Abigmessage is now on Facebook Be a Friend of Abigmessage
|
musa posted this in Difficult Questions on January 28th, 2012
Actions Against Christian Priests, School Principal
Since the summer of 2011, a series of incidents taking place in the Indian-administered part of Kashmir in the northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent have led observers to believe religious intolerance is rearing its ugly head there.
Briefly, The Incidents Are As Follows:
- During the summer months, an unspecified number of previously Muslim youths were converted to Christianity. The conversion ceremony was videotaped, and video clips of it were distributed. This caused the Grand Mufti Azam of Kashmir, Bashir-ud-Din to summon Pastor MC Khanna of the All Saints Church in the city of Srinagar for questioning, who was believed to have ‘lured’ the youths into their religious conversion.
- On 19 November 2011, Khanna was arrested by the police on charges of fomenting communal trouble. He was released about two weeks later.
- Pastor Khanna is not alone in this saga. This is because three other people of the Christian faith have also been alleged to have been his accomplices. They comprise two other pastors – Gayoor Messah (an Indian) and Jim Borst (a Dutch national) – and Parvez Sameul Koul, the principal of the local Christian missionary Tyndale Biscoe School.
- About a week ago, a self-styled sharia court in Kashmir issued a fatwa that asks Khanna, Messah and Borst to leave the Kashmir valley. It is known that all three men have left the vicinity since then (despite uncertainty about the fatwa’s legal status). The fatwa is silent on Koul, though. Nonetheless, the Deputy Mufti of Kashmir, Nasir-ul-Islam has disclosed that he remains ‘under investigation’ and the judgment on him will be announced ‘in due course’.
- Besides ordering the expulsion of the three pastors, the sharia court also asks the local government to take over the management of Christian missionary schools in the region, as well as to closely monitor their activities in the future. It also asks the schools to conduct Muslim study classes for students of other faiths. (Again, the legality of these Fatwa ‘orders’ is doubtful.)
- Deputy Mufti Nasir-ul-Islam has gone further. He suggests that the schools’ morning prayers also include Islamic prayers, given “the Muslim majority character of the (Kashmir) valley”.
The Fatwa Is Challenged
The sharia court’s fatwa has caused the All India Christian Council, based in the Indian capital of New Delhi, to express concerns over anti-Christian sentiments that it may cause, which could endanger the personal safety of Kashmiri Christians. It dispatched a fact-finding team to Kashmir after the arrest of Pastor Khanna. After speaking with the police, church personnel and Muslim scholars, the investigators concluded that the youths converted to Christianity out of their personal choice and free will. There were no elements of coercion or deception in the process.
Think About It
Given that India is a democracy (in fact, India is the world’s largest democracy given its huge population size), shouldn’t its citizens be accorded religious freedom? Shouldn’t the sharia court be respectful of this basic human right?
nuryn posted this in Difficult Questions on January 27th, 2012
Court Judgments
Carnita Matthews, whose case concerning the wearing of a burka has gone through three Australian courts, has lost the last round. She had first been convicted in 2010 of making a false statement to the police, but the conviction was overturned on appeal. She then applied for costs, but the judge has ruled against it.
Conviction For False Police Report
In June 2010 Carnita Matthews, a Muslim convert, was stopped by the police because the P plate (indicating that driver had only a provisional license) was not properly displayed. When asked to lift her veil for the purpose of identification, she complied but spent the next 20 minutes accusing the police of racism.
A few days later a burka-clad woman, purportedly Carnita Matthews, filed an affidavit alleging that the police officer had tried to rip off her veil. However, the video recording made on the camera in the police vehicle showed her willingly lifting her veil. She was thus convicted of making a false police report and sentenced to 6 months in prison.
Successful Appeal
Carnita Matthews succeeded in her appeal against her conviction, which was overturned on grounds that the police did not verify that the burka-clad woman who filed the affidavit was in fact Carnita Matthews.
