CAIRO: First came the breast-feeding fatwa: It declared that the Islamic restriction on unmarried men and women being together could be lifted at work if the woman breast-fed her male colleagues five times. Then came the urine fatwa: It said that drinking the urine of the Prophet Muhammad was deemed a blessing.

For the past few weeks, the breast-feeding and urine fatwas have proved a source of national embarrassment in Egypt, not least because they were issued by representatives of the highest religious authorities in the land.

"We were very angered when we heard about the Danish cartoons concerning our Prophet," wrote Galal Amin in the newspaper Al Masry Al Yom, referring to the 2005 publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that caused an international uproar. "However, these two fatwas are harming our Islamic religion and our Prophet more than the cartoons."

For many Muslims, fatwas, or religious edicts, are the bridge between the principles of their faith and modern life. They are supposed to be issued by religious scholars who look to the Koran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad for guidance.

While the more sensational pronouncements grab attention, the bulk of the fatwas involve the routine of daily life. In Egypt alone, thousands are issued every month.
The controversy in Cairo has been more than just embarrassing. It comes at a time when religious and political leaders say there is a crisis in Islam because too many fatwas are being issued and many rely on ideology more than learning.

The complaint has been the subject of recent conferences as government-appointed arbiters of Islamic standards say the fatwa free-for-all has led to the promotion of extremism and intolerance. The conflict in Egypt served as a difficult reminder of a central challenge facing Islamic communities as they debate the true nature of the faith and how to accommodate modernity. The fatwa is the front line in the theological battle between often opposing world views. It is where interpretation meets daily life.

"It is a very critical issue for us," said Abdullah Megawer, the former head of the Fatwa Committee at Al Azhar, the centuries-old seat of Sunni Muslim learning in Egypt. "You are explaining God's message in ways that really affect people's lives."

Technically, the fatwa is nonbinding and recipients are free to shop around for a better ruling. In a faith with no central doctrinal authority, there has been an explosion of places offering fatwas, from Web sites that respond to written queries, to satellite television shows that take phone calls, to radical and terrorist organizations that set up their own fatwa committees.

"There is chaos now," Megawer said. "The problem created is confusion in thought, confusion about what is right and what is wrong religiously."

In Egypt, there are two official institutions responsible for religious interpretation. The House of Fatwa, or Dar al-Ifta, which technically falls under the Ministry of Justice, and Al Azhar. All court sentences of death must be approved by Dar al-Ifta, for example.

"These people in fact are defined as agencies of the government," said Muhammad Serag, a professor of Islamic Studies at American University in Cairo. "They are not trusted anymore."

While that view is disputed by officials from both institutions, everyone acknowledges that those who issue fatwas serve as mediators between faith and modernity and as arbiters of morality. They are supposed to consider not only religious teachings, but the circumstances of the time. The position is without parallel in the West, and it combines the role of social worker, therapist, lawyer and religious advisor.

In fact, the relationship between the Koran and a fatwa is a matter of dispute. Some Muslim scholars view the Koran's words and ideas as fixed with little room for maneuver. Others see their job as reconciling modernity with the text by gently bending the text to fit new circumstances.

A second issue is the basis for interpretation. The sayings of the Prophet, known as the hadiths, also serve as the basis for many fatwas. But those sayings, of which there are thousands, have been passed down orally and may or may not be legitimate. Some seek to limit fatwas to the written Koran, as a result.

"Brother Citizens, the Azhar Fatwa Committee welcomes the masses of citizens and announces that fatwas are free of charge and of fees." The sign hangs on the back wall of a small room that serves as a fatwa center for Egyptians looking for guidance. Tucked just inside the entrance of the historic Azhar Mosque, the center is open six days a week from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. It is a worn room with a soaring ceiling, tattered black couches patched up with packing tape and rickety metal kitchen chairs. Five sheiks sit on the couches and receive people.
Sheik Abdel Aziz el Naggar has been offering fatwas for 17 years as an employee of Azhar. Like other sheikhs, he rotates each month to committees that operate in each of Egypt's regional governates. Over the years, he said, the vast majority of the visitors have asked for help with their marriage. "The greatest ill in society I observe is the lack of trust and knowledge between husband and wife," he said. "A man will think masculinity is being a dictator."

