|
Waleed Aly: Revisions likely to spell end for mufti
ABSURDITY seems the only constant surrounding Muslim Australia's politics of muftidom. Last Sunday the Australian National Imams Council, a newly convened group of imams from across the country, considered the future of the position of mufti of Australia in response to the contention surrounding Taj Din al-Hilali. Of course, al-Hilali was appointed to that position by an entirely separate body: the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils. Technically, the Imams Council can no more dissolve or affirm al-Hilali's title than it can appoint the Pope. But let us not be detained by such procedural trifles. Indications are that the federal body is relieved to be out of the process and most seem content with the new council stepping in, even if it makes sticklers for governance break out in a rash. The early signs seem cautiously promising. The future of the office of mufti, for the first time, will be decided following a consultative process with Muslim communities. This will take about three months, at which point a subgroup of 15 imams - importantly, from across Australia - will determine what should happen. But most encouraging are the criteria for any new mufti, should one be appointed, that emerged from the weekend meeting. That person "must be able to communicate in the English language and also be aware of the social, economic and political context of Australia", explained Mohamad Abdalla, speaking on the imams' behalf. They are looking for someone who is "absolutely careful in the statements that he makes". In the meantime, the status quo prevails. Both John Howard and Kevin Rudd, probably sensing an opportunity for political mileage, are spinning this as a failure to deal with al-Hilali. But only the wilfully blind can fail to see that this outcome spells the end for al-Hilali as mufti of Australia. The specified criteria correspond precisely with the reasons for which al-Hilali is most regularly criticised. If the imams stick to it, it is inconceivable that he could remain. The real question, though, is not whether al-Hilali's days as mufti are drawing to a close but whether he will be replaced. It is not so much a matter of who should be mufti as whether anyone should. The threshold question so often ignored in the media is whether the position should exist at all. There are many reasons it should not. Perhaps the most potent of these is that it is alien to the classical tradition of Islam to conceive of muftis in this way, as aspiring to some kind of office. The best translation for mufti I have encountered is religio-legal consultant. For the bulk of Islamic history, muftis were private individuals with strong scholastic credentials from whom ordinary people sought advice about their real-life conundrums. Their function - like that of most Islamic theologians - was a private, even informal one. This reflects the fact that, at least in Sunni Islam, there is no church-like structure. One obtains prominence as an Islamic scholar really by a process of natural selection, not by any ordained religious order. There is no clergy. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as an Islamic cleric. As it happens, the idea of appointing a mufti of a geographical area, whether a city or country, is an Ottoman invention that did not find its full expression until the mid-16th century, almost a millennium into Islamic history. The Ottomans essentially created an ecclesiastical hierarchy that bears all the hallmarks of the Christian Church. Indeed, Ottoman decline accompanied the political ascendancy of the Christian West, and it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the post-Ottoman Muslim world retained these clerical structures as a form of mimicry. Welcome to the Christianisation of Islam. The shift from mufti as consultant to mufti as officer is a symptom of this. And there is little evidence it has brought any significant benefit. It has effectively reduced the mufti to a media figure and, correspondingly, has brought more contention than anything else. At present, the Imams Council is a collaborative body, not a religious order. Its spokesman is not necessarily the most senior but, according to Abdalla, is the one "who can communicate on behalf of the Muslims in a way that is consistent with ... the Australian culture and values". That is precisely as it should be and it should go no further. The office of mufti has been one import from Christendom that Australian Islam could have done without. Posted by: Fred 2007-03-30 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=184399 |