Failed Application For Costs
Last September Carnita Matthews applied for costs on grounds that the police investigation was conducted in an “unreasonable manner”, and that her case was prosecuted in an “improper manner”. However, she did not succeed in her application. This time, Judge Clive Jeffreys, who had overturned the conviction of making a false statement to the police, said that “the appellant has not satisfied me that the proceedings in open court were initiated without reasonable cause”. He also said that the police investigation had been initiated in “reasonable faith”.
Costs for the hearing are estimated to be more than $10,000
According to Stephen Hopper, Carnita Matthews’ lawyer, she will accept the judge’s decision. He said, “She is happy she did not have to go to jail and her name was cleared”.
Repercussions Of The Case
Following this case, New South Wales police were given new powers to force Muslim women remove their face veils during routine car stops. Previously they could ask women to remove face veils only during the investigation of serious offences but not during routine car stops. Naturally, the Muslim community was not pleased with this move, and blamed Carnita Matthews for the new police powers.
Think About It
Carnita Matthews may have got her conviction overturned and avoided a jail sentence. However, there is now a whopping bill to face, and the resentment of her community to bear. Who was it who filed the affidavit? Even if it was not Carnita Matthews, was the initial fuss over the lifting of the veil worth it? Were the police not only doing their duty to check her identity when they pulled her over?
Previous posts
Wearing A Burka Helps Get Woman Acquitted Of Charge In Australia
Australia – Muslim Convert Carnita Matthews Gets The Blame
yessir posted this in Insights & Views on January 26th, 2012
“A Cross On The Car?”
This has to be one of the ridiculous fatwas anywhere. An Egyptian sheikh as just suddenly noticed that a Chevrolet vehicle has a logo that looks like a Christian cross. For that reason, this Salafi sheikh pronounced it haram to drive a Chevy.
Bowtie Or Cross?
For many Americans, the logo of a Chevy is liken to a bowtie. But a unnamed Salafi sheikh in Egypt has chosen this very moment when the results of the parliamentary elections show the Islamist parties have won the most seats to issue a fatwa that became a joke on national TV.
To this unnamed Salafi sheikh, the logo of a Chevy is like a Christian cross. Therefore, he concluded, it is haram for Muslims to drive such a car.
Ridicule
Since it is haram to drive a Chevy, it follows that it is also haram to buy a Chevy. TV presenter Amr Adeeb described this fatwa this way: “We’ve reached a really stange place with this”.
But what’s so strange about this fatwa? Amr Adeeb explains: “The car’s been around [for a century] and only now did you notice there’s a cross on the car?”
Ridiculing the fatwa that to buy and/or drive a Chevy is haram, Amr Adeeb said: “Do we hold mass for it? Do we pray for it?” The short answer is “No”.
Rebuke
Amr Adeeb’s guest at the TV show rebuked the Salafi sheikh for issuing this ridiculous fatwa, saying: “As if the people who came up with the logo were thinking that we want to put this special logo on the car just to piss us [Muslims] off.”
But the last word of rebuke to this unnamed Salafi sheikh came from Amr Adeeb, saying: “With all of the problems in Egypt, you’re concerned about the cross?… We’re calling for unity [in the country] and then you come up with [fatwas] like this?”
Think About It
What is the reason for this unnamed Salafi sheikh to issue such a ridiculous fatwa? Will a day ever come when someone else decides to issue a fatwa pronouncing the English language haram simply because the lower case of the letter “t” also resembles a Christian cross? Do those who issue fatwas have a responsibility to guard against shaming Islam with their ridiculous fatwas?
nuryn posted this in Difficult Questions on January 25th, 2012
Plans To Return To Pakistan
Pervez Musharraf, the retired general and ex-President of Pakistan who has been in self-imposed exile in Dubai and London since April 2009, had announced that he would return to Pakistan to contest the next general elections. Intially he had planned to return in March. However, earlier this month, in a telephone address to a political rally in Karachi, he promised to be back before the end of this month, saying “I’ll land in Karachi despite all sorts of dangers to my life. I can sacrifice my life if need be for the people of Pakistan”. Now, Mohammad Amjad, senior vice-president in Pervez Musharraf’s All Pakistan Muslim League, has said that no final decision has been taken on the date of his return, and Pervez Musharraf himself has admitted that his return could be delayed. And no wonder, for if he were he to return, he faces possible imprisonment and assassination, dangers that were known but now spelt out in no uncertain terms.
