The Prohibition of Fun under the Shari'a: Salafi Ideological Fanaticism
I've sort of been combing through a series of fatawa by prominent Salafi figures in places from Afghanistan to Saudi to Algeria, mostly for vulgar entertainment value (it really can be funny how ridiculous some of these things get, it's my version of Jerry Springer to look through them), but I've sort of noticed a pattern I thought might be worth a post today.
An Algerian Salafi figure apparently, according to widespread media reports, issued a fatwa banning the selling of this Arab and South Asian delicacy called zelabia (I think they are called jallabis in South Asia, but not sure) which tastes so good though it might be the unhealthiest dessert ever. It is some sort of flour, sugar and water concoction poured into hot oil so that it gets shaped almost like a pretzel and then dipped in honey or something. The reason for this one is that it is an innovation from true Islam, where we don't break our fast with zelabia but dates. Sometimes, the objectors report, the zelabia has the shape of a cross in the middle of it (it's shaped like a pretzel, I don't see the cross, though I guess there is always a right angle somewhere from where a cross might be imagined).
Second, a Saudi judge was on television decrying the spread of, by name, both Tom and Jerry and Mickey Mouse because in Islam, the mouse is among the most repulsive animals ever (so he says, first time I hear this), and its killing is permitted anywhere, even in the most sacred of locations. You can't kill an ant in the Mecca Mosque housing the Ka'ba, but he says it seems you can kill a mouse. So why do we let our children watch Mickey Mouse, when under God's Law Mickey Mouse may be executed anywhere, at any time? Why aren't we taking the latter attitude? (One reason, I surmise, is that Mickey Mouse isn't actually a real mouse, making it hard to execute him, but don't tell the guy, he might be disappointed). I told my cousin, a woman wearing a headscarf, who reacted by telling her 2 year old child (as a joke, in case it's not obvious) he could go ahead and see his Tom and Jerry tape, but to close his eyes whenever Jerry came on. Tom was okay though. He actually did it, which was pretty funny.
Third, in their comeback, the Taliban have managed to ban kite flying in their area again, the theory also being this was not a sport in which the Prophet engaged. They helpfully noted that horseback riding was okay because practiced then, which is perfect for all those poor Afghan kids who can't afford a soccer ball. Just find a horse, and all is well.
Now the formal link among this sort of nonsense that comes from the Salafis (for lack of a better analogy, Islam's supposed "originalists", from whom everyone from Saudi's Wahhabi clerics to Bin Laden draw their inspiration) is the notion that innovation or change is not really acceptable in Islam. But that notion doesn't really work, at least not in any way that can be made consistent and sensible if extended like this. I don't doubt their sincerity, but that doesn't make it sensible. I do, I will admit, generally doubt their ability to reason very soundly, by which I mean these specific actors (I'll limit myself to them for now).
And as a further caveat, while I acknowledge that some very smart people believe there is some sort of spirit to Islamic law's core that can be found by reference to the juristic texts, usually non Salafi, and I can go back and forth forever on that point with those smart people, I don't think this is the ground on which any such Muslim Dworkinian is likely to make his stand. To the contrary, I think they would, rightly, dismiss my Realist attack on the absolute logical consistency of shari'a as a whole as ridiculous if made from these Salafi examples, as dumb as that Maher character proving religion is dumb by finding some random people and exposing their beliefs as irrational, as opposed to the leaders in whom they seek such inspiration. Of course, I think they'd say, there are examples of silly reasoning masquerading as Islamic law, we object to that too. But it's different from saying there is no such thing as an internal core and spirit to which one can dedicate himself. Fair enough, disagree as I might with their conclusion. So I'm not making that point. Instead, I'm trying to show what these fellows might actually be motivated by, if we can all agree that they, and at least they, aren't really actually motivated by the theory of originalism they are pushing.
Because, to underscore the point, they cannot be. if you really think that acts of worship have to be those practiced by the earliest generations following Muhammad (the so called Salaf) then why are loudspeakers at mosques permitted? The argument goes they enhance the worship, but don't awesome tasting desserts enhance the fast? And if we can't fly a kite, why can we wear clothing that differs from the Salaf, or eat food processed in a manner the Salaf would not have recognized? This isn't me pointing out the problems, this is so easy that hundreds of editorials in Arabic papers make light of these sorts of theories all the time, to notable effect.
