Return to: Home | Life & Society | Religion

Clerical errors in the name of God

Ziauddin Sardar

Published 24 April 2008

A death fatwa issued by an ageing cleric against Saudi intellectuals has caused outrage in the Arab world

News that an ageing cleric has issued a death fatwa against two Saudi intellectuals does not surprise me. The religious hierarchy in Saudi Arabia has no redeeming features. Its hallmarks are fanaticism, misogyny and xenophobia, with a strong accent on conformity and absolutism. Like the Inquisition, it moves rapidly to suppress any signs of dissent or independent thinking.

The cleric is the widely revered Sheikh Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak. He does not represent the religious voice of the government but his aspirations are shared by many religious scholars in the kingdom. The sheikh was incensed by articles in al-Riyadh by Yousef Aba al-Khail and Abdullah bin Bejad al-Otaibi arguing for a more humane and balanced interpretation of the Quran.

Entitled "The other in the Islamic balance" and "The Islam of the sharia and the Islam of struggle", the articles pointed out that the Quran does not denounce non-Muslims as "infidels", but describes Jews and Christians as "people of the Book" and urges Muslims to show respect towards other faiths, their followers and places of worship. Far from hating the "Other", the Quran urges people of all creeds to live in peace.

These are the kinds of simple, sensible things that folk like me have been saying for decades. Indeed, I have been arguing for such a pluralistic interpretation in my Guardian Quran blog, which has been banned in Saudi Arabia.

Sheikh al-Barrak's reaction naturally conforms to Wahhabism, the hardline Saudi version of Islam. "Anyone who claims this," the sheikh thunders, "has rejected Islam and should be tried in order to take it back. If not, he should be killed as an apostate from the religion of Islam." It is, of course, beyond the learned sheikh's comprehension that the Quran contains no notion of apostasy. On the contrary, it declares that "there is no compulsion in religion". People are free to change their faith as many times as they like.

The fatwa has outraged the Arab world. A group of a hundred writers and human rights activists, including the Egyptian philosopher Hassan Hanafi and the Lebanese academic Radwan al-Sayyed, issued a statement describing the fatwa as "intellectual terrorism" and the work of "clerics of darkness". The Saudi clergy see "Islam as their monopoly" and followers of other faiths as people whose blood can be "shed freely", the statement says. It goes further to suggest that clerics are being "fooled through their arrogance and inflated by their status into thinking that they speak in the name of God".

But I fear it is worse than that. The Quran is open to a number of interpretations. If, however, you insist that your interpretation is the only correct one, the Truth, then you do much more than simply speak "in the name of God": you not only know the Truth but are the Truth. You assume the absolute power of God. By branding two Muslims "infidels", the sheikh shows his godlike powers. Indeed, he goes where the Quran insistently refuses to: into the realm of the personal relationship between individual and God. The fatwa suggests that the sheikh has godlike knowledge of this relationship, and by sentencing the two authors to death, it even exceeds the bounds of the Quran. The sheikh does not think he is speaking "in the name of God". He thinks he is God incarnate.

The Saudi clergy operate with godlike powers throughout the kingdom. Nothing moves unless they will it. King Abdullah may wish to engage in dialogue with other religions, but he remains motionless unless the clergy provide the necessary momentum. Only a few weeks ago, the Shura Council, the consultative body dominated by the clergy, rejected a proposal to adopt a law promoting respect for other faiths and religious symbols. Efforts to give human status to women have similarly run into a brick wall.

Saudi Arabia is the guardian of the holy cities Mecca and Medina. It is only natural that God's sacred land should be ruled by people who see themselves as personifications of God!

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

7 comments from readers

Sharif
24 April 2008 at 14:32

Zia’s is going on about the true interpretation of Quran on blasphemy and ‚other’ killing. If the whole world’s Muslims are of the opinion that blasphemy invites death, then I wonder how or why it could be interpreted otherwise.

