There was an article in the New York Times on June 12, 2007 about the embarrassing fatwas coming out of Egypt lately (full text found here):
"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, to establish family ties."
"Then came the urine fatwa: It said that drinking the urine of the Prophet Muhammad was deemed a blessing."
That sort of reasoning does not reflect well on the imams making these determinations, and it unfortunately reflects poorly on Islam itself:
"... 'these two fatwas are harming our Islamic religion and our prophet more than the cartoons,' Galal Amin, a professor of economics at the American University in Cairo, wrote in Al Masry Al Yom, a daily newspaper here.... The controversy in Cairo has been more than just embarrassing. It comes at a time when religious and political leaders say that there is a crisis in Islam because too many fatwas are being issued, and that many of them rely on ideology more than learning."
The photo accompanying the article shows an imam wearing a red hat, much like the hat worn by the Islamic Society of Boston's imam, Basyouny Nehela, shown here with Anwar Kazmi in a Muslim American Society photograph:
So I wonder what the red hat represents? Something to do with Al Azhar University in Egypt, which Imam Nehela attended? Or does it represent a particular "denomination" of Islam? Or is it merely a festive colored hat? If anyone knows, please let us know!
By the way, there are hundreds of fatwas issued every week at IslamOnline.net, including this recent question about whether targeting civiliains is terrorism or not:
Q: Respected Sheikh Subh. Some scholars like Qaradawi* state that there is an obligatory terrorism (i.e., viewing the literal meaning of the word rahaba in the Qur'an, which is the use of force to deter the enemies of Islam and attack the aggressors). There is on the other hand a rejected terrorism which is to kill innocents unjustly? What is your evaluation to this? What is your definition of terrorism in light of the current circumstances?
A: What Sheikh Al-Qaradawi has said is absolutely right. … In the light of the current circumstances, they have not given a definition to 'terrorism', the Late [Syrian leader] 'Hafidh Al-Asad' asked them to do this [but to no avail]. Considering the current circumstances in the world, the Superpowers have exploited this term as a pretext for achieving their imperialist goals; they even tell lies to do this. What America is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is a clear example of this policy.
They disregard the real terrorism, which lies in terrifying and practicing aggressions against the innocent and civilian people without having any right in doing so. This is what America, its followers and Israel do in the name of what is called the "creative chaos".
The anti-US and anti-Israel sentiment runs very high over at Islam Online.
This fatwa caught my eye, as well (8th one down). Is it considered a sin for a Christian wife of a Muslim man to baptize their baby? "Will the man be sinful if she does it (baptizes the baby)?" Apparently so:
"Yes, of course he would be sinful. Basically the children follow the religion of their fathers, and therefore he cannot accept something like that to be done for his own children. It is true that baptizing the baby will not change the natural faith that he is born with, but it is a preparation for it."
Hmmm, I wonder if that came up in the pre-marriage counseling......
* Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, still a proposed trustee of the Islamic Society of Boston. Qaradawi's texts on sharia law are widely used, even in the U.S., including by professor Ingrid Mattson at the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut.
Comments