So then the question is, if it's not really about returning to the ways of the ancestors, at least in these rather farcical cases, what is it about? Sure resistance to the West is absolutely some of it, even a great deal of it in the case of Mickey Mouse, but neither zelabia or kiteflying is the sort of thing one associates with the West right away. They had to stretch pretty far to even make the connection in the zelabia case, to a Christian cross, hidden, Where's Waldo like, in the shape of the sweets. Even the resistance, in that last case, is more rhetoric than reality.
If I might proffer a simple, additional reason that some of this might be coming about is that for the most part, the Islamist resistance is filled with angry and frustrated people, in many cases very extreme ideologues, who don't really think very highly of fun, as might be said of ideologues the world over, whether Marxists or abortion doctor killers or whoever. To them, the world is serious business, not to be laughed at, and ideas in their purity meant to prevail. The notion that their ideas aren't entirely consistent in application (it's the world, they never will be, when you try to force the world into the consistent idea, it usually ends pretty badly) engenders a furious reaction. They don't believe it, they insist it is consistent, and pure, and comprehensive and absolute.
To some of my academic colleagues, "Islam is the solution", a refrain which extends far beyond the Salafis in the Islamist Sunni movements of the world in particular (many of which though not all lean far too hard in matters of religion to the Salafi if you ask me and I don't count the Turks because they are not Islamists), is heartening, or at least misunderstood. To me, as a Muslim, and a sincere and genuine believing one who can find comfort and spiritual solace only in faith, it is truly terrifying, as terrifying the other favorite Islamist refrain in Egypt "in Islam, there are no disputes." This is the very pith and pit of fanaticism, the notion that there is some comprehensive, nondisputable world view that must be realized, everywhere and at once, as the "solution." Imagine any other word stuck in that place "In ____, there are no disputes." "_____ is the solution" as an answer to everything from the current economic crisis to the war in Iraq, and it should be obvious, this is not the language of moderates seeking compromise.
In turn, to this brand of extremists, the logical inconsistencies in the Muslim polity, Muslim humanity in all its twists, turns and faults, in its wondrous and delightful mosaical Islamical variety, drive them up the wall. How can a Muslim own a Christmas tree, as so many Kurds do? (or really more decorate the pine trees outside anyway). How can a Muslim break his fast and watch a soap opera, as so many Arabs do? How can a Muslim stop drinking just for Ramadan, as so many Iraqis do? How can a nondrinking non gambling bearded and very sincere Muslim who won't miss a prayer ever have a secret passion for NASCAR as a Bahraini friend does? We cannot have this! Absolute dedication to the theory, the principles of shari'a as imagined by the Salafi inspired ideologues is all that can be tolerated. And so anything that derogates from that, that seems to involve lightheartedness and fun, that isn't seeking to fulfill any Grand Idea That Must Be Realized Or We Will Burn Forever, really has to be thwarted. A reason has to be given that it's wrong, it's sinful, it takes us away from God, and from the Message.
I've only mentioned a few, but pay attention, there will be more. The anger and frustration that led to this sad state of affairs isn't close to over.
HAH
An Algerian Salafi figure apparently, according to widespread media reports, issued a fatwa banning the selling of this Arab and South Asian delicacy called zelabia (I think they are called jallabis in South Asia, but not sure) which tastes so good though it might be the unhealthiest dessert ever. It is some sort of flour, sugar and water concoction poured into hot oil so that it gets shaped almost like a pretzel and then dipped in honey or something. The reason for this one is that it is an innovation from true Islam, where we don't break our fast with zelabia but dates. Sometimes, the objectors report, the zelabia has the shape of a cross in the middle of it (it's shaped like a pretzel, I don't see the cross, though I guess there is always a right angle somewhere from where a cross might be imagined).
Second, a Saudi judge was on television decrying the spread of, by name, both Tom and Jerry and Mickey Mouse because in Islam, the mouse is among the most repulsive animals ever (so he says, first time I hear this), and its killing is permitted anywhere, even in the most sacred of locations. You can't kill an ant in the Mecca Mosque housing the Ka'ba, but he says it seems you can kill a mouse. So why do we let our children watch Mickey Mouse, when under God's Law Mickey Mouse may be executed anywhere, at any time? Why aren't we taking the latter attitude? (One reason, I surmise, is that Mickey Mouse isn't actually a real mouse, making it hard to execute him, but don't tell the guy, he might be disappointed). I told my cousin, a woman wearing a headscarf, who reacted by telling her 2 year old child (as a joke, in case it's not obvious) he could go ahead and see his Tom and Jerry tape, but to close his eyes whenever Jerry came on. Tom was okay though. He actually did it, which was pretty funny.
Third, in their comeback, the Taliban have managed to ban kite flying in their area again, the theory also being this was not a sport in which the Prophet engaged. They helpfully noted that horseback riding was okay because practiced then, which is perfect for all those poor Afghan kids who can't afford a soccer ball. Just find a horse, and all is well.
Now the formal link among this sort of nonsense that comes from the Salafis (for lack of a better analogy, Islam's supposed "originalists", from whom everyone from Saudi's Wahhabi clerics to Bin Laden draw their inspiration) is the notion that innovation or change is not really acceptable in Islam. But that notion doesn't really work, at least not in any way that can be made consistent and sensible if extended like this. I don't doubt their sincerity, but that doesn't make it sensible. I do, I will admit, generally doubt their ability to reason very soundly, by which I mean these specific actors (I'll limit myself to them for now).
And as a further caveat, while I acknowledge that some very smart people believe there is some sort of spirit to Islamic law's core that can be found by reference to the juristic texts, usually non Salafi, and I can go back and forth forever on that point with those smart people, I don't think this is the ground on which any such Muslim Dworkinian is likely to make his stand. To the contrary, I think they would, rightly, dismiss my Realist attack on the absolute logical consistency of shari'a as a whole as ridiculous if made from these Salafi examples, as dumb as that Maher character proving religion is dumb by finding some random people and exposing their beliefs as irrational, as opposed to the leaders in whom they seek such inspiration. Of course, I think they'd say, there are examples of silly reasoning masquerading as Islamic law, we object to that too. But it's different from saying there is no such thing as an internal core and spirit to which one can dedicate himself. Fair enough, disagree as I might with their conclusion. So I'm not making that point. Instead, I'm trying to show what these fellows might actually be motivated by, if we can all agree that they, and at least they, aren't really actually motivated by the theory of originalism they are pushing.
Because, to underscore the point, they cannot be. if you really think that acts of worship have to be those practiced by the earliest generations following Muhammad (the so called Salaf) then why are loudspeakers at mosques permitted? The argument goes they enhance the worship, but don't awesome tasting desserts enhance the fast? And if we can't fly a kite, why can we wear clothing that differs from the Salaf, or eat food processed in a manner the Salaf would not have recognized? This isn't me pointing out the problems, this is so easy that hundreds of editorials in Arabic papers make light of these sorts of theories all the time, to notable effect.
So then the question is, if it's not really about returning to the ways of the ancestors, at least in these rather farcical cases, what is it about? Sure resistance to the West is absolutely some of it, even a great deal of it in the case of Mickey Mouse, but neither zelabia or kiteflying is the sort of thing one associates with the West right away. They had to stretch pretty far to even make the connection in the zelabia case, to a Christian cross, hidden, Where's Waldo like, in the shape of the sweets. Even the resistance, in that last case, is more rhetoric than reality.
If I might proffer a simple, additional reason that some of this might be coming about is that for the most part, the Islamist resistance is filled with angry and frustrated people, in many cases very extreme ideologues, who don't really think very highly of fun, as might be said of ideologues the world over, whether Marxists or abortion doctor killers or whoever. To them, the world is serious business, not to be laughed at, and ideas in their purity meant to prevail. The notion that their ideas aren't entirely consistent in application (it's the world, they never will be, when you try to force the world into the consistent idea, it usually ends pretty badly) engenders a furious reaction. They don't believe it, they insist it is consistent, and pure, and comprehensive and absolute.
