Tag Archives: law

 
Blog

World’s dumbest logic


When gay marraige was making headlines four years ago, some opponents suggested that gay marriage would justify humans marrying animals. So it was only a matter of time before the nonsense started again following yesterday’s California ruling striking down a ban on gay marriage.

 
In my inbox today was a press release with a subject line that read:

Courts Rule That Ramadan Shall Last Only 20 Days (re: Courts Rewriting Marriage Definition)

 

Naturally, I wasn’t sure what gay marriage had to do with Ramadan, so I decided to open the message. (Let this be a lesson to PR types: nonsensical or provocative subject lines can grab readers’ attention.) Here’s what it said: 

Courts Rule That Ramadan Shall Last Only 20 Days

·        The court has taken it upon themselves to interpret a covenant relationship that God ordained in two major religions and redefine the act of marriage according to today’s cultural standards

·        Why stop there? Why not force Muslims to cut short their practice of Ramadan because it is unequal protection for local restaurant owners. The court can prove that there is a compelling state interest to cut it short because it can be proven that a 40-day fast hurts the economy.

"Unequal protection for local restaurant owners"? That’s the best argument this person could come up with as to why the state would tinker with Ramadan next? Clearly, the person who wrote this is a. not an attorney (at least not one I’d want defending me) and b. never took a logic class.

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Fatwa frenzy


"We have to be clear what is at stake here…When each and every person's unqualified opinion is considered a fatwa, we lost a tool that is of the utmost importance to rein in extremism and preserve the flexibility and balance of Islamic law."

— Sheikh Ali Gomaa, Egypt's Grand Mufti (or Muslim cleric holding the highest official post for Islamic law) quoted in today’s New York Times article about the problems arising from the proliferation of fatwas, or non-binding legal opinions.

The article highlights two highly publicized and amusingly embarrassing fatwas about urine drinking and breast feeding, but it does point to a significant issue: the decentralized nature of authority in Islamic law and a proliferation — helped by technology such as the Internet, phones, and satellite television — of fatwas, many of which typically concern mundane questions that arise in quotidian life about what is appropriate and in accordance with Islamic law. What the article neglects to sufficiently underscore, however, is the fact that there has always been a wealth of legal opinions in the field of Islamic law — the quantity of fatwas should not, in themselves, be alarming. Rather, what is newer and more relevant is the proliferation of new religious authorities in societies where, as the proportion of individuals receiving a traditional religious education declines, the criteria by which to judge a religious authority can be blurred, unclear, or insufficiently scrutinized.

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also: