Conflicting Fatwas and Their Impact on the Credibility of Islamic Discourse

All perfect praise be to Allah the Lord of the Worlds. May His peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Mohammad and upon all his family and companions.

Any observer of the current state of Fatwā (religious edict) in the Islamic world recognizes the profound conflict it has reached. This conflict has even escalated to the point of contradiction and unacceptable disagreement in some aspects, followed by verbal sparring between those issuing fatwas and mutual accusations that violate the principles of disagreement and the established etiquette of difference prescribed in the Islamic Shariah.

The early roots of this setback in conflicting fatwas began during the first Gulf War in 1990. A single glance at the fatwas issued at that time is sufficient to recognize this decline, which was followed by successive painful events and realities experienced by our Islamic nation.

This disturbance in Fatwā occurred for multiple reasons, the most prominent being: the political situation of Islamic societies, particularly following what was termed the "Arab Spring" and the accompanying painful events in all walks of life. The fatwa had a significant presence and impact on these events; indeed, it could be said that many of these events were supported by a fatwa, regardless of its credibility or the extent of its alignment with Shariah evidence.

Some of these reasons pertain to the Muftis themselves. Muftis are affected by the events occurring around them, and no Mufti can isolate himself from his environment, his era, and the surrounding influences. Man, whether he likes it or not, is a product of his environment and time. As our Master ‘Alī (may Allah be pleased with him) said: "People resemble their times more than they resemble their fathers." This influence had a major impact on producing conflicting fatwas. Some resulted from differing viewpoints regarding incidents where perceptions and understandings may vary, while others were issued for specific purposes, or according to personal whims, or to support a party or political ideology, or even to curry favor with the masses under the rule of "the commoners overwhelmed us" to build popular appeal, or even to flatter rulers and regimes. Undoubtedly, these are the greatest dilemmas of Fatwā in our time.

These manifestations led to the spread of amateur fatwa-seekers, pretenders, and those who invest in them for their own interests. Most of them are proponents of violence and extremism, or laxity and deviation, which led to unqualified individuals ascending the pulpit of Iftaā’ (issuing fatwas). Consequently, groups emerged that took the path of extremism, violence, and the declaration of disbelief (Takfīr) against Islamic societies in the name of Islam, relying on radical, extremist fatwas that depended on the distortion of Shariah texts, far-fetched interpretations, and erroneous understanding. Added to this is the presence of those who sympathize with these groups and support their academic ideology and fatwas, even if they do not follow their criminal or combatant path on the ground.

Ibn al-Qayyim stated: "It is not permissible to act or issue fatwas in the religion of Allah based on personal desire, bias, or alignment with a specific purpose. [One should not] lengthen the speech that agrees with his purpose and the purpose of those he favors, then act upon it, issue fatwas by it, and judge by it, while judging against his enemy and issuing a fatwa to the contrary. This is among the most wicked of transgressions and the greatest of major sins." (I’lām al-Muwaqqi’īn, Vol.4/P.211).

Among the causes that led to the occurrence of conflict in Fatwā are reasons related to the questioner (Mustaftī). Many questioners approach Muftis with an ulterior motive, such as embarrassing the Mufti by asking about trivial matters or hypothetical issues that have not occurred and are not expected to occur, or asking about anomalous and strange matters. Worst of all is the distortion of the question to extract an answer from the Mufti that suits the questioner's desire. Scholars of old warned against the tricks and maneuvers of questioners, noting that a Mufti must be mentally alert and quick-witted so as not to be deceived by such ruses.

Since "discourse" encompasses everything presented to people in the name of Islam, its most important characteristic is credibility. This is because Islamic discourse is a Divine discourse sourced from the Islamic Shariah, which is from Allah, the Almighty. Allah says {what means}: "If it had been from [any] other than Allah, they would have found within it much contradiction." [An-Nisā’/82]. Therefore, the most dangerous thing to afflict Islamic discourse is for its credibility and justice to be compromised.