Threat Of Arrest
Last week the country’s interior minister told parliament, “I assure this house that if he lands in Pakistan, he will be arrested because he is a PO [proclaimed offender]. There are three registered cases against him”.
Two warrants for his arrest have been issued. One is for the killing of Akbar Bugti, leader of the Bugti tribe in Balochistan, who was killed while he was hiding in a cave during an army raid in August, 2006. The other warrant for his arrest is for the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, on grounds that he had not provided adequate security to protect her on the day that she was killed in a suicide attack.
The third case registered against him concerned his 2007 state of emergency and detention of judges when he was trying to cling on to power.
Fatwa Calling For His Death
News that Pervez Musharraf was intending to return to Pakistan prompted those who issued a fatwa in October 2010 calling for his death to remind him of this threat. It seems the “hanging rope” for his execution has already been prepared.
The call for Pervez Musharraf’s death was endorsed by representatives of religious and political parties at a conference organized by the Jamhoori Watan Party of Balochistan Province. They declared him “wajib ul-qat” (liable for murder) for “unpardonable crimes against humanity”. These crimes include the killing of thousands of Baloch people as well as the students of Jamia Hafsa, a university for Islamic studies, in separate military operations; violations of the constitution; amendments of the Hudood Ordinance (the law on implementation of Sharia law in Pakistan); and violations of the sanctity of mosques. Religious scholars present at the conference were reported to have provided references from the Quran when discussing his alleged crimes.
The call for Pervez Musharraf’s death was accompanied by a call to the judiciary to take immediate steps to bring him back to Pakistan. In addition, there was a reward of Rs 100 million ($1,109,260) for Pervez Musharraf’s heads. There will be an additional reward of a plot of land worth Rs100 million if the killer were Urdu speaking, and a soldier, whether retired or serving.
Think About It
What would the fatwa calling for the death of Pervez Musharraf and the bounty on his head be? Justice? Politically motivated revenge? Incitement to murder? What references from the Quran support the fatwa? Was interpretation of the references indisputable? What is the penalty for incitement to murder in Pakistan?
yessir posted this in Money Matters on January 24th, 2012
First Public Dining Place For Women
Saudi Arabia has strict rules against gender mixing – aka sex segregation. Although sex segregation is not practised in most Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia enforces this rule very strictly. And now, taking advantge of this sex segregation rule against gender mixing, a new restaurant has opened for business, and it’s strictly for women diners only.
Businesswoman Who Saw The Market Opportunity
Saudi women are forced to follow the sex segregation rule in avoiding situations when they could potentially be found in the presence of men who are not related to them. But for one enterprising Saudi businesswoman, this situation is just perfect for a niche business.
Businesswoman Hind Abdul Aziz saw the opportunity to tap into an unfulfilled market demand, and so she ventured to set up what is now believed to be the first public dining restaurant catering strictly to women diners only.
And what is the response from the public? Hind Abdul Aziz said: “The restaurant has quickly become the talk of the town.”
But how did Hind Abdul Aziz know that there is a demand for a women-only restaurant? Hind Abdul Aziz explains: “I have set up this project following intensive courses in such business and the society’s need for a restaurant restricted to women.”
In short, Hind Abdul Aziz did a thorough market study, and then prepared herself by taking intensive courses on running a restaurant.
Why There Is Demand For A Women-Only Restaurant
The new restaurant in the central province of Qaseem provides Saudi women the opportunity to enjoy a peaceful meal without being harassed by the religious police checking on whether they are dining in the company of unrelated males in contravention of the sex segregation rule against gender mixing.
