Since becoming grand mufti in 2003 Sheikh Ali Gomaa has been both a controversial and quietly impressive figure. He has become a media fixture, with each of his fatwas (religious edicts) closely monitored and scrutinised. Whether they attract support or opposition, few question the scholarly knowledge that informs his judgements.
Yet despite such unprecedented attention the grand mufti remains, for many, an enigmatic figure. It is no secret that there are those who reject his moderation, wanting, instead, a much tougher stance on what they consider the burning issues of the day.
In an exclusive interview with Egypt's grand mufti, Jailan Halawi discovers that the scholar has more to offer than meets the eye
Looking back at the five years since you first became Egypt's grand mufti, do you remember any instance of issuing a fatwa that seemed in opposition to the government and/or its policies?
Dar Al-Iftaa Al-Masriya [The house in charge of issuing religious edicts] does not consider what might be with or against the government. Dar Al-Iftaa is assigned with clarifying Sharia rule. When we receive a question we provide an answer. Whether the answer pleases the government or accords with its policies does not concern us. The mufti, like a judge, does not follow up on his rulings. When a judge issues a ruling he does not debate, discuss or justify it. Whether the people welcome or deny it does not impinge on the judge, neither on the mufti. He issues his fatwas in accordance with what pleases Allah and following the rules he was taught throughout his academic life. A fatwa should conform with the sources of Islamic legislation and fulfil its [Islamic legislative] targets while taking in consideration the prevalent norms.
The new child law raised a lot of debate, not least because some of its articles, such as raising the legal age of marriage to 18, contradict with Sharia.
The law was not sent to us and Dar Al-Iftaa was not requested to give an opinion. [It] was taken to the Islamic Research Centre, which gave an opinion.
But what do you think of raising the age limit for marriage to 18 years?
I would have to read the law, its explanation, and know its aims in order to be able to give an opinion.
You said recently that you were not familiar with the details of the agreement under which Egypt exports gas to Israel and hence abstained from issuing a fatwa on the subject. What kind of information do you need in order to issue one?
I did not abstain. I differentiated between abstract acts and multi-faceted behaviour. In the case of an abstract act we can rule on it immediately because it is not linked to a specific time, place, people or conditions. Such is the case when asked about a personal issue about which all the circumstances are clear at hand. It is not the case with more complex behaviour which involves time, place, people and conditions the intricate details of which I need to be aware before I can give an opinion for a fatwa. A fatwa is not a political ploy. It is speaking in the name of Almighty. Hence a Mufti should be fully aware of the crux of the situation he is issuing a fatwa for, and if not, it is his duty to teach people how to ask before giving his response.
What kind of information would you need to respond to this question?
Issues raised in the media... [Is the deal] agreed upon by virtue of the Camp David Agreement?... Is such supply in favour of Egypt? If Egypt does not export gas to Israel, could that expose the country to war? Were the prices set subject to other international agreements? Could this gas be promoted through other means and in other markets? Endless questions to which until I have an answer I cannot give a fatwa.
And what of the argument that exporting vital energy to a country in conflict, or at war with any Islamic nation, is forbidden under Islamic legislation?
It is a point of view not a fatwa.
Under Article 2 of the constitution in May 1980 Islamic Sharia became the main source of legislation in Egypt. Since then a committee has reviewed all legislation to ensure that it conforms with Sharia. But isn't there a discrepancy between Article 2 of the constitution and laws that fail to conform with Islamic Sharia? The criminal law, for example, does not apply hodoud (Islamic penalties) and allows the sale of alcoholic beverages to Egyptians, etc...
The Egyptian criminal law does not allow the selling of alcoholic beverages.
Yet they are sold in the market...
They are sold, yes. But the law does not stipulate that Egypt has to sell alcoholic beverages.
Equally, there is no law forbidding the trade of alcoholic beverages.
Likewise, there is no law forbidding homosexuality. And yet was homosexuality approved by Egyptians? Never. Please note the difference between the structured laws and the society in which we dwell. Such society is governed by a strong rule, that of religion, whether Islam or Christianity. Hence [it did not occur to legislators] to mention that, for it could not cross their minds that people could commit such horrific crimes.
In my book Al-Tagroba Al-Masriya (Egyptian Experience), and in many other publications, I have clarified the fallacy that Egyptians do not apply Islamic Sharia.
There is a trend that assumes it is the ruler's duty to redistribute wealth in cases where many members of society live below the poverty level side by side with the extremely rich. Given Islam's respect of private property, do you approve of such a view?
Islam reveres personal ownership as sacred and views liberties in the same way. We cannot enforce such a method by force of law or, as a general rule, by confiscating property. Such [re-distribution of wealth] should rather be accomplished as an inseparable part of civil society's work, not that of the government. It is civil society that should pressure the wealthy to turn back [to the needy] part of their surplus income. Prophet Mohamed, peace be upon him, said: "By Allah, by Allah, by Allah, he who sleeps with a full-stomach while his neighbour is hungry is not counted amongst believers."
Here the prophet linked the issue with faith in Allah. This is a grave matter and must not be taken lightly. Yet we can never scare people from establishing projects that would help overcome unemployment [by speaking of confiscation].