Given that a fatwa can change due to the change of time, place, customs, and circumstances, Islamic discourse can also change accordingly. The style used to address one group may not be suitable for another. Evidence for this is that the style of discourse in the Holy Qur’an in Mecca is not like the style in Medina; indeed, the Medinan Qur’anic discourse developed in its style and subjects. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "Indeed, Allah sends for this nation at the head of every hundred years someone who renews for it its religion." (Reported by Abū Dāwūd).

The "renewal" (Tajdīd) intended here is renewal in the speculative matters (al-Ẓanniyyāt) where there is broad scope for Ijtihād (independent reasoning). As for the constants (al-Thawābit) and foundations, renewal does not touch them because they are firm and do not change with time or place, nor are they subject to Ijtihād and disagreement, such as rulings that are definitive (Qaṭ’ī) in their authenticity and implication.

Here, we must distinguish between the change and development of Islamic discourse due to the change of fatwas—which is a sign of the flexibility, breadth, and adaptability of Islamic Shariah to new incidents—and the stagnation of Islamic discourse and its loss of credibility due to the disturbance of fatwas regarding Islamic foundations and constants. This is particularly evident in the field of Shariah-based politics (al-Siyāsah al-Shar’iyyah), in addition to other fields suffering from the dilemma of clearly distinguishing between constants and variables.

There are some fatwas that have impacted the credibility of Islamic discourse and bypassed even the constants, such as the fatwa on self-immolation and the disagreement regarding it, to the point that some labeled the perpetrator a martyr, thus bypassing established constants. This is in addition to many other fatwas that have damaged the image of Islamic discourse in the minds of Muslims and others alike.

This conflict in Fatwā and its impact on the credibility of Islamic discourse has reflected upon Islamic societies in general, resulting in three matters:

First: This discourse failed to present a bright, clear image of Islam. From the womb of the contemporary Islamic world emerged those who distorted the image of Islam in the eyes of others. This had a major impact on contemporary Islamic Da’wah (proselytization), contradicting the original Prophetic methodology based on presenting Islam in its radiant form built on tolerance and noble ethics. The best example of this is the speech of the Companion Ja’far ibn Abī Ṭālib to the Negus, King of Abyssinia, when he presented Islam in its correct, bright form that endears the listeners to it: "O King! We were a people of ignorance (Jāhiliyyah), worshipping idols, eating carrion, committing indecencies, severing ties of kinship, and treating neighbors badly; might was used to override justice and compassion. We remained thus until Allah sent to us a Messenger from among us, whose lineage, truthfulness, trustworthiness, and chastity we know. He called us to Allah, to believe in Him alone and worship Him, and to renounce what we and our fathers used to worship besides Him of stones and idols. He commanded us to speak the truth, fulfill trusts, maintain ties of kinship, treat neighbors well, and refrain from prohibitions and bloodshed. He forbade us from indecencies, false speech, consuming the orphan's wealth, and slandering chaste women. He commanded us to worship Allah alone, associating nothing with Him, and he commanded us to pray, give zakāh, and fast..."

Whoever reflects on this discourse realizes that it aligns with sound human nature (Fiṭrah) and upright reason; none denies it except one whose heart is blinded.

Second: This discourse failed to fortify Islamic societies against extremist and deviant ideas that adopted a methodology contrary to the tolerance and moderation of Islam. This produced anomalous, extremist ideas that burned these societies before any others, depleted their capabilities in all fields, and rendered them unable even to stand against the proponents of these ideas. Unless we work seriously to formulate a plan of action to reshape an Islamic discourse capable of fortifying societies through fatwas and other methods, the danger will remain looming over Islamic societies.

Third: This discourse failed to formulate the relationship with non-Muslims, whether inside or outside Islamic societies. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) defined the relationship of Muslims with others through the Charter of Medina, which was a discourse directed to all groups in Medina from various prevailing religions—Jews, pagans, and Muslims. It formed a comprehensive Islamic discourse that recognizes the existence of the "other" and their right to life, establishing foundations and laws for the interaction of Muslims with others within a single Islamic society.

Therefore, scholars, Muftis, and thinkers must realize this well. They must preserve the credibility of Islamic discourse by maintaining the credibility of the fatwa, and they must elevate this discourse above their personal whims and their partisan, political, or intellectual inclinations to preserve the credibility of the Islamic Shariah.