[Reader-list] Who gives muftis the right to give fatwas?

[Pawan Durani]

Dear Javed ,

As per sharia on the same subject the law defines "The penalty after a
fourth conviction of a homosexual act is death. "....

Pawan


On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 3:46 PM, M Javed<javedmasoo at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Shuddhabrata
> Actually I have a slight digression from your answer. I don't care
> what fatwas the muftis give within their own coterie (I'm sure
> homosexual behaviour exists in the Deoband madrasa too), but the
> problem comes when this news is flashed on the front-page: it
> basically sends a clear signal that "Muslims" in general are against
> homo-sexuality and this is yet another example of how bigoted the
> entire community is, and there are absolutely no liberals (or
> queer-friendly) people among the Muslims and so on, which is not the
> case. In a way, any controversial fatwa from the Deoband (whichever
> damn topic) is taken by the media as a hot saucy news to be flashed to
> show the backwardness of Muslims. But my question is (especially to
> the mainstream media), do these damn fatwas really represent the
> entire Muslim community? Are they so important that you have to flash
> them as headlines.
>
> My second minor difference is: when you say "We are not governed by
> the Shariat, and I hope we never will be". I am not sure if Shariat is
> all evil. Although I don't practice it strictly, but I know it has
> many good things in it which make at least the good part of Islam
> alive. Don't see it only through the eyes of the Taliban. Whether we
> get governed by the shariat or not, I hope we could at least adopt the
> good things about it. And Shariat is not a fixed set of rules; it can
> be and should be open for interpretation, which these muftis have
> stopped doing.
>
> Thanks any way.
>
> Javed
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Shuddhabrata
> Sengupta<shuddha at sarai.net> wrote:
>> Dear Javed,
>> Thank you for forwarding this. I don't know who gives these muftis and
>> tuftis the right to give fatwas, I think they give it to themselves. And
>> since they routinely issue fatwas on all manner of ridiculous matters, we
>> might as well treat this one too with the lack of seriousness that it
>> deserves.
>> We are not governed by the Shariat, and I hope we never will be. Since we
>> are not governed by the Shariat, it hardly matters whether or not Maulana
>> Abdul Khalik Madrasi thinks homosexuality is an offence under Shariat Law.
>> Not even the relevant (and anachronistic, misogynist and patrarchal)
>> sections of Personal Law in matters of marriage and inheritance that govern
>> the lives of Indian Muslims have anything to say about sexual relations in
>> private between consenting adults. So, not even from the completely
>> unacceptabe (to me) standpoint of defending a separate civil code for
>> Muslims is it relevant to discuss the fate of Section 377. Maulana Madrasi
>> is barking up the wrong legal tree.
>> Finally, a small historical digression. Section 377 was introduced by the
>> British Colonial Administration in India. Which, as far as i recall, was not
>> exactly a model Islamic state. In fact, the British Colonial authorities
>> presided over the decline and destruction of 'nominally' Muslim political
>> power in India. if, for the roughly seven hundred years preceding the advent
>> of British rule in India, when the territory happened to be ruled largely by
>> Muslim rulers, (some of whom claimed to be guided by the Shariat) it was not
>> found necessary to invoke a draconian law like section 377, are we to then
>> understand that the British Colonial authority was more 'Islamic' than the
>> Mughal rulers, than the rulers of the Delhi sultanate, and many other kings
>> and princes of a Muslim persuasion.
>> And finally, how exactly would we remember a figure like the great Ghazi of
>> Islam - Mahmud of Ghazna and his love for Ayaz, or Razia Sultana and her
>> love for women, or the distinctly queer ecstasies of Amir Khusrau and
>> Sarmad. Each one of these people saw themselves as devout Muslim. And there
>> was nothing unusual in their being queer Muslims. Islamicate societies all
>> over the world have been historically far more tolerant of various different
>> kinds of same-sex relationships both male and female, and transgender
>> identities, than societies largely anchored in Christian values have been.
>> Islam is a sex positive religion. It celebrates the dignity, beauty and
>> diversity of the human body and all its desires. There is (and always has
>> been) a strong case for a queer theology of liberation that is rooted within
>> the Islamicate cultural universe, and it has had a long history, and it will
>> have a long future.
>> Maulana Madrasi is probably just as ignorant of the traditions he claims are
>> his own as Praveen Togadia, the firebrand leader of the Vishwa Hindu
>> Parishad, is. They would probably make an excellent couple, locked happily
>> together within their private closet of paranoia.
>> Meanwhile, let us hope that Veerappa Moily's supposed u-turn is only a
>> digression, and that the provisions in Section 377 that criminalize the
>> behaviour of consenting adults in private (which should not be the business
>> of the state)  are consigned finally to where they belong - the dustbin of
>> history.
>> And congratulations to all those who paraded on the streets of Delhi,
>> Bangalore, Madras and Calcutta. The future belongs to you (and us all) not
>> to the likes of Maulana Madrasi.
>> regards
>> Shuddha
>> On 29-Jun-09, at 3:54 PM, M Javed wrote:
>>
>> Gay sex against tenets of Islam: Deoband
>> 29 Jun 2009, 1353 hrs IST, PTI
>> MUZAFFARNAGAR, UP: A leading Islamic seminary on Monday opposed
>> Centre's move to repeal a controversial section of the penal law which
>> criminalises homosexuality saying unnatural sex is against the tenets of
>> Islam.
>> "Homosexuality is an offence under Shariat Law and haram (prohibited)
>> in Islam," deputy vice chancellor of the Darul Uloom Deoband Maulana
>> Abdul Khalik Madrasi said.
>> Madrasi also asked the government not to repeal section 377 of IPC
>> which criminalises homosexuality.
>> His objection came a day after law minister Veerappa Moily said a
>> decision on repealing the section would be taken only after
>> considering concerns of all sections of the society, including
>> religious groups like the church.
>> Terming gay activities as crime, Maulana Salim Kasmi, vice-president
>> of the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), said
>> homosexuality is punishable under Islamic law and section 377 of IPC
>> should not be tampered.
>> Maulana Mohd Sufiyan Kasmi, an AIMPLB member, and Mufti Zulfikar,
>> president of Uttar Pradesh Imam Organisation have also expressed
>> similar views on the issue.
>> Kasmi said it would be harmful for the society to legalise gay sex.
>> Buoyed by the news that the Centre is considering repealing the
>> controversial section of the IPC, members of the gay community on
>> Sunday held parades in several cities.
>> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Gay-sex-against-tenets-of-Islam-Deoband/articleshow/4715517.cms
>> _________________________________________
>> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
>> Critiques & Collaborations
>> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe
>> in the subject header.
>> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
>> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>>
>> Shuddhabrata Sengupta
>> The Sarai Programme at CSDS
>> Raqs Media Collective
>> shuddha at sarai.net
>> www.sarai.net
>> www.raqsmediacollective.net
>>
>>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>