NEWS JUNKIE POST
Jul 11, 2010 at 7:55 amA Ban On World Cup Vuvuzelas: Finally, A Fatwa That Makes Sense
The general public, and perhaps many football (soccer) fans, will sooner forget Germany’s third place win in the 2010 World Cup than they will the introduction of the vuvuzela. A remarkably simple, yet ferociously loud, addition to the noise-making arsenal of fans everywhere.
With an average sound intensity of 113 decibels (DBA), the vuvuzela becomes potentially harmful to human hearing after only one minute and thirty seconds, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). With a futbol fixture lasting at least ninety minutes, the concern for damage is more than understandable.
On July 9, 2010, the General Authority of Islamic Affairs and Endowments, in the United Arab Emirates, issued Fatwa against Vuvuzelas. “If they are loud enough to damage hearing, vuvuzelas are haram (a punishable offense),” they stated in the fatwa.
This seems to make sense. Granted, this is under the assumption that “punishable offense” means that use of a vuvuzela may result in the loss of said vuvuzela rather than one’s hand, or head, but the general reason for this fatwa seems relatively sound, excuse the pun.
The fact that the use of a vuvuzela has a direct and potentially harmful effect on others seems to make it fair game for regulation, or at least debate. Innocent fans at a fixture cannot simply turn away from, or ignore, a vuvuzela. Likewise, those offended or harmed by a vuvuzela do not have the ability to escape the vuvuzela without sacrificing their attendance at the event.
This fact differentiates this fatwa from the vast majority of others. Most fatwas express a tyrannical authority that aim to govern the behaviors of individuals regardless of the fact that those behaviors have no direct impact, or harm, to the persons performing the act, or to anyone else.
The famous rule against drawing Muhammad is a good example. The harmless act of depicting the person of Muhammad has been claimed as just cause for murder, while no direction to simply tolerate or ignore such an innocuous act warrants an edict of equal import.
For instance, this ban on vuvuzelas is much more sensible than the fatwa that does not permit someone to take reading material with them to the toilet, in case the word ‘Allaah’ (in any of its spellings) happens to appear therein. Apparently it would be wrong to subject even the printed word ‘Allaah’ to the sensory onslaught of human defecation.
This new fatwa shows some potential progress. A fatwa against these horns is far more understandable than any rule that forces women to dress in burqas, or the ever-stylish burqinis. I can certainly understand the allure of leaving something to the imagination, but even Tolkien would be challenged by an outfit that makes it harder to find your wife in a small group than it is to remember which beer is yours at Octoberfest.
Considering all the ridiculous fatwas that exist, this one is a real milestone. Aside from their usual and obvious over-reach, a common characteristic of religious rules against acts that clerics spend far too much time obsessing over, such as homosexuality, masturbation, and generally all things ‘sex’, fatwas have been the combination of the incredibly nosey neighbour, the tattletale, and the schoolyard bully.
There is, believe it or not, a fatwa against laughing too much. Fortunately, there is at least one account where Muhammad laughed until his molars were visible, otherwise there would be some idiotic rule outlawing it altogether. As laughter has never been recorded as the cause of hearing damage, a rule regulating vuvuzelas over 100 dBA seems to elevate such a rule to a status of veritable enlightenment.
If that fatwa is not silly enough for you, there’s another fatwa regarding women who menstruate past the age of 70 . This is like having a rule for what to do if a goat happens to ride an elephant into your living room while you’re watching a reality show of the Queen of England skinny-dipping. Is geriatric menstuation something that happens often in Islamic countries? If so, these women must be sexual dynamos. Perhaps this explains the insecurity that drives the men to oppress them so severely.
There seems to be no limit to the control that Islam exerts over the civil liberties of the individual. Matters of utmost intimacy, that are completely innocent of any affect on others, are regular fodder for their canonical attacks.
I was aghast to find out that there is a fatwa against blow jobs. Not just random, recreational blow jobs; there is actually a fatwa against a man getting a blow job from his wife. Seriously. This is the first fatwa that I ever suspected may have actually been written by a woman. The reasoning for this fatwa is that it emulates the actions of animals; and this is stated as a bad thing. This being the case, that it was actually men that wrote this crap, I can only imagine that they evened things out by making foreplay and cuddling seriously verboten.
Aside from its seemingly practical nature, the truly remarkable thing about this new fatwa is that it even includes qualifiers. The ban is not against all vuvuzelas. The fatwa only includes vuvuzelas that exceed 100 dBA. Considering that normal conversation is around 60 dBA, and a snow-blower is approximately 105 dBA, this seems to be a truly reasonable standard. This may be the first fatwa that I would be even able to follow, let alone possibly willing.
An even more extraordinary thing about this fatwa is that it only governs vuvuzelas being sold in the United Arab Emirates. That’s right, a cartoonist in Amsterdam can blow a vuvuzela at the Amsterdam ArenA without being shot, beaten and stabbed to death. What a wonderful step forward for religious tyranny.
Personally, vuvuzelas don’t bother me one iota. They’re part of the World Cup experience this year. I would prefer to see a fatwa that recommended ear protection for anyone attending World Cup fixtures, but let’s celebrate the baby steps. Let’s all congratulate Islam for taking a wee step out of the stone age and coming at least a smidgen closer to learning how to play well with the other children on this planet. Shall we?
Now everybody say; “No more vuvuzelas louder than 100dBA are allowed to be sold in the United Arab Emerates.” That certainly beats “kill the non-believer.” Allaah Akbar.
FTA: ” but the general reason for this fatwa seems relatively sound, excuse the pun.”
Nicely played, sir…. And interesting article.
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
Alhamdulillahi Rabbil Alameen
sallallahu alaihi wa sallam
Sir,
I testify that there is no Ilah but Allah, and Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) is His Messenger.
I, therefore, invite you to accept Islam. If you accept it, it will be good for you. If you not accept it, you will be liable for your loss in the hereafter.
Tanvir Zawad
Bangladesh
No thanks. I’ll take that risk.
By the way, Liam. I just clicked through the “fatwa” links you embedded in the article. Nice addition, there.
I would suggest you spend some time investigating the Islamic legal tradition a little more, as you seem to be making many of the same mistakes most Western commentators make on Islamic law- which isn’t all that surprising, really. You seem to be collating Islamic religious legal procedures with modern Western law. The two are not the same thing, despite the media often using equivalent terms in describing them. For one thing, a fatwa is not a law- it’s a legal opinion issued by a qualified jurist (a mufti). It’s an attempt to interpret, explain, or apply a previous legal/religious ruling to a new case (such as obnoxious noise makers). Much of the time, as with the now infamous breast milk fatwas, it’s an attempt to circumvent laws and even negate seemingly harsh legal rulings. Unlike law in modern Western nations (and most other places now for that matter), there is no single authority on legal rulings, no single court body, and no single source of enforcement. In fact, much of the time there is no agency given for enforcement. Rather, fatwas can be sought be individuals concerned with living a proper Islamic life when confronted with day to day exigencies.
This contrasts with Western law, where many of the same concerns are met with over-bearing, universal laws. Hence nearly all Western governments have long lists of substances that they prohibit adults from ingesting. They often have minute regulations that establish sacred and non-sacred space (if you will) for the ingesting and use of other, legal substances; and age limits before which minors are not allowed to ingest regulated substances. These ritual rules are enforced by the state, and are handed down by a central authority. This is a very different procedure from not just traditional Islamic law, but from traditional Christian law. In the past- and still in certain cases- many infractions and regulations were handled by canon law in the West. In some cases, some of us still have canon law helping regulate our lives. For instance, as an Orthodox Christian, I try to live by canon law on such things as fasting, sexual activity, frequency of confession, etc. No one comes and checks on me to enforce these things; and their application varies from person to person according to the discretion of one’s spiritual director. This is very different from the laws of the nation-state, which not only regulate your life but seek to control it by force.
I would suggest that you seek a little more knowledge of traditional Islamic law (and for that matter pre-modern Western law) before opining on it- I think you’d be surprised by what you find. I’ve some material that might be illuminating on my blog; there are some good scholarly introductions, with the best by Wael B. Hallaq.
Peace,
Jonathan
You sir, seem to have a dangerous misunderstanding of the value of democratic process and the establishment of Western Law / American law from Roman civil law via English common law. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people…. a principle I hold dear and have no desire to relinquish to any religious institution. Your affinity for authoritarian, non-democratic, theocratic law is also alarming. I’ve done my research. This piece was 1000 words tongue-in-cheek…. law based on religion is silly.
Huh? Suggesting you familiarize yourself about religious traditions is an attack on Western law (which, I might add, is a little more complicated than you seem to think, and involves reams and reams of the religious law you dislike)?
And besides, since when was modern law democratic? Did you vote, or have the opportunity to vote, on the endless rules and regulations that seek to control our lives? Were any of those rules and regulations tailored for your personal circumstances? Did any of them take your exigencies and needs into account? Of course not. How then exactly is it democratic in any appreciable sense?
Besides hoping that you become more familiar with the complexities of traditional Islamic law- and not just a rightist card-board cut-out- thinking about other methods of law and regulation will not hurt anyone genuinely interested in liberty and self-governance. If you accede everything to the state- morality, personal regulation, responsibility- do not be surprised if the state leaves you nothing, with no room to maneuver.
I ‘accede’ nothing to the state. I participate in the process. I take responsibility and work towards progress. I do not take my guidance from an imaginary or mythical character, nor do I follow a legal system established in the stone age as an immature attempt at tribal governance. Studying Islamic law, or Christian biblical law to help understand the present or future, is like studying a tricycle in order to understand space travel.
All of a sudden, those Vuvuzelas aren’t quite as irritating.
Just you wait once the premiership comes around the Vuvuzela’s will be back in force
Dear Mr. Fox,
I find it completely irrational of you to criticize other peoples’ faith. There are many like you who feel threatened by Islam and the values this faith represents, but let me tell you something, it is very far away from you and is not doing you no harm. I mean seriously, don’t you have anything else better to write on? You speak of obscene acts (such as blow jobs) as if they were normal acts and are completely fine to do! Take a look at what you had written:
“This is the first fatwa that I ever suspected may have actually been written by a woman.”
You know very well that women (everywhere, even in your society) don’t really fancy blow jobs, and most of them hate it and are forced one way or another to blow men, which had lead you to suspect a woman must have issued such Fatwa! Who is oppressing women here? Muslims? People who respect women and wouldn’t want them to lower their heads down to you-know-where, the place where science (and common sense) say harbors hundreds of kinds of bacteria and the same place that exerts urine?! The same mouths that kiss their husbands, parents and kids, the same mouths that praise the lord, and the same mouths that are supposedly teaching and passing on values and standards to younger generations!
A western philosopher once said “one must learn to appreciate, long before they can criticize”. Whatever fatwas the Islamic leaders issue have depths and reasons behind them, and they are all explained. Islam urges Muslims to reason and understand their faith rather forcing them to blindly follow what their religious leaders tell them. Islam tells people to have a direct relation to God (Allah), not through mediators or idols. Islam tells people who have sinned to repent directly to Allah rather than going to a priest to confess (or paying priests to grant them forgiveness!), as Allah forgives them without the need for exposure. Islam punishes to purify people in this life, because the after-life’s punishment is surely unbearable.
Please leave Islam alone, it is a complete religion with no flaws, and certainly not a topic for you to mock. It is not coming anywhere near you or your life-styles. If it is affecting anyone, it is us and not you or your respected readers. I advise you to educate your readers on matters that concern them and enrich their knowledge within their societies, and leave people living thousands of miles away from you alone. I pray to God that you would someday see the light and learn the truth and believe that there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed (peace be upon him) is his messenger.
Have a nice day
First, blow jobs are only obscene if done wrong… and I can’t imagine how one could be done ‘wrong’, lol, and second, you use a lot of words to make such little sense.
Says one who wrote a very long article and made no sense at all!
Try reading it again.
Laws regarding sodomy, oral sex, sex during menustration were part of laws implemented by “modern” British govt. in its land and territories like India. In fact law against sodomy is right now under contention in Indian courts. You know very little about your own society and even less about other societies. For instance law against sodomy and other such laws provided women a way out of a marriage where they did not like to perform these sex acts. By the way muslim personal law does not apply to non Muslims. Right now debate is going on in Egypt to bring the laws of all Christian denominations under one Christian law. Such a possibility wouldn’t have been thought in an earlier age as freedom to live as per your own religious values was considered important.
Take the case of marriage a Muslim man and woman don’t need a license from a authority of any sort to marry. Western law requires a govt. to give a licence and a govt. representative to officiate the marriage.
wow, that’ some amazing freedom…. to allow laws based on more than one, non-democratic, authoritarian Abrahamic religion. Vive la liberation
Everything in the west is controlled though, including marriage. And if your marriage fails, there is a chance to make some lawyers rich. We are all controlled by the state, in one way or another in the west. The government has its hands everywhere. So in that sense, Islamic societies are not as controlled as we tend to believe.
@pervez
if there are laws based on religion thre wud be chaos all over in a state …if u consider states as diverse as India or US .. indian judicial system sucks .. i mean i dont understand why a muslim man can have multiple wives at at the same time …this is against the basic law of nature or wud u say common sense…
@pervez
if there are laws based on religion thre wud be chaos all over in a state …if u consider states as diverse as India or US .. indian judicial system sucks .. i mean i dont understand why a muslim man can have multiple wives at at the same time …this is against the basic law of nature or wud u say common sense…
law of nature???. apply common sense to this : is it right to have adulterous affairs with mistresses rather than to have legal wives.what is the effect of such affairs on families and individuals involved? where do children born of these illegitimate relationship go to or seek when they parents wont own up for them. Is it not better to satiate your desires in a more responsible way rather than curbing it and later having an secret affair. apply common sense to these and anything before you make a judgement about any thing.be it matter of others religious beliefs or your very own figments of imaginations or ignorant veiws.
So, rather than consider honest personal and sexual freedom and liberation for both men and women, you consider the further subjugation of women as property for the purpose of men’s sexual desire as the ‘common sense alternative?’
All religions and non-religious groups can chose to be governed by their internal laws with acctivities falling in the group. These have included Sikhs, Buddhists, hindus Also different communities are governed by their own laws for instance if two Hindu communites have different cultural traditions say in marriage or inheritance or say rules of defamation or even theft they would be governed by their system and the state is not only obligated to tolerate their laws but also to provide for their institutions.
A modern example would be say different marriage, divorce and inheritance laws in different states in the USA. Say a couple from Florida living in New York state cannot go for a no fault divorce which is convinent and cheaper as the state law does not allow for it. In an Islamic scenario if no fault divorce was a tradition of Floridians then they could go for it even in New York state. That takes us to the different issue of freedom to form communities and adhere to traditions. Modern nation state does not allow it even though laws may differ in different provinces. Example Italians living in France could chose to be governed by the laws and traditions of Italy under an Islamic situation. Unfortunately Floridans are not identified as a community different from say Ohioans. Each state in USA expects every one to confirm to their system if they live in their territory just like the Pope did in Christian Europe. It is my way or the highway. Only it is called by nice names ‘assimiliation’ or the ‘melting pot’ etc. Just like the Pope would give licence to people to marry or withhold it for certain rebelious province so people would fall in line for the fear of having adulterous sex and having their children labeled bastards modern nation state expects assimilation into notion of Frenchness or Englishness or into the melting pot of USA which is a code for current values of the majority.
If modern Democratic nation state were like an Islamic state it would allow say gay divorce in Texas for out of state gay couple who in their native state are allowed marriage( this particular question is right now being addressed by the Texas courts and the Texas senate.
See you already know now that you know less about your own society much less other societies. I have written all this not to put you down but to offer you a different prospective on what is the meaning of traditions,values,community. It is much more than speaking a different language, wearing different clothes, supporting the Yankees or Spurs. Modern state says keep it to your self don’t bring it into the machinery of state. Islam takes you as you are you have an option to chose the laws of of islam while remaining non Muslim. Would modern state accept Catholic law for Catholics with the option of choosing state law being always open!? Which option has more freedom? Islam gives freedom to associate, modern state gives ‘individual freedom’ to confirm to one uniform state law. No options there aka less freedom!!
Freedom of other traditions within an Islamic state? Really? What about non-Islamic women wearing a knee length skirt / business suit? What about a gay couple walking down the street holding hands? We’ve seen how this is handled in an Islamic society. Please tell me what Islamic State it is that you are describing that allows this level of freedom and tolerance. Please tell me what Islamic state requires only professed Muslim believers to follow sharia law allowing all others to follow their own tradition and conscience. The state you describe certainly seems like a ‘somewhat’ enlightened place, I would like to know where it is.
I’m well aware of the political and social issues within the United States. Issues of human rights and equal rights, and civil rights, and womens rights…etc.. are global. I’m not sure what your point was regarding Texas marriage/divorce laws as they relate to a gay divorce in Texas for a Floridian couple. Trust me, I’m well aware of just how screwed up Texas can be.
You Mr. Liam Fox is a very ignorant man, stuck up and deeply delusional about Liberty and miss use that very liberty to speak a lot about what you know not..u seem in a imaginary bliss.wait till that bubble burst.
That happened when I realized that there is no God at all, and that Muhammad was just for profit. Religions, Islam, Christian, all of them, are just stuff we made up to try to make sense of all that we didn’t, and to a lesser extent still don’t, know. The more we learn, the more ridiculous and outdated religion becomes and the more oppressive its rules and laws become in order to protect itself from the challenge of rational thought and intellectual progress. Muslims must challenge the idea of Allah, the stories of Muhammad, and the authority of the Mullah’s and clerics in the same way that we all should. Let’s all test our bubbles and see whose bubble bursts first.
Wow, all the crazy islamo-fundies are out in force today!
[url=http://www.go52wholesale.com/wholesale-ghd-straighteners-cheap.html]wholesale ghd[/url] straighteners cheap at factory price directly with small MOQ.
All wholesale [url=http://www.go52wholesale.com/wholesale-ghd-straighteners-cheap.html] ghd straighteners cheap [/url]and wholesale
[url=http://www.go52wholesale.com/wholesale-ghd-straighteners-cheap.html]ghd paypal[/url] are freeshipping!
cheap [url=http://www.p90x-p90x.us]p90x[/url] workout and [url=http://www.insanity-workout-dvd.us/insanity-p-3.html]insanity workout[/url] on sale, free shipping!
Just like most western countries wouldn’t want tribals from Africa or Papua New Guniea walking naked in the streets with the gourds on their penises similarly different countries have rules regarding dress code in public. Most traditional societes give prominence to community and social groups letting them preserve their social structure with varied levels of power given to their communities though state power of dominant community is ultimate arbitrator. Modern state pretends that it has no religious or ideological value system but it does. Modern state itself a kind of religious system you cannot hold any values different from the ones it epsouses. This is because its core constituency is the business sector all values have to bow down to the demands of business. In earlier time it was for the landed class which is why having property was one of the criteria to vote initially in USA. As for gays etc it is better if you first settle your own house before turning to others.
On God and his prophets your advice is superfluous the Quran itself encourages one to question his existance and to exercise rational thought to believe in God and his plan. Which is why Islam never had the dark age like much of Christiandom had. It is also the reason why racism is not prevalent among Muslims.
Perhaps you can read up on Christian personal law in many Muslim states. Perhaps you could find out about Jewish laws in Iran. Mind you most Muslim states are heavily influenced by socialist as well as other modern thought processes.
Modern state is a jealous gaurdian. Traditional societies are more accommodating thus you have rightist parties as well as Communist parties in India. Sikhs who are required to wear a turban and not cut hair are exempt from wearing helmets required for two Wheeler drivers. They are also exempt from shaving their beard required by police and armed services. They are also allowed to carry the Kirpan (a concealed dagger) on airplanes! As their religion requires. Why don’t you check if they have similar freedoms in Pakistan and while living and traveling in gulf Arab states?
Oh by the way please look up the 1970′s fates from some shia clerics banning smoking cigarette as it is was determined that it is harmful to health. The dissenting fatwa was that since medical community was ambivalent at that time on the extent of harm it should be left to individual. Probably with newer medical opinion being more conclusive expect fatwas prohibiting smoking over the next decade.
Aww man, thats not cool! Vevuzelas totally rock man!
Lou
http://www.privacy-tools.be.tc