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

Tue Jun 30 16:07:04 IST 2009

Dear Pawan,

Luckily, there is no one thing called Sharia. The provision that you  
have referred to probably exists in a very specific interpretation of  
Muslim jurisprudence, which would be challenged, or at least called  
into question, elsewhere. If you put any two believing Muslims  
together you would probably get five interpretations of Shariat. The  
liberality and openness of Islamicate cultures and traditions has had  
a lot to do with this alive culture of debate.

If this provision were to be uniformly implemented, it would be hard  
for us to understand how it is that societies in the Islamicate world  
had such a rich tradition of sexual diversity, some of which we could  
now understand within the rubric of the unfortunately narrow and  
inadequate term - Homosexual.

None of this means that it is necessary for us, including those of us  
who happen to be Muslim, to live according to the dictates of any  
interpretation of Shariat. I think these questions, of how one is to  
conduct one's private life, is best left to the individual choice and  
agency of consenting adults. Away from the shadow of the long arm of  
the judge, the policeman, the priest, the pundit and the mullah.

best

Shuddha

On 30-Jun-09, at 3:56 PM, Pawan Durani wrote:

> 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/>

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