The role of religion in politics and society is the focus of intense contemporary intellectual and political debate. The zone of negotiation between wisdom flowing from the experience of the divine and the pragmatics of state in an era of foreign intervention and regional transformation brings to the forefront the voice of religious law. In a time when people in great numbers seek and find refuge in their essential cultural identity, how can the responsibility of melding religious and civil authority be met? The age of fatwas The traditional wisdom of Islamic jurisprudence is being bent to the whims of politicised fundamentalists, writes Azmi Ashour* There are two types of power in Islamic history, that of the clan and that of the scholars. Political power is mostly that which is reached through clan loyalties and rivalries. But this power is not absolute, for the ruler has to obey the edicts of Islam, and therefore is beholden to those who interpret the faith, or the ulema. During the time of the Prophet Mohamed and the first caliphs, political and scholastic authorities overlapped, for the caliphs doubled as heads of state and top religious authorities. This didn't last for long. From the Umayids on, the power of temporal rulers was moderated by advice offered by the ulema. A class of religious advisers developed, which at times interfered in the running of the state but more often played a secondary role, justifying or tempering the authority of political leaders. The ulema claimed to be entitled to monitor political authority, but the way they did so changed according to political circumstances. Although some of them challenged rulers in certain issues, most maintained that obedience to the ruler was mandatory, whether the ruler was right or wrong. The ulema often doubled as legal experts and political advisers with a fine line separating their temporal and theological pursuits. At times, some ulema claimed that their authority was superior to that of the rulers, but generally speaking the ulema refrained from challenging the power of the state. Although the ulema were not the only educated class on the Islamic scene its role in politics surpassed that of philosophers or natural scientists. The ulema explained Sharia or Islamic law to the public. Then they used their moral power to keep rulers in line. This is how things were until the end of the Ottoman period, but there are echoes of this way of life in our modern days. For example, the power of the fatwa is making a comeback, and not from the seasoned class of ulema we've known in Islamic times. Traditionally, the ulema used fatwa, or religious edict, to offer a legal opinion on a matter of public concern. The need to issue fatwas was most urgent in situations that were new and therefore lacking legal precedence. Whenever a social practice emerged that had no clear precedence, various ulema stepped in and devised a legal way of dealing with it. Their views could differ, for various schools of religious interpretation were active at any given moment in Islamic history. Some fatwas, but not all, had political significance. In modern times, the fatwa has made a comeback, but under a different guise. Radical Islamic groups issue fatwas to attract new followers, especially among the youth, and undermine the conventional power of the state and its affiliated theological institutions. Fatwas coming from fundamentalists emerged to rival fatwas from conventional and official organs and often had a clear political message. Instead of being just a legal opinion, fundamentalists claimed that their opinion was the last word on any given matter. Although 200 years have elapsed since modernisation started in our part of the world, the fatwa remains an effective weapon in most Islamic countries. This weapon has now been hijacked by radical groups wishing to challenge society and existing official bodies. All of this happened at the expense of reason and other forms of authority. It didn't have to be this way. The power of the ulema, even before the rise of the radicals, was disproportionate. Islamic societies had no paucity of philosophers, doctors, mathematicians and physicists. But for some reason the ulema had more political clout than other sections of the Muslim intelligentsia. This situation is what put us in the crisis we're facing now, for as soon as fundamentalists hijacked the fatwa things went out of hand. The current climate of fatwas now borders on the random. Fatwas, instead of being legal advice based on theological knowledge, have turned into weapons used not only against governments but populations at large. In Islamic history, the power of the ulema invariably grew in periods of political decay. Interestingly enough, the political clout of the ulema ebbed in times of renaissance, just as the influence of other sections of the elite increased. Today, we see a repeat of the same old phenomenon, albeit on a more dangerous level. The power of the ulema is once again being established, but those ulema are not from the educated elites of the past. They come from the ranks of radicals bent on negating the current practices of government and society. My point is that the past remains relevant. Centuries ago, Islamic societies gave too much power to the ulema. Centuries ago, the ulema, a mere section of the intelligentsia, were the ones entitled to monitor the political performance of rulers. No wonder then that the first thing fundamentalists did was to reclaim this power and use it to their favour. What is the answer to this dilemma? Going back to reason would be a start. * The writer is managing editor of the quarterly journal Al-Demoqrateya published by Al-Ahram.
