the illogic of fatwas

Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), Dec 19, 2008 at 21:48

Keith:

The first link you gave was to a pdf document littered heavily with Arabic terms and Islamic ideas and very hard to follow for the average non-Islamic reader.

The other links were relevant to fatwas and it is encouraging to see that there are fatwas specifically against violence against non-Islamic people.

However, the point I was making was the whole concept of the 'fatwah'.
Presumeably people make them -thinking it agrees with what 'Allah' wants.
That is, . we discount the possiblility that:

a) they make them thinking it is NOT what 'Allah' wants
or
b) that what 'Allah' wants is not even considered - because that would make a 'fatwah' just a wishlist concocted by somebody in power - for their own ends.

. The fact that you can have two different 'experts' issuing diametrically opposed edicts on the same subject naturally enough leads one to conclude that either one is right and the other wrong - or both are wrong.

If both are wrong - then they are both deluded in thinking they know what 'Allah' wants.

So how do you rationalise having such an arbitrary system - and being beholden to it?
How do you decide who is right and who is wrong?
And you must feel that the people who believe in (let alone carry out) the 'wrong' fatwah are at best , sadly mistaken - but more accurately deluded.

For example there was a fatwa issued by Islamic clerics for the assasination of the democratically elected Dutch politician , Geert Wilders.

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2840

• As you well know, Geert Wilders assembled a series of outtakes from news bulletiins from around the world showing real atrocities comitted by followers of Islamic religion - and called it 'Fitnah'. Of course you would call them terrorists - but equally, they would call you 'soft' and not a real Muslim because you don't agree with what they believe.

Now because 'Fitnah' disagreed with the islamic clerics - these persons have decided to issue orders to have the democratically elected Dutch politician slaugthered. Presumeably in the same manner that Dutch artist Van Gogh was slaughtered -

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ayaan-hirsi-ali-my-life-under-a-fatwa-760666.html

You mentioned freedom being hard won. You are correct. In the West people make all kinds of accusations against others - they may be right, they may be wrong. If they're wrong - they can take it to court - and claim damages etc. There are no dark and sinister death threats issued .

You don't find the local parish priest issuing death threats against islamics who belittle Christians for example do you? I've never heard of Buddhist monks issuing a death threats against Muslims who criticise Buddhist teachings or the Islamists who blew up the 2,000 year old statues of Bamayan either.

So before I go off-topic - were they right to issue a death threat against Van Gogh (which has succeeded) - or Ayan Hirsi Ali (which has not yet succeeded)? If they are not right - then they are wrong (or do you see it another way?)

If they are wrong - then the whole system on which 'fatwah' is based is flawed.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".