We’ve all heard about them. Fatwas. The one against Salman Rushdie made him famous. But what exactly is a fatwa? From About.com, we see that a fatwa is:

an Islamic religious ruling, a scholarly opinion on a matter of Islamic law. A fatwa is issued by a recognized religious authority in Islam.

But what’s interesting is that:

… since there is no hierarchical priesthood or anything of the sort in Islam, a fatwa is not necessarily “binding” on the faithful

and, of course,

it is not uncommon for scholars to come to different conclusions regarding the same issue.

So, the issuing of a fatwa per se is not about to unleash hordes of torch-wielding Muslims looking for someone to execute (burning at the stake is frowned upon in Islam, from what I can gather). However, as with Christians, it will introduce yet another ruling to be adhered to by the more conservatively religious families. And, as mentioned above, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility for an imam at Point A to say one thing, and an imam at Point B to say something else when both given an identical question.

At this point, I don’t see it as being terribly different to how Christianity operates, where people tend to congregate at churches that have pastors/priests/reverends partial to their general philosophical view, and who adhere to principles not explicitly covered by the Ten Commandments based on their religious leader’s sermonised pronouncements, or interpretations, of the Commandments (Rev. Jeremiah Wright vs Pastor John Hagee, say). And, to take another example, the Vatican made littering a sin back in March, thus saving the environment from lazy Catholics.

Malaysia, being a Muslim country, has its own Fatwa Council that’s recently decided to come out with a couple of pretty controversial fatwas. The first is on “tomboyish behaviour”. That is,

women looking like men whether in appearance or dressing

This means women wearing trousers, for one. The fatwa was issued to preserve the faith of Muslims and thus stop the prevalence of lesbian sex. Like conservative Christianity, Islam takes the “threat” of homosexuality very seriously. In reality, however, I’m not sure how this fatwa is going to play out. We regularly shop at what’s regarded as a “Malay shopping centre” and I see Muslim females of all ages dressed in trousers, from toddlers to grandmothers. There’s a small playground set at the McDonald’s there. Would I really prefer to see young girls in skirts flash their underwear coming down the slide, rather than be sensibly clothed in pants? In which case, will we be looking at a fatwa to ban females from playground equipment next? For their own protection, natch.

The second is not so clear cut because the Fatwa Council is only due to give its ruling on Friday, but has shot into the spotlight due to a remark from Professor Zakaria Stapa of the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia who thinks that Muslims should avoid yoga because its origins could be tracked to Hinduism and, thus, threaten a devout Muslim’s faith. After a six-month study, the Fatwa Council is due to make its conclusion public on 7 November, so stay tuned.

The slippery slope of fatwas such as these are readily apparent to many Malaysians, who sarcastically ask whether different currencies (one for Muslims, one for non-Muslims) will be issued next, so Muslims will not have to touch money that may have been handled by, say, pork butchers. Or that, if non-Muslim practices and culture are such a danger to Muslims (as Prof Zakaria Stapa would have us believe), then not only should there should be fatwas against attending movie theatres, all amusements and most restaurants in the country, but that every other building in Malaysia should additionally have “Muslim” and “non-Muslim” entrances, just to ensure that fragile Muslims don’t get corrupted by all these foreign cultures.

For myself, I find Muslims in Malaysia, in general, to be a relaxed, tolerant and level-headed lot. We have only ever been viewed with curiosity at worst, warmth and friendliness at best, and hostility only from one supervisor at the local JPJ (Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), by any other name) who obviously had a chip on his shoulder about foreigners in “his” country. (Come to think about it, J faced the same thing in the US DMV, from a Japanese American, so there must be something about hiring practices across the world’s Transport departments … but I digress. As usual.)

While I can understand, to some extent, the fear that a particular population has towards popular encroachments on their “values” from people perceived as “other” (Australia has this attitude in spades), what I can’t understand is the failure of common sense from those in authority. The people who are the decision-makers in any society are usually better-educated than the norm, yet seem wilfully blind. It seems obvious to all of us that patronising the general population and deliberately forbidding a particular practice is the sure-fire way of increasing its popularity. Drugs. Rock and roll music. The Prohibition era.

So why continue doing it? Is it because authority trumps reason? Or because the alternative is entering into an extended, and perhaps ambiguous and painful, dialogue? That attitude’s understandable as well, to be honest, but does not do justice to any idea we have that we are, in any way, superior to the rest of this planet’s inhabitants. So what if things aren’t always black and white? Isn’t that why we have brains? So we have the capacity to reason intelligently, rather than just grasp at the first knee-jerk impulse that occurs to us? Doesn’t humanity deserve better?

POSTSCRIPT: Interestingly, I found a fatwa about reading and writing fiction. The link is here, but I thought I’d reproduce the question and answer in full for your convenience.

Question: What is the ruling regarding reading or writing fictional stories and those which arouse the imagination? And if some of them [aid in] rectify[ing] social problems, then is this permissible?

Response: Fictional stories are from lies which occupy the time of the writer and the reader without benefit, so abandoning busying oneself with them is preferable. And if writing and reading [fictional stories] occupies oneself from that which is obligatory then this [fictional stories] is prohibited. And if it occupies oneself from that which is recommended then this [fictional stories] is disliked. In any case, the time of the Muslim is valuable, so it is not permissible to spend it in that which there is no benefit.

So much for increasing my readership in Malaysia and Indonesia.

(Of course I’m being facetious. There are Muslim film directors making movies in Malaysia and Indonesia, and Muslim novelists with books for sale in the local stores. I’m just going to have to fast-track my learning of the language in order to enjoy any of them!)