Difficulties Encountered
But Hind Abdul Aziz encountered many obstacles to secure a license for her women-only restaurant. In the end, Hind Abdul Aziz still had to rely on her husband (and relatives) to secure the needed license. That itself is a different problem – one involving another of Saudi Arabia’s strict rule on male guardianship.
Think About It
How long more can Saudi Arabia hold on to its sex segregation rule against gender mixing? Is this a requirement in the Quran? If so, why are other Muslim countries not practising it?
Previous posts
Saudi Arabia – Fatwa Declares Women Not Permitted To Work As Cashiers
Call To Change Saudi Sex Segregation Law
nuryn posted this in Insights & Views on January 23rd, 2012
Change In Leadership Of Morality Police In Saudi Arabia
Normally the appointment of a new police chief will not attract much attention outside of the country concerned. However, King Abdullah’s appointment of a new head for Saudi Arabia’s morality police has had commentators and women’s rights activists speculating about what it will mean for reforms in that country, and for women in particular. The new appointee, Sheik Abdulatif al-Sheikh, is known to be a more liberal cleric than the one just fired for no official reason.
Saudi Arabia’s Morality Police
The morality police in Saudi Arabia are known formally as the “mutawwa” or Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. They have given Saudi Arabians reason to be wary about moving about in public, for they are always on the prowl to ensure adherence to an ultra-conservative (Wahhabi) version of Islamic law. They commonly pick on women for dressing immodestly or on people socializing with members of the opposite sex to whom they are unrelated.
The New Appointee
Sheik Abdulatif al-Sheikh is known to be a supporter of women’s rights. While he was a senior member of the Council of Senior Scholars, one of the kingdom’s two highest religious authorities, he had opposed child marriage. And in a 2010 interview with a London-based newspaper, he had argued that Islamic law did not prohibit “ikhtilat” (the mixing of men with women) and thus he defended the rights of Saudi women to work and to mix with men in public places as long as they were appropriately dressed.
Implications For Reform
King Abdullah has been cautiously introducing social reforms to reconcile Saudi Arabia’s conservative traditions with the needs of a modern economy. Women have benefited in the way of better education and employment prospects and in being able to take part in the 2015 municipal elections. However, they are still barred from driving and must seek the approval of a male “guardian” to work, travel abroad, or undergo surgery in some cases. One of the most recent changes is that lingerie shops are no longer to be staffed by men but by women. Nevertheless, the morality women have been harassing women who take jobs in lingerie shops.
The appointment of Sheik Abdulatif al-Sheikh has been seen as indication that the King Abdullah would continue with his social reforms. “The king has been trying to show a more tolerant version of Islam and Sheik Abdulatif al-Sheikh could finally make that happen,” said a Riyadh-based human-rights activist interviewed by the Wall Street Journal. He added, “Even though we weren’t given a reason for replacing al-Humain [Sheik Abdulaziz al-Humain], we know that it is because he disappointed the people and didn’t carry out the reforms the king and the Saudis want”.
The appointment has also been seen by some as indicating that the crown prince who was appointed last year, Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz, King Abdullah’s half-brother, may not be as conservative as he has seemed to be during his tenure as interior minister.
Think About It
What effect will the new appointment have on the morality of Saudi Arabians? Will a more liberal attitude to Islamic law lead to a flourishing of vices? What virtues will be lost? Are morality police needed?
Previous Posts
Saudi Women Sending Government A Big Message On Driving
Saudi Woman: “Gown And Head Cover Are Symbols Of Backwardness”
Saudi Arabia – Women With “Tempting Eyes” Must Cover Them
yessir posted this in Insights & Views on January 22nd, 2012
“Islam Is Clearly Against Any Action That Has Negative Effects On Health”
On January 12, 2010 a group of 34 imams And Muslim scholars issued a fatwa banning female circumcision, aka female genital mutilation (FGM) in Mauritania. This 2-year old fatwa is based on the fact that the Quran does not require female genital mutilation. Citing Mauritanian medical sources which assert that female genital mutilation carries with it negative health impact, the fatwa goes on to say that Islam is against any action that leads to such negative effects on health.
About Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)
Female genital mutilation (FGM) or female circumcision is a practice that spans centuries, and it is not exclusive to Islam. The process is defined by the World Health Organization as “all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.”
The World Health Organization reported in 2010 that 100–140 million women and girls are living with FGM, including 92 million girls over the age of 10 in Africa. UNICEF estimates that 3 million girls and women are cut each year across communities in 28 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle-East.
Reactions
Cheikh Ould Zein, secretary general of the Forum of Islamic Thought in Mauritania came out in support of the fatwa banning female genital mutilation, saying: “Are there texts in the Quran that clearly require that thing? They do not exist. On the contrary, Islam is clearly against any action that has negative effects on health. Now that doctors in Mauritania unanimously say that this practice threatens health, it is therefore clear that Islam is against it.”
Molly Melching, executive director of Tostan, which works with 30 communities in Mauritania said: “The fact that the religious leaders in Mauritania are standing up and doing this is quite amazing. It shows how concerned Islam and the religion of Islam is about the health of women.”
The fatwa is also supported by UNICEF and the government of Mauritania. Many governments have passed laws banning female genital mutilation, but Molly Melching cautioned, saying: “A law is not what will change a social norm. For it to be sustainable it has to come from the people, a decision made by the people, because they really believe in it. The key is empowering people to make their own decisions but with good information.”
More Recent Fatwas Against FGM
In September 2011, the Mauritania capital of Nouakchott hosted an International Conference of Islamic Scholars (Ulemas) of West Africa, Egypt and Sudan on the position of Islam regarding practices harmful to women. The conference examined the 2010 fatwa issued by the 34 Mauritanian imams and scholars and ended up issuing a regional fatwa banning female genital mutilation.
In November 2011, a fatwa was declared against female genital mutilation in a conference in Oslo organized by the Pan African Women’ Organization and Musukubeng Kaffo (MKBK).
There are many other older fatwas prohibiting the practice of female genital mutilation as well.
Think About It
If the Quran does not require female genital mutilation, then why do many Muslims adopt this practice even today? If it is a custom among Muslims to do female genital mutilation, then should such custom be abandoned in the light of medical evidence that it could lead to health problems? Why do Muslims ignore laws that ban female genital mutilation? Should they? What’s the use of fatwas banning female genital mutilation if these are not adhered to by the Muslim communities?
Previous posts
Abolishing Female Genital Mutilation – Whose Business Is It?
Female Genital Mutilation – Focus On Eliminating The Practice, Or On Making It Safer?
musa posted this in Insights & Views on January 21st, 2012
Do-It-Yourself Amputation, Anyone?
Textbooks written for and distributed to schoolchildren in Saudi Arabia have recently been found to contain instructions – complete with detailed drawings – on how to cut off the hands and feet of convicted thieves.
Under the Sharia law that is observed in a number of Muslim countries and societies, a common punishment for thefts is limb amputation. (Not all Islam-centric territories practice Sharia law or do so to the same extent, as details of the law vary geographically.) In many places, punishments of this nature that are meted out by Sharia courts are performed by trained doctors. To many people, it already seems odd that instead of saving lives as their noble profession calls for, doctors are tasked with inflicting injuries and pains to hitherto healthy people. But by teaching kids how to cause limbs and bodies to part company, these textbooks are bringing the amputation practice, which is widely regarded as primitive, inhumane and unacceptable in our modern and civilized world, to a new low.
Ethnic Cleansing Advocated Too
But the textbooks, whose production was funded by the Saudi government, do not stop at just being a manual on amputation. They also advocate the killing of the Jewish people, explaining that annihilating them is a command for the schoolchildren to obey and execute. And in the same vein, they also declare that homosexuals should be put to death, given that they endanger the society. However, how exactly homosexuals are dangerous is left unexplained.
Even the fairer sex is not spared. No, the textbooks are not asking for their removal. Nonetheless, they heap scorns on women, describing them as weak and irresponsible. And again, why women are so regarded is left to readers to figure out all by themselves.
Whistle-Blower Is Outraged
These uncalled-for standpoints of the textbooks were uncovered and disclosed to the outside world by the Institute for Gulf Affairs, based in Washington D.C. of the U.S. The institute is a human rights advocacy group and think tank that provides information, analysis and research on political and educational matters in the Middle East. It is founded by Ali Al-Ahmed, a Saudi Arabian scholar and critic of the Saudi monarchy.
Commenting on the textbooks’ exhortations, Al-Ahmed sees them as effectively helping to instill Muslim extremism ideas and nurture terrorists. The Saudi Embassy in the U.S. capital has been approached for its comment on the textbooks, but has so far opted to remain silent.
Think About It
What are the motives behind the textbooks’ anti-Semitic, anti-gay and anti-women views, as well as its how-to illustration on limb amputation? Why are they targeting these negative views at unsuspecting and impressionable young minds? Don’t we already have too much unnecessary violence and sufferings, and too many unnecessary and often gruesome deaths caused by religious and ethnic conflicts today? Do we need more?
nuryn posted this in Difficult Questions on January 20th, 2012
Second Blow To Attempt To Ban Sharia Law In Oklahoma
The people of Oklahoma have received a second blow to their attempt to block the state’s courts from considering international or Islamic law in their judgments. In November 2010 a referendum on a proposed constitutional amendment to introduce such a ban was backed by 70% of voters. The referendum was just one of many attempts across the USA to keep out sharia law. The slew of anti-Sharia bills reflects the widespread feeling of a direct tie between desire for sharia and terrorist attacks. Such a tie was suggested in “Sharia: The Threat to America”, a report released by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy shortly before the Oklahoma referendum. The Save Our State Amendment backed by the referendum was challenged almost immediately by a community leader, and his challenge was upheld first by a district court, and now by an appeals court.
Challenge To Amendment
A statement in the amendment read, “The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international or sharia law”. In challenging the amendment, Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, argued that the amendment violated his First Amendment rights. He pointed out that the ban would probably affect every aspect of his life as well as the execution of his will after his death. For example, he wondered whether the instruction in his will for the executor of his estate to prepare and bury his deceased body in Islamic tradition could be enforced in the light of the amendment.
Unconstitutionality Of Amendment
A federal district court judge had issued an injunction preventing the amendment from taking effect in order to investigate is adherence to the US Constitution. Judge Vicky Miles-Lagrange, explained, “Plaintiff has sufficiently set forth a personal stake in this action by alleging that he lives in Oklahoma, is a Muslim, that the amendment conveys an official government message of disapproval and hostility toward his religious beliefs, that sends a clear message he is an outsider, not a full member of the political community, thereby chilling his access to the government and forcing him to curtail his political and religious activities”.
The Election Board appealed against the injunction. Now an appeals court in Denver has upheld that judgment. The three-judge appeals panel also pointed out that the proponents of the amendment admitted to not knowing of a single instance in which an Oklahoma court applied Sharia law or the precepts of other countries. In addition the appeals court concluded that the amendment interferes with the Constitution’s First Amendment ban on religious discrimination. The court did not accept the explanation of the backers of the amendment that it was intended to ban all religious laws, not merely Muslim laws. The appeals court opinion said, “That argument conflicts with the amendment’s plain language, which mentions Sharia law in two places.
What Next?
The case is to return to the federal court in Oklahoma City, to determine the constitutionality of the proposed amendment. However, State senator Anthony Sykes, one of the Republican state representatives who introduced the ballot initiative, has declared his intention to continue to fight to lift the injunction.
Think About It
The amendment had been described by its backers as a pre-emptive strike against sharia law getting into Oklahoma. Given the small proportion of Muslims making up the population of Oklahoma, is such a pre-emptive strike necessary? Or wise? Will it only increase racial tensions given its emphasis on sharia law? What are the chances of the amendment being ruled constitutional? Was it obvious from the outset that the chances of its being constitutional were slim? If so, should the referendum have been held?
Previous posts
America Sees Flurry Of Bills To Outlaw Sharia
Oklahoma – Court Battle Over Sharia Law
yessir posted this in Difficult Questions on January 19th, 2012
”Any Action That May Harm The Lineage Must Be Avoided”
Malaysia’s National Fatwa Committee of the National Council for Islamic Religious Affairs has just come out with a fatwa that declares the proposed human milk bank haram because of the danger that children fed with milk from the human milk bank may unwittingly end up marrying one another, an act which is illegal because such children become milk siblings through the process of mixed lineage. The National Fatwa Committee reasoned that any action that may harm the lineage must be avoided.
What Is A Human Milk Bank?
According to one definition, a human milk bank is a service established for collecting, screening, processing, storing and distributing donated human milk.
In 1980, the WHO and UNICEF issued a joint statement saying: “Where it is not possible for the biological mother to breast feed, the first alternative, if available, should be the use of human milk from other sources. Human milk banks should be made available in appropriate situations.”
It is generally believed that banked human milk is “the next best” after the biological mother’s breast milk.
The Fatwa
The National Fatwa Committee recently held a dialogue (muzakarah) during which it decided that feeding babies with the milk of a woman taken from a human breast milk bank is haram because such an act would lead to a situation of “mixed lineage” among the babies involved.
As a consequence of this “mixed lineage”, children who grow up on banked human milk may in turn be exposed to another haram practice – that of marrying their siblings. Indeed such children are called milk siblings.
Explaining further on why a fatwa was issued, the National Fatwa Committee said: “After consulting experts and hearing arguments presented, the muzakarah finds that protecting one’s lineage is part of the five Islamic principles that must be upheld. Therefore, any action that may harm the lineage must be avoided.”
The National Fatwa Committee added: “The muzakarah is of the view that the creation of a human milk bank closely relates to the rules that would render it haram because when babies are breast-fed from one or more women they will become ‘milk siblings’ and marriage between the individuals is forbidden.”
Reaction
Deputy Health Minister Datuk Rosnah Abdul Rashid Shirlin said: “We have to know the woman who gives her milk to our children because there are elements on religion which have to be respected.”
Datuk Rosnah Abdul Rashid Shirlin also said that the Health Ministry would not encourage the setting up of human milk bank.
Milk Siblings
The issue of drinking human breast milk to establish a “mixed lineage” is not new. In 2007, an Egyptian fatwa by Islamic scholar Ezzat Attiya provides a loophole to circumvent the sex segregation rule practised notably in Saudi Arabia. The fatwa said that a maternal relationship is established when the man drinks the breast milk of the woman and such a relationship would thus permit the mixing of gender.
But this 2007 fatwa did not say how the breast milk is to be consumed. In 2010, Saudi Sheikh Al Obeikan sought to clarify this, saying: “The man should take the milk, but not directly from the breast of the woman. He should drink it and then becomes a relative of the family, a fact that allows him to come in contact with the women without breaking Islam’s rules about mixing.”
However another Saudi cleric, Sheikh Abi Ishaq Al Huwaini disagreed with Sheikh Al Obeikan on how the woman’s breast milk is to be consumed. Sheikh Abi Ishaq Al Huwaini said that men should suckle the breast milk directly from a woman’s breast instead of drinking it from glasses.
Saudi Arabia has strict rule against gender mixing. However, many households have male drivers who ferry the wives or daughters around. In mid 2010, some women campaigning for the right to drive threatened to breastfeed their male drivers in order to establish a relationship that then permits mixing of gender.
Think About It
If drinking milk from a human breast milk bank makes one a milk sibling to others who also drink milk from the same human milk bank then what about those who take blood from a human blood bank? Do they become blood siblings. And what about those who take organs from other humans?
Previous posts
Saudi Clerics Tells How To Overcome Sex Segregation Rule
Saudi Women Turning The Table On Adult Male Breastfeeding Fatwa
|
|
Recent Comments