To some of my academic colleagues, "Islam is the solution", a refrain which extends far beyond the Salafis in the Islamist Sunni movements of the world in particular (many of which though not all lean far too hard in matters of religion to the Salafi if you ask me and I don't count the Turks because they are not Islamists), is heartening, or at least misunderstood. To me, as a Muslim, and a sincere and genuine believing one who can find comfort and spiritual solace only in faith, it is truly terrifying, as terrifying the other favorite Islamist refrain in Egypt "in Islam, there are no disputes." This is the very pith and pit of fanaticism, the notion that there is some comprehensive, nondisputable world view that must be realized, everywhere and at once, as the "solution." Imagine any other word stuck in that place "In ____, there are no disputes." "_____ is the solution" as an answer to everything from the current economic crisis to the war in Iraq, and it should be obvious, this is not the language of moderates seeking compromise.
In turn, to this brand of extremists, the logical inconsistencies in the Muslim polity, Muslim humanity in all its twists, turns and faults, in its wondrous and delightful mosaical Islamical variety, drive them up the wall. How can a Muslim own a Christmas tree, as so many Kurds do? (or really more decorate the pine trees outside anyway). How can a Muslim break his fast and watch a soap opera, as so many Arabs do? How can a Muslim stop drinking just for Ramadan, as so many Iraqis do? How can a nondrinking non gambling bearded and very sincere Muslim who won't miss a prayer ever have a secret passion for NASCAR as a Bahraini friend does? We cannot have this! Absolute dedication to the theory, the principles of shari'a as imagined by the Salafi inspired ideologues is all that can be tolerated. And so anything that derogates from that, that seems to involve lightheartedness and fun, that isn't seeking to fulfill any Grand Idea That Must Be Realized Or We Will Burn Forever, really has to be thwarted. A reason has to be given that it's wrong, it's sinful, it takes us away from God, and from the Message.
I've only mentioned a few, but pay attention, there will be more. The anger and frustration that led to this sad state of affairs isn't close to over.
HAH
I'm actually disappointed with the lack of academic rigor found in a site under this title.
First off, "Salafism" existed as a coherent movement (largely in Iraq) well before the time of M ibn Abdul-Wahhab. Notable figures in the classical Salafist movement denounced the latter. See Journal of Islamic Studies 14:2 (2003) pp. 127–148.
Bin Laden et al. are far more influenced by the Ikhwaan than they are Salafism. See http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/
What is often referred to as Salafism is actually the fuqaha generally, making it only more disappointing that a legal scholar would overlook this distinction. All the "non-Salafis" are presumably then non-legalists, i.e. they depart from precedent at whim and make rulings with no grounding.
Finally, the Taliban are actually a Deobandi offshoot, heavily influenced by their Sufi roots. Kite banning largely had to do with civil disorder, as the practice in Afghanistan is a competitive one with glass-lined strings, that often degenerate into conflict and bloodshed. But paying attention to any news conference there, as opposed to coverage out here, would have caught that distinction.
But I guess anyone who even uses the term "Islamist" has already bought into an external analysis of Islamic discourse, and wouldn't comprehend any of these issues from a Muslim perspective anyhow.
Reply to this
This is so reductive and wrong, so I hesitate to respond to it, but I will make a couple of notes.
By Salafism, I mean that modern movement which has taken as its centerpiece of legal thought the notion that not only the source material are to be the Qur'an and the hadith, but in fact that these works are to be interpreted as understood by the first generation following the Prophet. Now if your position is that all fuqaha take this position, then all I can really say is read them, or if you prefer read Khaled Abou El Fadl, Muhammad Fadel, Sherman Jackson, Frank Vogel, because quite frankly you simply don't understand what you are talking about. I'd refer you in particular to Sherman's magnificent work on Shihab al Din al Qarafi and Muhammad's piece entitled "Istihsan is nine tenths of the Law" in a book edited by Bernie Weiss about the nature of Islamic legal reasoning. Actually Sherman has a great piece in the latter work as well on rulemaking in the classical era. I'd also refer you to Khaled's The Great Theft which exposes the lie that Salafism is anything but an abrupt divorce from Islamic tradition. I don't share most of their views, but really this is so elemental and fundamental it's hard to dispute.
