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

Tue Jun 30 15:59:54 IST 2009

Dear Javed,

Agreed with you on both counts.

The media actually goes and finds these maulanas and provides them a  
platform, if only to demonstrate the fact that somehow 'muslims'  
would be tagged as illiberal and bigoted. I saw a Christian priest  
being asked repeatedly the same question again and again on TV  
yesterday, in a debate on Section 377. In this case, the priest  
actually said that though he had a faith based objection to  
Homosexuality (which he is entitled to have, on the basis of his  
convictions) he saw no harm in 'decriminalizing' homosexuality  
through a repeal of Section 377. And yet the News anchor kept trying  
to needle him and get him into a corner from where he would deliver  
his own little 'fatwa'. Luckily, in this case, the priest did not  
bend to the bait.

I think that when the media run to Maulanas and priests and acharyas  
for sound bites matters that they are not competent to comment on,  
they are being totally irresponsible, and that they are actually  
helping to create a climate of bigotry.

Also, there are many aspects of the Shariat, as it has been  
interpreted in diverse contexts, with which I am in agreement, just  
as there are some, with which I am not in agreement. I think the some  
of the Sharia based injunctions towards hospitality, charity and the  
sharing of wealth are exemplery. But, some (not all) provisions  
relating to the relations between and within the sexes, and the  
conduct of women, I find problematic. I also know well that these are  
later accretions. There is a crying need for sane, reasoned but  
passionate debate on questions of exegesis in Islam and indeed, in  
all other religions. And I am more than well aware of spaces within  
Muslim societies where these debates are occurring. They are beacons  
of light.

Unfortunately, I do not think that Darul Uloom Deoband (in its  
current state) is a place where this can happen. That is a tragedy  
for all South Asians, regardless of whether or not they are Muslim,

regards

Shuddha

On 30-Jun-09, at 3:46 PM, M Javed 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
>>
>>

Shuddhabrata Sengupta
The Sarai Programme at CSDS
Raqs Media Collective
shuddha at sarai.net
www.sarai.net
www.raqsmediacollective.net