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.
Then came the urine fatwa: It said that drinking the urine of the Prophet Muhammad was deemed a blessing.
For the past few weeks, the breast-feeding and urine fatwas have proved a source of national embarrassment in Egypt, not least because they were issued by representatives of the highest religious authorities in the land.
For many Muslims, fatwas, or religious edicts, are the bridge between the principles of their faith and modern life. They are supposed to be issued by religious scholars who look to the Koran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad for guidance. While the more sensational pronouncements grab attention, the bulk of the fatwas involve the routine of daily life. In Egypt alone, thousands are issued every month.
The controversy in Cairo has been more than just embarrassing. It comes at a time when religious and political leaders say there is a crisis in Islam because too many fatwas are being issued and many rely on ideology more than learning. The complaint has been the subject of recent conferences as government-appointed arbiters of Islamic standards say the fatwa free-for-all has led to the promotion of extremism and intolerance.
The conflict in Egypt served as a difficult reminder of a central challenge facing Islamic communities as they debate the true nature of the faith and how to accommodate modernity. The fatwa is the front line in the theological battle between often opposing world views. It is where interpretation meets daily life.
Technically, the fatwa is nonbinding and recipients are free to shop around for a better ruling. In a faith with no central doctrinal authority, there has been an explosion of places offering fatwas, from websites that respond to written queries, to satellite television shows that take phone calls, to radical and terrorist organizations that set up their own fatwa committees.
“There is chaos now,” Abdullah Megawer, the former head of the fatwa committee at Al Azhar, said. “The problem created is confusion in thought, confusion about what is right and what is wrong religiously.”
In Egypt, there are two official institutions responsible for religious interpretation. The house of fatwa, or Dar al-Ifta, which technically falls under the ministry of justice, and Al Azhar. All court sentences of death must be approved by Dar al-Ifta, for example.
“These people in fact are defined as agencies of the government,” said Muhammad Serag, a professor of Islamic Studies at American University in Cairo. “They are not trusted anymore.”
Those who issue fatwas are acknowledged as serving as mediators between faith and modernity and as arbiters of morality. They are supposed to consider not only religious teachings, but the circumstances of the time. The position is without parallel in the West, and it combines the role of social worker, therapist, lawyer and religious advisor.
In fact, the relationship between the Koran and a fatwa is a matter of dispute. Some Muslim scholars view the Koran’s words and ideas as fixed with little room for manoeuver. Others see their job as reconciling modernity with the text by gently bending the text to fit new circumstances.
A second issue is the basis for interpretation. The sayings of the Prophet, known as the hadiths, also serve as the basis for many fatwas. But those sayings, of which there are thousands, have been passed down orally and may or may not be legitimate. Some seek to limit fatwas to the written Koran, as a result.
Questions have been asked for generations. Should ancient statues be destroyed or preserved? Should women be allowed to drive, to work, to travel without permission of men? Can boys and girls attend school together? Is it permissible to buy insurance, to shake hands with a non-Muslim, to take pictures, to view family photographs? All of this has been addressed in fatwas.
“We have to be clear what is at stake here,” said Egypt’s grand mufti, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, at a recent speech in London. “When each and every person’s unqualified opinion is considered a fatwa, we lost a tool that is of the utmost importance to rein in extremism and preserve the flexibility and balance of Islamic law.”
In his own role and practice, the grand mufti embodies many of the issues that have arisen around the fatwa practice. He has issued rulings that are deemed so progressive as to be offensive, and others that are so literal, as to be offensive. He issued the now notorious urine fatwa in a book called Religion and Life, published six years ago. It told the story of a woman who drank the Prophet’s urine. The mufti had his book taken off the shelves, and said the controversial statement was not a fatwa but his opinion offered in response to a question.
He was also criticized—and praised—earlier this year when he issued a fatwa saying that it was permissible for women to have reconstructive hymen surgery before marriage to conceal that they were no longer virgins. He said that since it is impossible to tell if a man is a virgin or not, women should have the same option.
But he took his opinion a step further, when he said that if a married woman had sex with another man, regretted her action and asked God for forgiveness, she should not tell her husband. The goal, he reportedly said, was to preserve the family.
The breast-feeding fatwa came in mid-May. A religious scholar who headed the department of the teachings of the Prophet at the foundation of Religion College in Al Azhar University wrote that there were instances in the time of Prophet Muhammad when adult women breast-fed adult men in order to overcome the need for women to veil in front of men.
“Breast-feeding an adult puts an end to the problem of the private meeting, and does not ban marriage,” wrote Izat Atiyah. “A woman at work can take off the veil or reveal her hair in front of someone whom she breast-fed.”
The ruling was mocked on satellite television shows around the region, and quickly condemned at home. He was suspended from his job, mocked in newspapers and within days issued a retracting saying it was a “bad interpretation of a particular case.” (International Herald Tribune)