Second, and more importantly, if you are saying the term "Islamist", which I use expansively to refer to any of the modern political movements in the Muslim world that seek to make the shari'a a more prominent part of the law than it currently is, is "an external analysis of Islamic discourse" and that one who uses it "wouldn't comprehend any of these issues from a Muslim perspective anyhow" then either (i) you don't know how broadly the term Islamist is used IN THE MUSLIM WORLD or (ii) you dismiss those who use it as non Muslim or at least Muslims arguing from a non-Muslim perspective (ie not real Muslims arguing from a truly authentic Muslim position). Thus, for example, the AK party is Turkey swears up and down it is not an "Islamist" party, and the secularists in Turkey (all Muslim) swear up and down that it is. And in Iraq when you say the Islamiyeen want something, everyone knows who that is. Same in Egypt, I go to the Copt and I ask him, what to the Islamiyeen (the Islamists) say on this point, and he responds. Now perhaps you are really so ignorant as to fit within category (i) or maybe you just think everyone who uses the term isn't a real Muslim as per (ii), presumably because all real Muslims are Islamists and anyone who disputes that uses an "external analysis" and is therefore inauthentic. Either way, yours is not a position worthy of very much respect.
Reply to this
I almost forgot . . . .
In your reference to the Taliban, by my needing to look to any "news conference there" to understand why they banned kites, I presume you are referring to the self serving nonsense put on by the Taliban, one of the most repressive regimes on earth. There wasn't much of an opposition movement "there" after all, in areas under Taliban control where the kite ban took effect.
Moreover, you'd have to really have decided to suspend all reason and judgment to think that the Taliban's problem with kite flying has to do with public safety. What about pigeon flying, is that public safety too? Televisions? VCR's? Wigs? Masks? Tapes, audio and video? Satellite dishes? Computers? Sewing catalogs? Photographs in public places? All of this has to do with protecting the public? It's all in the criminal code. Do fights break out for each of these? Do they all lead to bloodletting? Does a regime that canes and stones and beheads people really care so much about the shedding of excessive blood?
Finally, I think the Taliban have any number of inspirations including the Deobandi, but anyone who has written about the Dar ul Uloom madrassa that Mohammad Omar and his cohorts attended (especially Ahmed Rashid) emphasizes its Salafist influences, and certainly the rules cited above owe much to Salafist thought. They aren't Sufi for sure, banning sewing catalogs. It fits much better with the Wahhabi crap issued by people like Luhaidan (satellite stations) and Mickey Mouse bans. That can only be off if, as with me, perhaps Ahmed Rashid is also not academically rigorous, along with all the professors I referred to in the earlier post who will set you straight on exactly how Salafist classical legal thought really was. Maybe we're all academically unrigorous.
Anyway, I've spent more time than I should have on this subintellectual propagandist Wahhabi Salafist drivel. If it wasn't so popular in the Muslim world, I would have spent even less. I can't help it at times, neither the passion nor the attention. For me, this IS personal.
HAH
Reply to this
Salafreaks as I call them. Prof. Hamoudi you should come to Singapore - really interesting to look at the Islam in action. No salafreaks here though - Islam is "managed" as a Singaporean friend of mine put it. I think if you started spouting this type of nonsense in Singapore you would be caned and locked up.
Unfortunately, the true meaning and examples of the true salaf have been hijacked
Reply to this
Thanks for the note and hope you are enjoying the law firm life.
No doubt there has been hijacking, but there is always the argument that there are other tools in Islamic legal reasoning as well, other than reference to the salaf, that can be used to develop rules. Yes as a Realist I don't take "tools" of legal reasoning very seriously, other than as a means to a predetermined end, but given the other comment to this post, I did want to point out it's not a dismissal of the salaf to say that Muslim rules can be developed and have been for centuries on the basis of analogy,or public interest, or istihsan, without much concern for what the salaf may have done because quite frankly to use Ali Ibn Abi Talib's phrase, they lived in a time different from our own.
Thanks for the note on Singapore, I lived in Indonesia for a while and really loved the manner in which Islam was practiced there. The barren austerity of the Salafis was so foreign to them, it was really a pleasure to see Islam practiced by so many in such an accommodating manner.
H
Reply to this