Umm Yasmin over at Dervish recently posted a Declaration of Fatwa by World Islamic Scholars about Danish Cartoons. But of course, this raises the eternal question: In the popular imagination, which will be seen as more representative of Islam, a clear, decisive unified statement by dozens of Islamic leaders from around the world? Or the violent actions of a few thugs?
6 comments:
To be fair, I kind of recent scholars OR thugs feeling they can speak for me. I can't be opposed to the ulemocracy MOST of the time, and then suddenyly love them when I agree with them.
This is just my personal opinion.
recent = resent?
in my case, i'm trying to have some respect and regard for the ulemea but i would also want to be picky about which one i would say i follow.
after reading about different madhahib, I would say the Hanafi perspective makes the most sense to me for different reasons. So I try to learn from those books and I would cautiously consider certain living scholars "authoritative" in terms of my own decisions.
Also in the case of the current fatwa, it's not just a couple of imams here and there. They are pretty widely distributed geographically and include both sunnis and shias.
The problem is that this Fatwa still insists that it is a crime to draw Mohammed in a manner that *some* people do not like. This is unacceptible. If Muslims are enjoined from portraying the Prophet,so be it. That rule does not apply to those who are not Muslim. I do not understand why this particular point is missed by a great deal of people both Muslim and non-Muslim. No one has to respect anyone's religion (mine included) they simply cannot prevent me from practicing it.
the fatwa doesn't insist that non-Muslims follow Islamic rules. It doesn't say it is a crime to draw Muhammad in an unacceptable manner.
The closest thing is:
2. We call upon the Danish government and the Danish people to yield to the large number of objective and sincere voices emanating from within their society, by apologizing, and condemning and bringing an end to this attack. This is to ensure that Denmark is not isolated from the global community, a community hat upholds the kind of freedom that prevents it from attacking and desecrating religious symbols or provoking animosity and antagonism towards any religion or race. We also extend this call to the countries that defended this attack, as there is no society today that advocates an unaccountable freedom without putting in place measures of regulation so as to prevent harm to come to others. Of course, societies differ in their levels of regulation.
.............
So the point is that the sensibilities of all religions and races should be respected. Not just Muslims, not just Jews, etc.
And I don't think the fatwa was even necessarily speaking from a legal perspective either. But more on an informal level. When individuals speak, they should have a freedom to express themselves. But they should also take other people's feelings into account.
But in some sense, you are even wrong from a legal perspective. Denmark actually has anti-blasphemy laws on their books.
Many European countries have laws prohibiting Holocaust denial or expressions of Nazi ideology.
I don't see this whole issue as being about an Enlightened West which endorses free speech vs. the benighted East which opposes it. Even in the West there are limits on free speech which protect the sensibilities of certain groups, and if that's the case, the same respect should be extended to Muslims.
And even in the absence of legal protections, people should have every right to criticize the racist anti-semitic (in the broad sense) nature of the cartoons and oppose them through moral persuasion.
why do people insist on conflating freedom of speech with "The West" ? Totally out of order. That is how the media, eastern and western want it portrayed. It is not an east-west issue. It so happens that this particular issue occured in a western country. I have no desire to defend the Danes as a people or even Europe as a general culture. It is the height of hypocracy that the danes and others have laws forbidding the discussion of that which would be considered "anti-Semetic" or "Denying the Holocaust. Height of Hyprocracy. Still, no one, not a single person should be legally obligated to "respect" anyone's religion or religion at all. The Fatwa asks for exactly that it asks :
6. We call upon the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) as well as Muslim countries and governments and the international community to press the United Nations to issue a declaration criminalizing any insult to Muhammad, Jesus or Moses or to any other revered prophetic figure.
That is out of order. Unacceptible.
I definitely wouldn't conflate freedom of speech with the west, but that is definitely how some people are presenting this issue.
Post a Comment