CAIRO: The fatwa - and who is authorized to issue it - has been the focus of many debates over the past few years, especially with the increased number of venues that issue it. With the boom in independent media and satellite stations, televised fatwas and TV preachers have gone from being a short-lived phenomenon to staples of our daily lives. But Al Azhar, and other well-established scholars from respectable institutions around the Muslim world, have heavily criticized these fatwas. Prior to the holy month of Ramadan, Grand Mufti Sheikh Ali Gomaa talked to Daily News Egypt about the process of issuing a fatwa and surveyed the current religious scene. Daily News Egypt: How would you define a 'fatwa'? Sheikh Ali Gomaa: The fatwa is a judgment based on Islamic law (sharia). If a fatwa is not related to [this type of] judgment then it is merely a response to a question and not a fatwa. A fatwa always shows the five main legal judgments in sharia, which decide if something is religiously prohibited (haram), an obligation (wajib), unacceptable (mahzour), frowned upon (makrouh), or religiously permissible (halal). The fatwa describes the human actions in one of the previous five judgments. There is a big difference between a fatwa and a normal question. For example, a question that asks: Did Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) get married to Maria the Copt? I respond by saying no. [It was a different case.] This is not a fatwa; this is a response to a question. Also, the situations and events that I attend are not considered fatwas. If I attend a conference or give a speech at Friday prayer, this is never a fatwa. The problem is that people always mix the fatwa with normal answers to questions. Therefore, you find people describing the religious speech as a fatwa .They say there is chaos in issuing fatwas, but actually the chaos is not in the fatwas; it is rather in the religious speech. When we browse the satellite channels we find that preachers who give religious speeches are sometimes extremists; sometimes they simplify things for people; and some other times they talk about politics, spiritual issues, or interpreting dreams. So, people have started to become religiously disturbed. They ask which of these things can be considered correct fatwas. If someone is interpreting dreams, this is never a fatwa. There is a problem in religious speech, not in the fatwa. A fatwa is rarely mistakenly issued, unless it is issued from an unspecialized person. Fatwas that are issued by unspecialized people and that do not relate to sharia are very rare. Who is authorized to issue a correct fatwa? The official Mufti in Egypt is the Grand Mufti who is authorized to issue a fatwa. The rest of the people are unauthorized to issue any fatwas. There is no an official permit for issuing a fatwa. The Mufti is appointed by scholars and professors of Al-Azhar University. The Mufti in Egypt is now the 18th Mufti; the previous Muftis were all prominent scholars who have been successful in their roles and duties at Dar El-Iftaa. How far do you believe in the credibility of religious preachers who issue fatwas to people on various TV channels? The whole point about issuing a fatwa (Iftaa) is that it is considered a science in itself. This science is quite similar to the science of medicine. In the medical field, there are students, there are graduates, and the graduates have different specializations. A graduate might specialize in ophthalmology for example, so it is improper that patients who suffer from cardiac diseases go to ask an ophthalmologist for a consultation. What does an ophthalmologist know about cardiac diseases? Nothing, he might have some general knowledge, but he cannot practice surgery in cardiology because he is not fully knowledgeable on this specialization. Also, a doctor holding a bachelor's degree differs from someone who holds a masters degree or a doctorate. The matter is exactly the same in issuing fatwas. There is a student at Al-Azhar, a fresh graduate and scholar; and each of them has his own specialization and experience. At Al-Azhar, there are different specializations and degrees exactly as in medicine. If we fully understand this concept, then we can differentiate between scholars and evaluate their credibility when it comes to issuing fatwas and answering questions. Every sharia scholar is qualified to answer questions that are related to the main nonnegotiable Islamic pillars or obligations, general questions about trade, pilgrimage, or marriage. But when it comes to detailed specialized matters, then not every scholar is capable of this. Scholars should refer particular topics to a higher ranking scholar who is more knowledgeable in this field. It also depends on the question, whether it is related to the individual, society as a whole, or the entire Muslim nations (Umma). Is the question simple or complex? How do you explain the difference between scholars in judging certain issues? The difference between scholars may stem from their differences in defining and describing the subjects in question. For example, legislators and economists have been giving different definitions for banks. They have different definitions as to what a bank is. Legislators say that a bank is an association that is responsible for loans and debts. According to sharia scholars, this is considered usury (rebah), but economists maintain that a bank is an institution that works in savings and investments. So if a scholar issued his fatwa according to the definition of an economist, then dealing with a bank would never be religiously prohibited. So the difference is not between scholars, but rather in the definitions that vary from one scholar to another. This difference also occurred in many other issues in history. Photography is one of the issues that has proven controversial. Some say a picture is religiously prohibited, then another person comes along and says that a picture is nothing but a shadow captured on paper. So photography is not banned on religious grounds by scholars who base their fatwas on the description that says that a picture is a captured shadow. Scholars have also varied in their definition of coffee, because in the Arabic language coffee means wine. So people said it is banned. But the influence of coffee on a person is totally the opposite of that of wine. Coffee is rich in caffeine and makes people very alert, while wine makes people nearly unconscious. So the difference is clear here, despite the meaning of coffee in the Arabic language. That is why I always urge all scholars to study the circumstances and facts surrounding the subject before judging.
