Any good fatwa sighted lately? - Salbiah Ahmad

A fatwa issued on July 18 by the British Muslim Forum (BMF) condemned the London bombings inter alia on the grounds that “Islam strictly, strongly and severely condemns the use of violence and the destruction of innocent lives”. There “is no justification in Islam for extremism, fanaticism and terrorism”.

The BMF has 250 member organisations. It issued the fatwa (edict) with approval of 500 UK Muslim clerics, scholars and imams. The “formal legal opinion” was issued “so that Muslims and non-Muslims can be clear about Islam’s stance on such acts”.

Muslims in Canada and the US followed suit. On July 28, 100 American Muslim organisations endorsed a fatwa condemning the use of violence and acts of terrorism. Americans hope that the fatwa adds moral authority to their often-stated condemnation of terrorism.

John Voll, professor of Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, said the fatwa represents a very important reminder to Muslim Americans of their need to be actively aware of the non-Islamic nature of violent extremism.

It is a pity that there was no scramble to rush a fatwa by our Muslim scholar associations on the July 18 pre-dawn attack on a peaceful village in Besut, Terengganu by a Malay-Muslim mob.

Perhaps civil society groups should take the lead from ‘Western Muslims’ and issue a fatwa condemning the attack in the fight against extremism. Lets go glokal.

Ziauddin Sardar writing, My Fatwa on the fanatics in The Observer, UK, proposed that “we must also reclaim a more balanced view of Islamic terms like fatwa”. Now that Islam has “become beset with the fatwa culture, it becomes necessary for moderate voices to issue their own fatwas”.

Muslims continue to be implicated in the unchecked rise of fanaticism in Muslim
societies unless we stand up against them. The silent Muslim majority must now become vocal.

Malaysians as a whole have been trained to be in awe of the fatwa-issuing alim or ulama associations not to mention a government fatwa council.

For the silent Muslim majority especially, Sardar’s fatwa-making suggestion may seem outrageous. Frankly, even as I write this, I have no idea who this ‘silent Muslim majority’ may be. The difficulty is some of the Muslims and the groups they belong to may sometimes come out with all sorts of statements on some other occasion and then none at all on something like this.

Oppose extremism

There is also this troubling response I read on the Internet. A Muslim lawyer wrote in response to human rights lawyer, Edmund Bon’s query on representation of the Sky Kingdom accused. It was on the Malaysian Bar Forum e-news on Aug 5. The message offered an explanation as to why Muslim lawyers should not defend the villagers of the Sky Kingdom who are charged with disobeying a 1997 state fatwa on deviant teachings.

According to this lawyer “as Muslims”, they are obliged to uphold the sanctity and purity of Islam from ‘ridicule’ by believers or not believers (memelihara kesucian ugama dari dipersendakan sama ada oleh penganutnya atau bukan penganutnya).

Although she claims that she does not lend support to the “state government’s demolishing act” (referring to the July 31 state-sanctioned destruction of buildings), she cannot support the “personal belief” of the community and would not ipso facto defend the accused. She ends her message with, “There are reasons why they (lawyers) refuse to take the case and only they know the reasons why”.

Will this silent majority allow others to speak on their behalf?

This of course, opens another can of worms as to how our young people are taught law and Muslim law and practice (or not at all) in our local universities, which is a matter which requires national scrutiny other than scrutiny by the Malaysian Bar Council in approving admission for practice.

I wonder what was the whole national rationale of having syariah courts and syariah judges and syariah lawyers in the first place? Was it to merely implement executive decrees issued via fatwa? Is this in accordance with Islam and democratic practice as we know it?

And how many Muslims and Malays think that the accused should be left to defend themselves against all the elements including the mob extremist attack on them? As Sardar has opined in My Fatwa against the fanatics, the extremists and terrorists are among us, the Muslim communities of the world. They are part of our body politic. It is our duty to stand up against them. But I digress. Let us see how the legal profession faces up to this challenge in due course.

An e-mail dispatch from Jakarta last week informed me that the government-sanctioned Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) issued 11 fatwa on Jul 29. One was to outlaw “liberal Islamic thoughts” declaring “secularism and pluralism forbidden under Islam”. The “edict” was issued as a reaction to the Liberal Islam Network (JIL) and the Muhammadiyah Youth Intellectuals Network (JIMM).

MUI deputy chairman Umar Shihab was quoted as saying that both the “Western-infuenced” JIL and JIMM had strayed from the Indonesian brand of Islam. “The views that are developing in Europe and America are heretical and not allowed here,” he said. “However, we must not counter them with violence, but with logical arguments”. (Jakarta Post)

The MUI also renewed a fatwa against the Ahmadiyah sect. Many observers allege that it was this ban by the MUI that had an Ahmadiyah community south of Jakarta attacked by a mob of some 10,000 people in late July. National Human Rights commissioner (Komnas-HAM), M Billah condemned the attack as a human rights violation.

