My views on religion and its incompatibility with reason are far from a secret on this blog. Nevertheless, there are degrees of irrational behavior, and some religious practices are far more harmful to society than others. That’s why I was happy to see the possibility for some progress in a brief story on Salon’s broadsheet, which was reporting on a story by Yasmine Saleh in the Daily Star Egypt.
Egypt’s Grand Mufti Aly Gomaa issued a fatwa declaring it religiously acceptable for a woman to have her hymen surgically reconstructed [...]. On the surface that might not seem grounds for celebration, but consider that in certain regions, an unmarried woman who loses her virginity might very well become the target of an “honor killing.” Even better, though, is that Gomaa scoffed at the idea of considering a torn hymen as evidence that a woman has lost her virginity: “It is not rational for us to think that God has placed a sign to indicate the virginity of women without having a similar sign to indicate the virginity of men.”
Gomaa had even more to say to guys who might take issue with this radical idea
“Any man who is concerned about his prospective wife’s hymen should first provide a proof that he himself is virgin.” [...] “Islam does not care for the feelings of ignorant people, just as the law does not protect the idiots.”
Here’s to progress, even if it must be tiny bit by tiny bit.
March 5th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
I don’t find such a remark from a religious leader to be particularly reassuring. Also, in the previous quote, the use of the word “rational”—or what I presume was its Arabic equivalent—in the given context borders on the laughable. But then, I would regard the argumentation of many learned medieval Christian scholars to be a similar kind of pseudo-rationalism.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:01 am
I am all for the conclusion and the application of this “fatwa”, but the reasoning behind it is just hideous.
El Gindy’s quote from Daily Star Egypt is: “Islam never differentiates between men and women, so it is not rational for us to think that God has placed a sign to indicate the virginity of women without having a similar sign to indicate the virginity of men.”
Islam does differentiate between men and women. But even if it doesn’t, what does God putting signs on the bodies of men and women have to do with the issue? Since when was it up to Muslims to know what is rational for God to do or not? The God of Islam and His commands are not subject to the laws of logic and reason, the last time I checked.
Another example is Gomaa’s quote from the same Daily Star Article: “If God wants us to know everything about each other, He would have given us the ability to read each others’ minds, so why did he not do so? ”
This is just a bunch of cooked up rhetoric, plain and simple. I say unless Islam makes a very clearly stated doctrine which may be questioned or consulted, every “mufti”, Grand or not, will come up with a new “fatwa” for every day of the year. I am glad this “fatwa”, as Mark says, a bit of progress, and I can only hope that next “fatwa” from a bigger “mufti” will not contradict it.
It is not surprise that the word “fatwa” in current Egyptian slang now means something like “non-trustworthy news or advice either in content or source.”
March 6th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Chris, if it’s any consolation, this is actually more a legal ruling. It’s no less rational, in this case, to talk about “God” than to talk about “the Crown” in a British court of law.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:40 am
Definition
religion – noun – a set of beliefs about that which cannot be seen, or about that which cannot be based on what has been observed in the present or recent past, or something like that, whatever, just make it general enough so that people like Mark and Sean, who act like all their beliefs are based on science, but, obviously, whose total belief systems are not completely based on science, yes, make sure these type of people get included as religious folk, because that’s what they are, religious folk, in their mind they’re not, but we’re talkin’ about reality, not their fantasy world.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Since the entire argument cited is within the context of obeying God, why do you consider it progress?
March 6th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
It is progress in the sense that with this set of superstitious, ill-founded, badly-reasoned rules, fewer people will be made miserable and be put in danger than under the previous set.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
More on the Grand Mufti:
http://www.egyptologyblog.co.uk/2006/06/07.html#a1794
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0418/p01s02-wome.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=21704
“The Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s main political opposition force, dismissed the fatwa.
Issam al-Aryan, a spokesman for the movement, said: “The people are more concerned with corruption. What they would like to see is a fatwa banning the presence of the same people at the helm of the country for 25 years and not against statues.”
March 6th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Loathesome as the overall context of the decision is, Mark is quite correct that it’s a step forward. This isn’t just for the result-oriented reasons he described (fewer honor killings). It’s also because the process of reasoning on offer is more liberal than some commenters seem to realize: First, the Grand Mufti is asserting that laws require a rational connection to their states basis. Second, he is asserting that facial neutrality of laws with respect to gender is a basic principle of justice. no doubt sexual egalitarianism in practice is a long way off in this context, but what this decision shows that the Eyptian religious establishment is beginning to internalize a more recognizably modern conception of due process under law. That is a significant development. If it endures, it is a pressure for liberalization of Egyptian instutitions from within. And that is a very good thing.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I used to be an Orthodox Jew, and I get the sense that orthodox Islam operates through comparable principles to Orthodox Judaism. Orthodox Jews follow a very large set of extremely complex laws, which emerge from an even more complex system of jurisprudence. What I can say is that, while it may make sense for outsiders to asses the results of the fatwah (e.g. fewer honor killings), if you try to asses the reasoning, you are probably missing the point. Just like supreme court decisions (which armchair commentators also often oversimplify), I would imagine that fatwahs emerge from some mixture of ideology, specific societal concerns, and mostly an analysis of texts and precedents. I doubt almost anyone who is not a scholar of Islam really understands any of these. I don’t mean to shut down the conversation, but we ought to keep all that in mind.
March 7th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Of course, I’m sure that many commentors (Youssef, who’s actually Egyptian, perhaps?) understand Islamic law a lot better than I do. All the more reason not to shut down the conversation
.