Questions have been asked for generations. Should ancient statues be destroyed or preserved? Should women be allowed to drive, to work, to travel without permission of men? Can boys and girls attend school together? Is it permissible to buy insurance, to wear a sports jersey with a cross design, to shake hands with a non-Muslim, to take pictures, to view family photographs? All of this has been addressed in fatwas.

"We have to be clear what is at stake here," said Egypt's Grand Mufti, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, at a recent speech in London. "When each and every person's unqualified opinion is considered a fatwa, we lost a tool that is of the utmost importance to rein in extremism and preserve the flexibility and balance of Islamic law."

In his own role and practice, the Grand Mufti embodies many of the issues that have arisen around the fatwa practice. He has issued rulings that are deemed so progressive as to be offensive, and others that are so literal, as to be offensive.

He issued the now notorious urine fatwa in a book called Religion and Life. It was published six years ago and told the story of a woman who drank the Prophet's urine. The mufti had his book taken off the shelves, and said the controversial statement was not a fatwa but his opinion which was offered in response to a question.

He was also criticized - and praised - earlier this year when he issued a fatwa saying that it was permissible for women to have reconstructive hymen surgery before marriage to conceal that they were no longer virgins. He said that since it is impossible to tell if a man is a virgin or not, women should have the same option. But he took his opinion a step further, when he said that if a married woman had sex with another man, regretted her action and asked God for forgiveness, she should not tell her husband. The goal, he reportedly said, was to preserve the family.

The breast-feeding fatwa came in mid-May. A religious scholar who headed the department of the teachings of the Prophet at the Foundation of Religion College in Al Azhar University wrote that there were instances in the time of Prophet Muhammad when adult women breast-fed adult men in order to overcome the need for women to veil in front of men. "Breast-feeding an adult puts an end to the problem of the private meeting, and does not ban marriage," wrote Izat Atiyah. "A woman at work can take off the veil or reveal her hair in front of someone whom she breast-fed."

The ruling was mocked on satellite television shows around the region, and quickly condemned at home. He was suspended from his job, mocked in newspapers and within days issued a retracting saying it was a "bad interpretation of a particular case."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/11/news/fatwa.php

quote:

It declared that the Islamic restriction on unmarried men and women being together could be lifted at work if the woman breast-fed her male colleagues five times.

I agree with this one :D

quote:

Originally posted by Sunil:

quote:

It declared that the Islamic restriction on unmarried men and women being together could be lifted at work if the woman breast-fed her male colleagues five times.

I agree with this one :D

My co-workers breast feed me all the time. And I didn't need any fatwa to facilitate it. :)

There are some real looney tunes posing as scholars. They couldn't look more ridiculous even if they tried.

Or maybe they could.

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
There are some real looney tunes posing as scholars.

where does this leaves dara ...lol

quote:

Originally posted by Aragorn:

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
There are some real looney tunes posing as scholars.

where does this leaves dara ...lol

He is also a looney tune. :) And he is always begging for food. :)

quote:

Originally posted by Aragorn:

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:
There are some real looney tunes posing as scholars.

where does this leaves dara ...lol

As a traditionally trained person as well, I was being breast fed while this conversation was going on. Kaz: unfortunately, the breast feeding crap was reported in the hadith by a group of idiots...and so there we have it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dara shikoh,

The Brutal Fatwas in Israel
Fahmi Howaidi, Arab News

While people in Muslim countries have been preoccupied with fatwas (religious rulings) concerning breast-feeding adults, the purity of the Prophet’s urine, and the legality of the recent different types of marriages such as Misyar and Mesfar, perhaps it would be appropriate to take a look at fatwas in Israel. It might give us a chance to compare the two, evaluating the circumstances on both sides.

