FATWA ACTIVISM OR EDUCATIONAL ACTIVISM
In recent times, various forms of activism have come into prominence—for example, political activism, social activism, community activism, and media activism. One such form is known as judicial activism. By this is meant approaching the courts in matters of public interest and seeking judicial intervention in order to achieve objectives related to the common good through legal means. This method is commonly found among secular groups. Whether this approach is right or wrong is not the subject of discussion here.
Some religious circles among Muslims have, for some time now, adopted a method that may be described as fatwa-based activism. With the stated aim of reforming Muslims, they have begun to use the fatwa as a means of activism. For example, they issue fatwas declaring certain forms of dress to be un-Islamic; they declare certain beverages to be un-Islamic and pronounce them forbidden; they issue rulings prohibiting women from visiting certain religious places; they declare individuals guilty of insulting the Prophet e and issue fatwas calling for their killing; they label certain authors as controversial and issue fatwas advising people not to read their books; they declare individuals as apostates and issue fatwas calling for their social boycott; they pronounce television and similar modern means to be forbidden and issue rulings urging people to avoid them; they declare banking and other new developments to be un-Islamic and issue fatwa’s calling for their non-use; and so on.
Thousands of such fatwas have been issued in the modern era, yet all of them have proved ineffective. The outcome of every such fatwa has been the same: it failed to produce the desired result. Throughout the entire modern period, I know of only one instance in which a mufti, despite receiving a request for a ruling, refused to issue a fatwa.
In my view, this was the correct approach. During the British period, there was a scholar in Delhi named Maulana Abdul Haq Haqqani (d. 1831). He wrote a Quranic commentary that became known as Tafsir Haqqani. At that time, the British government introduced paper currency in place of gold and silver coins. From a traditional religious perspective, these paper notes, at first glance, appeared un-Islamic. Maulana Abdul Haq Haqqani was asked for a fatwa on whether the use of paper currency was permissible or impermissible from an Islamic point of view. He did not issue any fatwa in response to this query. He simply said that his fatwa would not work, whereas the currency notes would. In such matters, this is the correct Islamic approach.
The literal meaning of the word fatwa is opinion. There are two forms of fatwa. One is when a person asks about his own situation, stating that he is facing a particular issue and asking what he should do. For example, a female athlete may ask about her dress and seek guidance on what kind of dress she should wear during sports from an Islamic perspective. In such a case, issuing a fatwa is appropriate. This is when the person seeking the fatwa intends to follow the ruling personally. In such circumstances, the mufti should respond. This is the proper use of a fatwa and its correct place.
The second form arises when a social evil exists in society, yet society itself raises no question about it. An individual, on his own initiative, raises a question about this social issue and asks a mufti for a fatwa. If the mufti issues a fatwa in such a case, he misuses the institution of fatwa. Such a fatwa will not bring about any positive reform; instead, it will become a cause of disrepute for Islam.
For example, there are many social evils against which muftis have issued fatwas in the present age. Yet, in the words of Maulana Abdul Haq Haqqani, the result has been that their fatwas did not work, while the evils continued as before. For instance, fatwas against innovations, polytheistic customs, dowry in marriages, television and cinema, loudspeakers, bank interest, not keeping a beard, Western dress, and English education. As is well known, all these fatwas remained without result and had no effect on society.
According to my study, the correct position is that only the person directly concerned has the right to seek a fatwa regarding his own case, and only in such matters should a mufti issue a fatwa. For example, if someone asks a mufti whether congregational prayer is valid behind an imam of a particular mosque whose beard is short, such a query is a source of discord rather than a genuine request for guidance. A mufti should not respond to such a query. Seeking a fatwa concerns the personal matter of the questioner, not matters concerning others beyond his own person.
Now the question arises: what is Islam’s method for general or social reform? This method is the method of reminder and counsel, not the method of issuing fatwas. That is, explaining matters to people through writing and speech. This effort should be carried out in the language of qawl baligh—that is, language and reasoning that penetrate the listener’s heart, to the point that he acknowledges its truth.
This method of counsel and reminder may, in today’s terminology, be called educational activism. That is, reforming people through education and training and striving to change their mindset. It would be correct to say that Islam’s principle regarding social reform is based on educational activism, not on fatwa activism.
In this regard, a guiding example is found in Sahih al-Bukhari. Aisha relates that in the early period of Islam, the Quranic verses that were revealed spoke mainly about Paradise and Hell. This was done so that a sense of receptivity could develop in people’s hearts toward Islam and so that psychological readiness might be created within them. When this readiness had taken shape, the Quran then revealed commands such as abandoning adultery and giving up intoxicants. Had such commands been revealed at the very beginning, people would not have accepted them. Instead, they would have resisted and refused to change their habitual ways. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith No. 4993)
This shows that the work of general reform is not accomplished by issuing fatwas or commands. Rather, the first step is to cultivate within people the capacity for acceptance. Only after that are commands given. Issuing commands without first cultivating this capacity does not solve the problem at any level.
Whenever corruption appears in a society, its cause is not that people are unaware of commands or laws and therefore fall into wrongdoing. The reality is that social corruption results from a lack of inner spirit among people, not from ignorance of commands and laws.
In such a situation, the starting point of social reform is not to issue fatwas based on legal rulings. Rather, the starting point is to awaken people’s inner spirit, revive awareness within them, and cultivate in them the capacity for acceptance. When this has been achieved to a significant extent, the time comes to inform people about issues in the language of commands and laws. Announcing external commands before creating internal capacity is a wrong order. It is like putting the cart before the horse, which is clearly unworkable.
Whether it is fatwa activism or any other form of activism, there is only one way to assess it, and that is by examining the results it produces in practice. The only measure of the correctness of an action is its outcome. It is an established principle that action should always be result-oriented, and fatwa activism is certainly not an exception to this general principle. (Al-Risala, September 2006)
