January 23rd, 2011 by Kyle

On Wednesday the Hudson Institute hosted an event focused on the issues of fatwas and the organizations involved with speaking for the Islamic community entitled, “The Organization of the Islamic Conference: Fatwas on Freedom and Democracy.” Nina Shea, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Religious Freedom at the Hudson Institute moderated and introduced the speaker Dr. Mark Durie who is a theologian, human rights activist, and pastor of an Anglican church. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom.

To read full notes continue below, or click here for pdf.

Mark Durie’s discussion focused largely on the work of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and its subsidiary the Islamic Fiqh Academy (IFA). The moderator Nina Shea compared the OIC to the UN of Muslim States. The OIC was founded in 1969 in Saudi Arabia as a political expression of the Umma or the community of Muslims around the world. The organizations goal is to promote the Umma’s common interests in areas such as culture, politics, education, health and economics. The organization consists of the heads of states, foreign ministers and government officials from 57 different countries.

Durie discussed criticism of the OIC claiming that it has been accused of being a block to protect member states against claims of human rights violations. In the area of human rights Durie asserted that the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights (CDHR) as one of the most significant pieces of work of the organization. He discussed its differences in contrast to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, most notably that the CDHR’s and all other claims to human rights are subject to the rule of Shari’a law, being the “only source” for human rights in the Umma.

Durie addressed issues of freedom of religion and freedom of speech in regards to the work of the OIC in contrast to norms of many Western constitutions and conceptions of the definition of these rights. According to the OIC and the CDHR both freedom of religion and freedom of speech are subject to Shari’a norms therefore they cannot undermine or weaken Islam nor what the religion of Islam values. Durie described this: “It is very much a conservative understanding of the pathway of Shari’a that humans should walk on.”

The IFA was established in 1981 and is funded by the OIC. The IFA’s goals parallel those of the OIC seeking to unite the Umma by conforming conduct to the norms of Islam at all levels and to apply Islam to contemporary problems. The function is to provide guidance to Muslims on how to live in the modern world. It is aiming to creating a body of jurisprudence to govern modern Muslim life. The main areas of work are Islamic finance and economics, implications of medical science and human rights issues. It is made up of the chief jurists from member nation states, who according to Durie are the best of the best of Islamic jurisprudence working at the highest possible level of Islamic Law.  Not only this, but Durie went on to describe the decisions and Fatwas coming out of the IFA as speaking for the Islamic mainstream.  This was in response to claims that the IFA is a radical or fundamental organization.

Durie described topics raised at the IFA as topics which reflect some pressure on the Umma to respond to an issue raised in modern society. This was addressed when the IFA took up the issue of freedom of speech, which they declared to be a protected right in Islam. However, there are quite different stipulations to the what this term means, according to the IFA free speech only goes as far as it cannot offend others, the public order, or Islam it also cannot create divisions in the Islamic community. Durie expressed that the heart of this issue is the potential defamation of Islam stating, “You are free to speak but you are not free to speak against Islam.” Durie went on to state that as one would presume these stipulations written into the idea are highly controversial and gives a great deal of leeway to restrict free speech.

On the issue of freedom of religion the decision by the IFA was similar. Durie argued that the meaning of these terms (freedom of speech and freedom of religion) is quite different to many different people including the IFA. Durie outlined this stating that from the perspective of these jurists, to put someone to death who is an apostate does not contradict religious freedom because it is allowed by the Shari’a.  Durie concluded by stating that, “Islamic jurisprudence for minorities continues to evolve.”

A question was asked if Shari’a allows for Muslims to live peaceably with non-Muslims in one world according to the IFA. Durie stated that the IFA’s fatwas suggest difficulties, both in the lands of Islam, and in other parts of the world. This tension derives from within Islam itself due to tensions within Islamic law.  When asked how the diversity of the IFA members affects decision making, Durie responded by stating that the IFA’s goal is a call from within the Qur’an to unify. Due to this, these individuals are there with the goal of unifying and not dividing and therefore these individuals may not introduce all of their feelings and agenda. Durie stated their challenge is great and this unites these individuals. He concluded by commenting that contrary to common belief at  the highest levels of jurisprudence there is not diversity in who represents Islam but rather unity.

Posted in Freedom, Human Rights, Islam and Democracy, Political Islam, Saudi Arabia |