عربي
Home


Articles

Articles

The Battle of the e-Muftis
Author : Dominic Casciani
Date Added : 14-05-2015

The Battle of the e-Muftis

A Report by the BBC

 

In one corner, there's the religious establishment of a global faith - complete with 1,400 years of collected learning. In the other, there is the self-styled Islamic State (IS) and its daily dose of propaganda videos flooding the internet. Have traditional clerics got what it takes to be heard in this digital culture war?

Even if every Muslim scholar in the world constantly tweeted against IS, young Muslims on social media could simply turn their backs and carry on reading IS's output. But Jordan's e-Muftis are among those beginning, slowly, to put up a fight online.

Earlier this year, IS posted a video showing its fighters burning alive Jordanian air force pilot Muad al-Kasasbeh, in revenge for the country's role in international air strikes.

The group then backed that up with postings claiming a religious justification for the murder - and they trolled anyone who said otherwise.

I asked the Grand Mufti of Jordan, Abdul Kareem Khasawneh, what he and his department were doing to counter Islamic State's online narrative. A mufti is a state-appointed Islamic scholar who interprets the faith for day-to-day life, answering queries from the faithful.

Given IS's powerful online presence, are sermons in the mosques enough to defeat the extremist mindset?

"To be realistic, [Islamic State] has acquired a great deal of experience as far as communication and social media are concerned," the Grand Mufti told me. "I don't think the department can carry out such a task on its own."

IS has used an estimated 46,000 Twitter accounts alone. Is he online, I asked?

"The young generation have more power to do this than the older one," he replied.

But then his team showed me something surprising.

A couple of floors up from the Grand Mufti's office, is a growing electronic department. It's staffed by young scholars, led by Dr Jamil Abu Sarah.

Like his boss downstairs, Abu Sarah wears a religious gown and tall hat. Unlike his boss, he's young and fiddles with his smartphone.

"We communicate with the audience through different mass media like Facebook, Twitter and so on," he tells me.

"These are the means through which the world communicates nowadays. Many years ago, if we wanted to publish a ruling, we would print 2,000 copies and spread them, give them out to people.

"But now we can reach 100,000. Our audience is international. We are introducing translations of these fatwas - we've started with English."

The digital strategy has resulted a slick website that promotes the fatwa denouncing IS.

There are plans to expand to a presence to all the most popular social media platforms - and the team wants it status to be set to "available", 24 hours a day.

Abu Sarah says he has successfully made some young potential extremists think again, but his resources and current following are minuscule compared with his IS adversaries.

When the group's supporters spotted the Jordanian Muftis' efforts, they began attacking the site, posting messages aimed at undermining them because of their official role in the Jordanian state.

"When they killed the pilot, they came and made comments that it's lawful to torture him burn him alive," says Abu Sarah.

"We gave them clear answers and they were in communication for several days.

"Now we are not waiting for them to come and visit our website... Rather, we're now paying a visit to their websites and accounts. And we will address them with the language of true Islam."

Jordan's e-Muftis are not the first in the religious establishment to speak out.

Last year, Saudi Arabia organised an anti-IS campaign involving 40 TV channels. Scholars took questions on phone-in shows and they even had a stab at hashtags.

The day after the campaign's launch, IS posted one of its most gory epics yet - a video that, like many others, went viral.

In the West, there are some efforts too. The British-led Imams Online group is regularly posting counter-IS messages. It has even launched a glossy digital magazine called Haqiqah - meaning The Reality - to counter IS's equivalent, but utterly gory, publication.

 

To read this article from its original source, please click here

 

Article Number [ Previous | Next ]




Comments


Captcha


Warning: this window is not dedicated to receive religious questions, but to comment on topics published for the benefit of the site administrators—and not for publication. We are pleased to receive religious questions in the section "Send Your Question". So we apologize to readers for not answering any questions through this window of "Comments" for the sake of work organization. Thank you.




Summarized Fatawaa

A man wishes to offer more than one uḍḥiyah (sacrificial offering), and intends by these sacrifices "on behalf of everyone whom Allah and His Messenger love." Is this intention valid?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The uḍḥiyah (sacrificial offering) is not valid with this intention, because if the sacrificial animal is from sheep or goats, it suffices for one person only; and if it is from cattle or camels, it suffices for seven persons.
However, one may sacrifice it on his own behalf, and then gift the equivalent of its reward to whomever he wishes.
Imam ar-Ramlī (raḥimahullāh) says: "Ash-Shāfi‘ī (raḍiyallāhu ‘anh) said: It is within the vastness of Allah's bounty, the Exalted, that He rewards the one giving charity as well. From this, the scholars of the madhhab said: it is recommended for a person to intend the charity on behalf of his parents, for example — for Allah, the Exalted, will reward them, without this diminishing his own reward in any way." He then relates, as the relied-upon position, the permissibility of saying: "O Allah, convey the reward of what I have recited specifically to so-and-so, and to the Muslims generally." Az-Zarkashī said: "For reward varies in degree — its highest form is what one designates specifically, and its lowest form is what one dedicates generally [alongside others]." [End of quote from Nihāyat al-Muḥtāj]. And Allah, the Exalted, knows best.

What is the best manner in distributing the meat of the Aqeeqah?

It is better to divide all of it as cooked meat amongst the poor and the needy. Dividing it into three portions is a Sunnah, but it is permissible to keep all of it provided that a portion, even a small one, is given to the poor and needy (one kilo for example).

Is the Saying "Whatever is Taken by the Sword of Shyness is Forbidden" an Authentic Ḥadīth?

All praise is due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon our master the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
The saying "Whatever is taken by the sword of shyness is forbidden" is not an authentic ḥadīth, though its underlying meaning is sound. The established sharʿī principle is that a Muslim's wealth is not lawful for anyone to take except with his wholehearted consent, as Allah the Almighty says {what means}: "O you who have believed, do not consume one another's wealth unjustly, but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent." [Al-Nisā/ 29] And the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: "Listen to me and you will live well: do not wrong others, do not wrong others, do not wrong others. Indeed, a man's wealth is not lawful except with his full, willing consent." (Reported by Aḥmad in his Musnad.) Whatever is taken through the pressure of shyness or social embarrassment runs directly counter to genuine, wholehearted consent.
The jurists have explicitly stated that whatever is taken by means of the "sword of shyness" carries the same ruling as that which is taken by coercion — it must be returned to its rightful owner.
Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, may Allah have mercy upon him, states in al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā (Vol.3/P.30): "Do you not see the reported scholarly consensus that whoever has something taken from him purely out of shyness, without his genuine consent, does not pass ownership of it to the one who took it? They reasoned that this constitutes a form of coercion through the 'sword of shyness,' comparable to coercion at the point of an actual sword. Indeed, many people would rather submit to the literal sword and endure the pain of its wound than submit to this first kind of coercion, out of fear for their dignity and standing — which people of sound judgment hold dear and guard most fiercely." And Allah the Almighty knows best.

 
What is the ruling on someone who eats or drinks thinking that the sun has set, then realizes that it has not yet set?

Whoever eats or drinks believing that the sun has set, then later discovers that it has not yet set, their fast is invalid, and they must make up that day after Ramadan. It is not permissible to break the fast before confirming sunset—either by seeing it, through personal reasoning, or by relying on the statement of someone trustworthy in their religious commitment.

See More