It is worthy of further consideration to consider the Israeli fatwas that my Palestinian colleague Salih Al-Tuhami observed. Conservative Jewish thought and tradition say that in case the country’s laws contradict the rabbi’s fatwas, the fatwa must be implemented and anything the government says is worthless. That’s the opinion of Rabbi Elie — who is one of Israel’s senior rabbis — who is supported by the majority of his peers.

These Jewish fatwas are responsible for instigating religious Jews against Arabs. Last year, Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, former Sephardic chief rabbi and an influential authority among conservative Jews, issued a fatwa asking the Israeli Army not to flinch from killing Palestinian civilians in the context of the ongoing military campaign against armed groups resisting the occupation. He mentioned in his fatwa, which received special attention from religious media outlets and hundreds of pamphlets distributed inside synagogues in Israel. that all Palestinians must be murdered, even the ones who are not participating in the war against terrorism. This wasn’t enough for the revered rabbi, who said that this was not only a fatwa, but a religious duty from God that Jews must follow.

After that, one of the most important Jewish rabbis issued a fatwa that allowed his students in one of the Jewish settlements in the northern West Bank to steal the agricultural produce grown by Palestinians. It said that everything in the West Bank belongs to the Jews, giving them the right to confiscate such properties. This fatwa was implemented and his students confiscated the agricultural yield of the Palestinians.

Rabbi Dov Lior, chief rabbi of Hebron and Kiryat-Arba, did the same when he issued a fatwa that allowed Jewish settlers to poison the livestock and water wells owned by Palestinians in neighboring cities and villages. The settlers didn’t hesitate in implementing the fatwa. Not a single day passed without Palestinians finding dead sheep and poisoned water.

On the other hand, a group of prominent Jewish rabbis addressed the Israeli defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, saying that killing enemy civilians was “normal” during wartime and that the Israeli Army should never hesitate to kill non-Jewish civilians in order to save Jewish lives. “There is no war in the world in which it is possible to delineate neatly between the population and the enemy’s army, neither in the US war in Iraq, the Russian war in Chechnya, nor in Israel’s war with its enemies,” the rabbis said.

The rabbis quoted a Talmudic ruling, which states “Our lives come first.” In their famous letter, the rabbis warned against what they called Christian preaching in dealing with conflict. “The Christian preaching of ‘turning the other cheek’ doesn’t concern us, and we will not be impressed by those who prefer the lives of our enemies to our lives,” they said.

These tense times have influenced a number of other fatwas from rabbis about underestimating the lives of Arabs and humiliating them. Yediot Ahronot newspaper reported on July 25, 2002 that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the current spiritual leader of the Shas political party in the Knesset (Israel’s Parliament), said that until Christ the Savior arrives, he will send all Arabs to hellfire. “Why doesn’t Ariel Sharon do what needs to be done? He’s scared of the people of the world. But when the Savior Christ comes, he won’t fear anyone. He will send all the Arabs to hell.” Yosef described Arabs as snakes and said Jews should not trust them.

It’s no wonder that one of the rabbis — Isaac Ginzburg — published a book entitled “Baruch the Hero” to immortalize the name of Dr. Baruch Goldstein who perpetrated the 1994 Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in the city of Hebron, killing 29 Arab attendants of the Ibrahimi Mosque (within the Cave of the Patriarchs) and wounding another 150 in a shooting attack.

As for Rabbi Eli Albaz, who is one of the distinctive Eastern rabbis, he never misses an opportunity to attack Islam and condemn the Prophet (pbuh). He insists on complaining in front of his audience by telling jokes that address Muslims and Palestinians and using filthy language to attack Muslims. And Rabbi Eliyahu Reskin continuously ridicules the reconciliation attempts to create dialogue between Jewish rabbis and Arab officials. He believes that the only language of dialogue between Muslims and Jews should be bullets. He feels that without convincing the Arabs in general, and the Palestinians specifically, settlement can’t be forced upon Israel so the efforts of peace are worthless.