The experience of confiscation [under the late president Gamal Abdel-Nasser] was a bitter one of which I totally disapprove. At the same time I am wholeheartedly against a single person in Egypt sleeping on an empty stomach. We will be held responsible [for the sufferings of the poor]. [Poverty] will only be solved through a serious movement by civil society and charitable organisations along with the means stipulated by Prophet Mohamed like zakat, or alms, and sadaqa and donations, which go from the hands of the haves to those of the haves not directly.
That is not to say that we are the poorest country, but to say that the percentage of poverty [we have] is unacceptable. We must combat it and break its vicious circle until we ensure there is not a single poor person in Egypt.
Do you think allowing Christian missionaries and the establishment of churches might remove a barrier before interfaith dialogue and hence be acceptable under Islamic legislation?
Let me quote the words of a prince who advocated [interfaith] dialogue: "Even if clergymen would permit the missionary we would not". The issue is concerned with national security. In one of his meetings with Protestant priests, Milad Hanna said: "Let each of us do with what we already have because missionaries could raise conflicts more disastrous than a plague."
There is no missionary concept among Orthodox Coptic Christians, only among Protestants. We are not against it to curb freedoms but because it is a matter of national security.
Is there any point in interfaith dialogue at a time when the other clearly disapproves of us?
The other is a vast word that includes many who approve of us, with whom we cooperate and share in common projects aimed at the development and well-being of humanity, and those who take a Fascistic stance towards us. The term other is extremely vast.
For 30 years we have engaged in dialogue and have found a lot of common space to cooperate and have indeed cooperated. We have established an association for developing Arabic handwriting with Germany, as well as an institution for decoration and arabesque which draws on the traditions of the Mameluke era. Along with Korea and Germany we helped develop the King Fahd Quran.
Who said they utterly reject us? When we speak with youth, we advocate they cooperate with the other while holding on to their faith and religion. We teach them how to invest in the common ground they share to advance humanity. Since 97 per cent of Islam is based on the advocacy of good manners we have a lot to share with other civilisations. When we talk about interfaith dialogue it includes civilisation, culture and keeping good relations with neighbouring countries and this entails cooperating in various fields, whether economic, political, social, scientific or humanitarian.
I look for the common. As a religious scholar I should not let [differences in] religion deprive me of the enjoyment of sharing in common projects. As for the differences between faiths, they are not subject to debate. I am not engaged in a religious discourse but rather in a dialogue [between faiths], and there is a huge difference between the two. While a religious dialogue adopts the technique of looking for commonalties that include ethics, interests, life-related matters etc... [religious] debate is where we academically scrutinise the details of each faith away from the spotlight and the media.
It is the common humanitarian aspect that we discuss. We tell those of other faiths and followers of religion, don't make of your religion an impediment to reaching for the common in order to benefit our children and grandchildren and live in peace, cooperation and love.
With the rise of political conflict between Iran and Hizbullah on one hand, and the United States and Israel on the other, the Shia-Sunni relationship has come to the fore. Is it our duty to support the Shias, or do sectarian differences demand we deal with them cautiously?
The Shias have always been part of the Islamic Umma (nation). However, they are a minority that do not exceed 10 per cent of the total number of Muslims. Shias are by default a progressive sect. They acknowledge being progressive. They consider reality an inseparable part of their jurisprudence.
I fully support developments in the Shia sect in 2008. [But] there are those who dig in old Shia books and emerge with conflicts... that is a grave mistake for it ruins the relationship and fails to recognise that the Shia sect is by definition progressive and is now a sect with which we can cooperate.
Lately the role of Dar Al-Iftaa has moved beyond issuing fatwas to you taking part in international forums and conferences on subjects such as the environment. Are you doing this in your capacity as the grand mufti or as a religious scholar?
The world is interested in the environment and 2008 was named International Environment Year. The issue of the environment has forced itself to the top of the list of international concerns and the question of how to utilise religious teachings to solve environment-related problems has become an urgent one. In this context Islamic teachings and rules are extremely rich.
It is a religious duty to safeguard our environment and advocate the importance of preserving it. Pollution and global warming pose an even greater threat than war and the fight to preserve the environment could be the most positive way of bringing humanity together. Environment-related issues ought to be a significant component of religious teachings. It is the duty of all religious scholars to acquaint themselves with the environmental crisis we are facing.
Although on top of creation, human beings are only members of the community of nature and we are as responsible for preserving the environment as we are for our families. Human beings are the vicegerents of God on earth and will be judged in the hereafter for their actions and held accountable for the way they handled the environment. Humankind is not free to consume or pollute carelessly. Preserving nature and preventing corruption on earth is one of the core responsibilities of all believers. The Quran changed the hearts and minds of its hearers when it dawned on the Arabian Peninsula, enriching humankind and providing a vivid lens through which we can look at nature. Today, at a time of environmental crisis, the Quran can once again play a pivotal role and provide those of us who believe in its truth, and are ready to open our hearts and minds to its teachings, with a fresh perspective and consciousness of nature.
by " Jailan Halawi ,ahram weekly "
.jpg)
Posts
