UTTAR PRADESH: FATWA FACTORY
The Darul Uloom Deoband’s fresh decrees revive the debate over the sanctity and relevance of fatwas
Darul Uloom Deoband, one of India’s largest seminaries, has been no stranger to controversy, thanks in no small measure to the various fatwas that have emanated from its hallowed precincts. But things hit a new low last month when it decreed that grooming eyebrows and trimming hair were for Muslim women ‘unIslamic’ practices. The fatwa not only drew widespread condemnation but also sparked off a debate among Muslims. The Deoband’s next shocker was an edict against Muslim men and women up-
loading photographs on social media.
The Darul Uloom, established in 1892, has a wing called the Darul Ifta, which has been dedicated for the past 125 years to issuing fatwas. Never mind their purpose or relevance, the Darul Ifta receives nearly 15,000 fatwa requests from various countries every year. Of these, some 6,000-7,000 fatwas are sought online. ‘Solutions’ are sought on issues pertaining to faith, duty, agreements/ settlements, what is permissible or forbidden in Islam, etc.
Numerous fatwas have got embroiled in controversies. Rewind to 1999. Gudiya, 22, from Meerut’s Mundali village, had married an army man named Arif. Ten days into the marriage, Arif received a border posting during the Kargil war, and was subsequently declared missing by the army. In 2003, on the basis of a fatwa, Arif was considered a case of undeclared death and Gudiya married off to another man, Taufiq. Released as a prisoner of war by Pakistan, Arif returned home to find Gudiya pregnant with Taufiq’s child. Another fatwa was issued, this time annulling Gudiya’s marriage with Taufiq. It was even ruled that should she not return to her first husband, her child from the second marriage would be declared illegitimate. Arif agreed to accept Gudiya but not her child. Left in the lurch, Gudiya died in labour.
In 2005, Imrana, a 28-year-old woman from Muzaffarnagar, who had been raped by her father-in-law, faced a fatwa backing a panchayat diktat that her marriage be invalidated and she consider her husband as her son. In July 2014, the Supreme Court mentioned Imrana while ruling on another case: “Fatwa does irreparable damage to fundamental rights. Religious advice in the form of fatwa has good intentions but cannot be considered right if it infringes on a person’s fundamental rights.” In 2005, the court had ruled that fatwas were not legally binding.
Mufti Mohammadullah Qasmi, in-charge of the department that issues online fatwas at the Darul Uloom, says, “[Fatwa] guidelines are issued only in light of the Shariat when a person has a personal query. A fatwa is not issued unless asked for nor is it necessary to respond to unimportant questions.” He admits, however, that fatwas are one-sided.
While some of these fatwas do beggar belief, it must be said that the Darul Uloom has issued some landmark edicts as well—like the one in 2008 denouncing terrorism as un-Islamic.