It’s true that from a legal perspective, the rabbis’ fatwas concerning political issues don’t exert much influence. But their words, that come from their religious backgrounds, have a huge impact especially with the increasing dominance of religious parties that have developed tremendous political power that cannot be underestimated. Therefore, their fatwas influence more than religious people and are used to pressure political decisions. It’s true that conservatives, whether the followers of Zionism or from the ultra-Orthodox movement, make up 28 percent of the Israeli population, yet more than 50 percent of the inhabitants of the country introduce themselves as conservatives. These people empathize greatly with Jewish religious authorities and pay attention to what they say.

What’s interesting is that all the laws and systems in Israel have never tried, not even once, to address those rabbis or question them about their racial discrimination. Not only that, but these rabbis, who are involved in this discrimination, are given great prominence in Israeli politics. Decision makers in Israel compete with each other to earn the endorsement of rabbis, and to be close to them.

When one examines these fatwas and their influence in instigating and serving the Zionist schemes and its evil goals, one can’t help but feel sad and bitter when compared with the fatwas that are preoccupying Muslim scholars. The latter provoke gossip among people and divert their attention from what’s vital and fateful, making them regress instead of moving forward.

I pray to God to enlighten our scholars and guide them.

Abu: I am afraid you are taking this out of context--read thru my entire post before you react. U have the Right intention, but are acting precisely as those who hate the religion wish you to act--to hate and characterize islam as if ALL thinkers are as stupid as these fatwa issuers.. But here is the deal: the islamophobes take every miniscule, nonsensical report and play it up as if it is a big thing. We don't get to see the nonsense that the rabbis and priests say. And reporters in the middle east from the muslim countries will do anything to get noticed by the west. It is a cruel game. And they would sacrifice their mothers. I was there...I have seen it.
I am the first to admist this breast feeding crap is indded in the law books..but it has its similar stuff in Jewish responsa literature. see a book called "how Israel lost"..I think it is on amazon.
Which serious thinker in the ME do you think asks about breast feeding? Just a few idiots..and they have,as I said, their counterparts all over the world in all religions. problem is that in the US they parade as congressman or televangelists..and have the veneer of respectability.

I am not going to get into detail, but often a fatwa has to be looked at for its motive.
Eg. Most people laugh at the fatwa that said a woman can be preggy for four years. It had a diff goal. The judge was using the law to protect a life. The man was absent and his wife conceived, obviously with another partner. But no witnesses. Was it understandable? Did he have the right to desert her this long and expect fidelity? It would seem the judge ruled as he did just to preserve a marraige for a forgiveable offence. In his opinion of course. There is much more to a fatwa than just isuing a decree...I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the fatwa itself...but one has to take circumstances into account.

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the fatwa itself..

then you have no point of view.

quote:

Originally posted by Aragorn:

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the fatwa itself..

then you have no point of view.

True argy...on the fatwa itself...one of the conditions to rule on a situation is that the jurist must know the absolute details of the situation...and a fatwa question is often truncated...

quote:

Abu: I am afraid you are taking this out of context--read thru my entire post before you react.

dara bai, that was an editorial from Gulf News.
Not a single word was from me.

quote:

Originally posted by Abu Jihad:

quote:

Abu: I am afraid you are taking this out of context--read thru my entire post before you react.

dara bai, that was an editorial from Gulf News.
Not a single word was from me.

I know that. which is why I noted the good intention. My problem is with these english language reporters..they are all begging for attention from western presses. I have met with and listened to some of them who have no problems confessing...their biggest high is to get an offer from CNN to be a correspondent or something. Half of these english dailies now are given up whatever little integrity they had. I am not saying they are lying..but they focus on fundamentalist islam as if it is endemic to every Muslim..forgetting the Jeiwhs/Christian fundamentalisms in Israel, the US etc..

I guess its a case where you market what sells. Integrity has no meaning anymore.

In "Islam Under siege" by Akbar AHmed...about 14.00 on AMazon..worth getting, the term used is "post-honor" While not entirely appropriate, it can be applied here based on how you describe it.