The Fatwa Of "No"

Alliance with America is a great crime forbidden by Islam.

Hizb-ut-Tahrir
(Email Fatwa, September 18^th)

If any Islamic country or its ulema (clergy) announce jihad,it is obligatory for each and every Muslim in the world to support it morallyand express it openly.

Syed Ahmed Bukhari
(Friday Prayers, September 28^th)

After September 11, the world suddenly becamea more difficult place for the Muslim. First,there were the desultory racist attacks in the United States on people whoappeared "Islamic" (Sikhs and bearded South Asians sometimes foundthemselves unwitting partners of the identifiable ummah).Then, there was the entire "war of discourse," accompanied by the tiredtropes of prejudice: Islamicterror, medieval practices,fundamentalism, file photosof Kalshnikovs in Peshawar streets. Also,there were those who practiced the timeless art of political opportunism. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America, for instance, sponsored a rally inEdison, New Jersey on September 23^rd, where the dominant slogan was"Hindus and Sikhs unite against terrorism." One does not need a degree in textual analysis to decode that one. And of course, there was the threat of bombs, that led a terrified anddesperate Afghan populace to abandon their decrepit homes, thanks to theirplane-crashing "benefactors."

But along with these outside perils, a formidable internal threat that thisnervous and uneasy community faces comes from the irresponsible fatwas of its religious "leaders." The mullahs, most of whom are neither likely to suffer anypersecution themselves nor held accountable, have felt free to demand a militantresponse from their congregations. Theirpronouncements circulate relentlessly; in the public proclamations by sidelinedpowerbrokers like Imam Bukhari, from discredited leaders seeking to re-establishthemselves in mosques, and through shadowy nameless organizations in cyberspacewho spam Muslims with anonymous emails.

The calls range from boilerplate denouncements of American imperialism toexhortations urging Muslims to rally behind the Taliban. While asking the community to follow the Buddha-destroyers who callthemselves students but deny women educational opportunities, these so-calledinterpreters of religion elide over one important detail: there is nobasis for the legitimacy of their fatwasin Islamic jurisprudence. Forinstance, the Quran explicitly states (39: 18): "Hear advice and follow thebest thereof…"

In effect, the Holy Book cautions believers that when faced with theinevitability of multiple interpretations, they must use their own judgment.Reason is celebrated throughout the Quran and Muslims are warned not to abdicatetheir responsibility while making any choice. The ulema of the faith have theright to interpret situations from a religious standpoint, and offer an opinion.However, their proclamations are not binding on the community. As the noted Muslim scholar Ziauddin Sardar recently clarified, a fatwa in Islam is merely a statement of opinion. Not a command. Not a religious imperative. And it is certainly possible for all Muslims to issue their own fatwa. For instance, one can issue a fatwa, as he did, denouncing theterrorists as non-Muslims, for making war on innocents.

The fact that these pronouncements by our clerics, issued in the form ofcommands, go unchallenged in public (private grumbles aside) points to atroubling paucity of formal internal dialogue within the community. It is high time self identified Muslims armed themselves withQuranic verses to question their clerics who make circuitous justification ofthese events. For example, theycould use verses 2:190, 5:32 and 17:36 from the Book, that unequivocallydenounce killing of innocents, to decimate any argument that remotely attemptsto defend the September 11 incidents. Theycan deploy verses 10:24; 30:8; 30:21; 34:46; 39:42; 59:21, all of whichcelebrate independent thinking, to challenge anyone who makes any statement thatbegins with "All Muslims should…."

Unless they equip themselves with their own tolerant theology, they will losetheir community to the venality of those who, through motivated religiousinterpretations of contemporary political phenomena, seek to propel them towardsthe wrong end of the dangerous and false logic of the "clash ofcivilizations."

After the defeat of the Arab alliance at the hands of Israel in 1967, FaizAhmed Faiz, in a withering poem titled Sar e Vaadi e Seena (On the SinaiValley) wrote passionately against those among the Islamic clergy who, by givingreligious colour to the conflict, had obfuscated the legitimate politicalgrievances of Palestine:

Ab rasm e sitam hikmat e qasaan e zameen hai
Taeed e sitam maslehat e mufti e deen hai
Ab sadiyon ke iqraar e itaa’at ko badalne
Laazim hai ke inkaar ka farmaan koi utre

Now the elites of our world seek to "cure" us by tyranny
And the mufti of our faith has chosen"wisely" to support them
To change this centuries-old tradition of followership and acceptance
It is necessary that a new command descend – "No!"

Perhaps Muslims already possess the fatwaof refusal, which must now be exercised. Letme begin. I hereby say no. I refuseto accept the equation of anti-imperialism with pro-Talibanism. I refuse to capitulate to the rhetoric of the "clash ofcivilizations." And to ImamBukhari and his recommendation that every Muslim follow the Taliban in jihad,I simply say no.

(MirAli Raza helps edit SAMAR, the South Asian Magazine for Action and Reflection)