skepticism for religion in general, and how many Muslim clerics can advocate that?

4. 4
   Andrew Said:
   December:02:2008 - 18:40 
   

   I would take exception with the notion that Muslim (or Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.) are unable to encourage healthy skepticism regarding self-proclaimed theologians who assert that all that these self-proclaimed theologians instruct should be obeyed.

   Many clerics throughout the world do, in fact, strongly advocate such skepticism.

   Indeed, one of the criticisms frequently heard from leaders and adherents of new religious movements (even if within an existing religion) is that long-established religious movements advocate excessive skepticism. An example would include some of the Roman Catholic criticisms of Martin Luther’s 95 theses.

   It appears that the point being made may be that religion in general (or alternatively organized religion) is fundamentally predisposed to autocracy and opposed to free enquiry.

   While that is a debate that has been ongoing for millenia, I am not persuaded that such a discussion has much relevance to the issue of the conference or the problems posed by the culture of impunity that surrounds the ulemaa.

5. 5
   DW Said:
   December:03:2008 - 04:49 
   

   I think the largest problem they have in hand is that it’s easy to persuade a clerk to get the answer you want in a fatwa. You see some people questions that sound harmless, but within their question they will insert a notion in the question where the clerk focus shift to that notion judgment instead of the actual question.

   This have been published by Ahmad Bin Abdulaziz Bin Baz, Son of late grand mufti in Saudi Arabia Abdulaziz Bin Baz, his son recently published a headline in the newspapers with a statement where he clarified the point above. He focused that any fatwa can be debunked, even his fathers, which many people consider a wise and thorough person in his field. His son’s point is, clergy who issue fatwa based on answering inquiries, are open to suggestions from the person who is asking the question. In example he noted how someone can say:
   Whats the religious view of wearing jeans/long pants?
   The answer to this would be right to the point if the question was direct, like it’s permited if they fit Islamic codes and there is no condemnation for wearing it for work purposes.

   However someone who tries to get the answer that jeans are haram/not primtted, this person would suggest in the end of his question with something that not permitted like for example, adapting hertiage/habits right of the bat from non-believers.
   Said person would add to the end of the question that notion and then the question would be like this:
   Whats the religious view of wearing jeans/long pants? With note that it is worn to dress/act like non-believers?
   Here, the clerk if he was not experienced with this type of a Fatwa-troll would be easily persuaded into making a really bad judgment of the issue by just shifting his focus to an already established issue of idolizing others.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.