Only the other day, a Hindu was killed by a mob in Karachi for blasphemy. By the way, in the Muslim world, there are many countries where "honour killings" are not only tolerated but actually allowed by the penal code. According to Wikipedia:

Jordan: Part of article 340 of the Penal Code states that "he who discovers his wife or one of his female relatives committing adultery and kills, wounds, or injures one of them, is exempted from any penalty." This has twice been put forward for cancellation by the government, but was retained by the Lower House of the Parliament.

Syria: Article 548 states that "He who catches his wife or one of his ascendants [sic], descendants or sister committing adultery (flagrante delicto) or illegitimate sexual acts with another and he killed or injured one or both of them benefits from an exemption of penalty."

Morocco: Article 418 of the Penal Code states "Murder, injury and beating are excusable if they are committed by a husband on his wife as well as the accomplice at the moment in which he surprises them in the act of adultery."

Pakistan: Honour killings are known as (Urdu: کاروکاری ). The practice is supposed to be prosecuted under ordinary murder, but in practice police and prosecutors often ignore it. Often a man must simply claim the killing was for his honour and he will go free.

The problem with Islam is that talking about the backwardness of Islamic junctures is not permitted and you can end up in gutters sooner than the next prayer, which is five times a day.

I should know; I come from one of the countries

johannine
25 April 2008 at 09:57

....a balanced interpretation of the Quran.

Entitled "The other in the Islamic balance" and "The Islam of the sharia and the Islam of struggle", the articles pointed out that the Quran does not denounce non-Muslims as "infidels",

this would have been a better topic to ''put out there''

islam [meaning by gods will] ,

would it be by gods will we publisise retarded extreemists thus dont focus on the goods of gods creation [or like jesus says to see the mote in an others eyes while ignoring the plank in our own]

what is this facination to talk of the worst when we of gods will in time will see only gods good?sss

what is gods will?

that we search out defectives and give them words

or seek gods given wisdoms and praise them?balanced interpretation of the Quran.

Entitled "The other in the Islamic balance" and "The Islam of the sharia and the Islam of struggle", the articles pointed out that the Quran does not denounce non-Muslims as "infidels",

robertk
28 April 2008 at 21:36

Any chance you could pop the odd apostrophe or capital letter in there, please? I can't follow what you're trying to say. Many thanks.

Harikrishna Patel
30 April 2008 at 11:00

If we believe God has created 'life' then who are we, to order someones life to end. Surely, this is true in any religion. I am sure the old holymen should refrain from any such incitements. PEACE is what we need.

Harikrishna

malaysian sister
02 May 2008 at 06:22

The problem is, eventhough "Read!" is the first command of the Quran, almost 50% of the worldwide Muslim population are illiterate. Some people want this to be perpetuated forever. Does this include our clergies, I have to wonder.

As for the common Muslims, if they can't read recipes, you think they are going to read the Quran and the methodologies of approaching the Quran-- the contextualization approach, atomistic or holistic approach? Do they even know that muslims themselves can be considered "infidels"? And non-Muslims be "muslims" based on their actions?

Does anybody wonder why there seems to be contradictory verses in the Quran? It's the context!!!

But no, nobody cares. A lot of people read holy books only for blessings.

TheTwainWill Meet
11 May 2008 at 10:48

Malaysian Sister has got it spot on - what chances does the Muslim population have of approaching unmediated texts if they can't read in the first place? And reading is only the beginning: it takes years and years of good education and boundless access to quality information in liberal circumstances to develop culture and self-esteem to enable an individual with an opinion that is truly their own

TheTwainWill Meet
11 May 2008 at 10:49

Sorry, the above got posted unfinished by mistake, but never mind, you get the gist of it.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

Ziauddin Sardar

Ziauddin Sardar, writer and broadcaster, describes himself as a ‘critical polymath’. He is the author of over 40 books, including the highly acclaimed ‘Desperately Seeking Paradise’. He is Visiting Professor, School of Arts, the City University, London and editor of ‘Futures’, the monthly journal of planning, policy and futures studies.

Read More

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker