World of Fatwas

A word of warning at the outset: World of Fatwas by Arun Shourie is a polemic. That doesn't mean you can't learn useful things from it, but it will not give you a balanced perspective. Arun is a Hindu, and a serious anti-monotheist. He is only willing to respect Muslims or Christians who are willing to give up the claim that they were given the truth--or in other words, apostates. Consider that a spoiler, since he doesn't go into this much until the end of the book.

Some stylistic warnings: the variety of English used in India differs in some respects from the standard, and the book shows the same love for grand phrases and constructions (not always accurately done) that I've seen in other works from India and Africa. The editor missed some misspellings. Large chunks of the book are quotations from fatwas or paraphrases from them--and these are not distinguished clearly from the author's own work.

I cannot recommend this for the general reader--the book takes a good deal of effort to read. However, if you're willing to take it with a grain of salt and want to see how the Ulema argue out religious rulings, go for it. If you want to see the breadth and detail of sharia, go for it.

He starts the book with a bit of history, complaining how the Muslims in India, though partly willing to work with Ghandi, persisted in showing disrespect, refusing to pray for his safety, and so on. Ok, so far he has my sympathy. He then tackles divorce under Islam--and it is a hideous mess. The triple "I divorce you" is effective even if the husband was tricked, rule the ulema; or if drunk. After 3 months maintenance, out goes the wife, not to return unless she remarries, consummates the new marriage, and is then divorced by the new husband! Conditional divorces are valid too: "If you go to your mother's house, I divorce you three times!" "If you don't go out and demonstrate in favor of sharia's divorce laws, I divorce you!" "If I catch a cold, I divorce you."

Some of these ulema make Savaranola look like Hefner. Doubt me? Savaranolo never dreamed of trying to regulate what you wiped up with in the toilet. You must wipe 3 times, and you can use a pebble, mud-ball, wood, or a wall, but not bone (because it is food for the Djinn) or toilet paper (because that's what the Christians use) (some jurists disagree). And don't face Mecca. And don't face directly away from Mecca. And don't use your right hand.

He quotes from several collections of rulings, including Sunan Abu Dawud. Some of the headings include: Spreading gravel in the mosque; On sweeping in the mosque; ... On strict prohibition of women from attending prayer in the mosque; On running for praying; ... On the imam who reads the prayer sitting; If one of the two persons acts as imam for the other, where both should stand; If there are three persons, how they should stand; ... On adequacy of clothes for validity of prayer; On a man who ties the cloth over his nape and then prays; On a man who prays in a single piece of cloth one part of which lies over the other person; On a man who prays in a single shirt; If the cloth is tight it should be used as a wrapper. On trailing the garment during prayer; In how many garments should a woman pray; On a woman who prays without wearing a veil; On saying prayer upon the sheets of cloth of a woman; On a man who prays tying the back knot of his hair; OK, let me skip about 50 On wearing the mantle under one's right armpit with the end over one's left shoulder;... On marrying virgins; On prohibition of marrying women who do not give birth to children;... On a man who has sexual intercourse with his wife before giving her something; On what should be said to a bridegroom after his marriage; On a man who marries a woman whom he finds pregnant; On division of time among one's wives;.. On having intercourse with female captives of war; On having intercourse with a menstruating woman and lying with her; On expiation for cohabitation with a menstruating woman and further On a man who hears the call of prayer while he has a vessel in his hand;... On the use of a tooth-stick by a man who is fasting; On whether a man who is fasting can pour water over his head due to thirst and stuff water abundantly to his nostrils; and On whether a mare can be called horse;... On hanging bells in the necks of horses and camels;.. On the prohibition of making asses cover mares to beget mules;... On having a dog for hunting and some other purposes; On eating the part cut off of an animal while it is still alive;... On the earning of slave girls;... On taking hire for a stallion's covering;... On the sale of a cat; On payment for dogs; and On which side one should face when sleeping; , and On the circumcision of girls and on and on for pages.

Naturally the various schools of law do not all agree with each other, so the sharia each supports will be different (and so of course there must be different versions of the perfect and eternal and tawhid sharia). No detail of life is too minor for there not to be a fatwa governing it. Even division of inheritances is addressed; though with the minor problem that the fractions don't add up (Quran: Sura IV,12-15 and 175). The details of observance matter; often more than the inner life. The earth, of course, is flat--according to some modern jurists (who get this from tradition and a line from the Quran).

Arun Shourie has it in for the Ulema, and with some justification. Depending on who you go to (and possibly how generous you are, though he doesn't say so), a jurist may come up with rulings based on precedents and analogies that can say almost anything desired. Even precedents that directly contradict the Quran appear. Quran: Sura II:241 "Those of you who die leaving surviving widows shall bequeath to their widows provisions for a year without (their) being turned out." The compendium of Islamic law Hidayah says "Maintenance is not due to a woman after her husband's decease..." A recent appeal of this ruling resulting is this judgment: "But it would be wrong for the Court on a point of this kind to attempt to put their own construction on the Quran in opposition to the express ruling of commentators of such great antiquity and high authority."

But he loses all my sympathy when he goes into a grand petulant complaint about Muslims trying to be different from Hindus. Think of it: A Muslim tries to look different from a Hindu! He doesn't want the Quran carried in procession with the Ramayana! He doesn't want to have his forehead smeared with sacred ash! He thinks Ghandi is going to hell! And horror of horrors: he kills cows!

Tough. In other environments some compromise is possible, but against the claim that "all religions are the same and all worship is the same" a monotheist has to draw the line and refuse to sanction religious compromise. And looking different doesn't hurt a bit as a reminder to your children. You can't forget your children: an adult can find subtleties easily, but the children need clear rules.

Arun Shourie also attempts to show how Muhammad selected rules from the beginning in order to be different from Jews and Christians; from picking Friday, wearing beards instead of mustaches, praying to Mecca rather than Jerusalem, using a call rather than a horn or bell to summon for prayer, allowing dyeing of hair (at the time Christians and Jews did not), and so on. He illustrates how some of the more cruel rules of sharia come not from hadith but the Quran itself. And he shows how the claim that sharia rules all of life magnifies small differences into major battles. He describes how the uncertainty of the average Muslim in the face of such transcendental but obscure demands gives the Ulema huge power. It is amusing to read of Wahabis denounced as heretics worse even than polytheists.

As I said at the outset, this is a polemic, and he omits data favorable to his opponent. Nevertheless, his indictment is powerful enough to demand attention.