Peaceful dialogue

The MUI decrees came as a shock to other scholars and the human rights community as it came after Indonesia’s successful hosting of an interfaith dialogue involving 39 Asian and European countries in Bali. The MUI ban was seen as closing the door on interfaith initiatives including intra-faith dialogue among Muslims.

Muslim intellectuals and human rights defenders came together on Aug 2 to counter the decrees with logical arguments.

Public intellectual and Muslim scholar Azyumardi Azra dismissed the MUI fatwa on liberal Islam as counter-productive. “The state cannot enforce it for Muslims as it’s not legally binding. Muslims can or will ignore it”. The fatwa had the potential to divide non-Muslims and Muslims themselves. “The fatwas are not in line with the principles of Islam which promotes tolerance and peaceful dialogue with people of differing views.”

He said the ban on liberal thoughts reflected the intolerance being promoted by the MUI and indicated that it was trying to curb freedom of thought. He urged the MUI to hold an open discussion with people from different fields of expertise, not only Islamic jurisprudence.

In their statement the coalition of scholars and human rights defenders said that the MUI ban was out of line with the development of democracy which requires pluralism and the protection of citizens’ rights. Muslim scholar Ulil Abshar Abdalla advised MUI to promote interfaith and intra-faith dialogue if it wants to remain relevant.

The coalition which came together under the banner, the Democratic Education Association (P2D), called upon President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration to maintain pluralism and protect constitutional rights. The constitution is supported by all society, says human rights lawyer T Mulya Lubis, and it cannot be undermined or negated.

Fatwa culture

Are we beset with the fatwa culture of late? There is some confusion even with top politicians as to the place of fatwa in the country’s political regime.

In June, Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak announced that the government will request for a fatwa from the National Fatwa Council (NFC) before deciding on the implementation of a HIV plan involving free condoms and treatment using methadone to intravenous drug users. The NFC members include all state muftis.

The fatwa request was seen as irrelevant by some quarters as the issue of HIV prevention is a medical and a public health issue. It should not be left to the discretion of Muslim scholars in multi-ethnic, multi-religious Malaysia. NFC member and Perak Mufti Dr Harussani Zakaria was quoted in the press as saying that the proposals in the plan “are tantamount to condoning drug addiction and free sex”.

Government sources however defended their move to elicit a fatwa on the basis that all sectors of society need to be consulted on the successful implementation of the HIV plan. Pursuant to that the Health Minister Dr Chua Soi Lek, announced that the government will distribute free needles and condoms to intravenous drug users in January next year “after discussion” with Muslim
scholars. The NFC subsequently issued a statement to the effect that a fatwa will not issue on matters involving the medical aspects of the pandemic.

I am fascinated by a move led by Saari Sungib, of Jemaah Islah Malaysia (JIM) to petition the Council of Muftis on the Internal Security Act (ISA). The former ISA detainee and past JIM president, with 21 others had on Aug 5 last year petitioned this body to issue a fatwa on the ISA which “is clearly prohibited in Islam”. There has been no fatwa sighted on the ISA to date.

On Oct 22 last year, Saari called upon the muftis to play an advisory role to affect social change. Zaid Kamarudin of JIM has the same opinion. “The power of the mufti lies in his persuasive power with the people. If he feels strongly about something, he should call upon the other muftis and threaten to take drastic measures, such as resigning en bloc”.

While perhaps there is some consensus on the fatwa as persuasive advice or as a moral authority, we still have not grapple with the implications of a government-issued fatwa (an executive device) becoming legislation upon publication in the Government Gazette as provided for under state law. On the face of it, this process runs against the rule of law as enshrined in the Federal
Constitution. Laws are made by legislative bodies and that is Parliament at the federal level and state legislatures at state levels.

There is also the wider concern of selected interpretations of particular schools of thought which may be used in the formulation of fatwa and state Muslim law by the Muslim elite which offends the notion of plurality of interpretations in the Islamic tradition and the notion of state-neutrality in matters of conscience even in Islamic law.

Further, as we desire to build a system based on shared values of democracy and human rights in our multi-cultural society, it becomes incumbent upon us to continue to scrutinise, critique and challenge all our process, both Islamic and civil in origin. All opinions, scholar and the laity must be subject to the rigours of debate; the “logical arguments”.

Non-scholars arguably should be able to exert an influence to a public discourse that informs the sensibilities of the scholar and vice-versa. No one is unlearned. We have different experiences and different scholarship that would through the test of debate and speech strengthen our direction and vision.