[lit-ideas] Re: CAIR vs. Robert Spencer
- From: "Judith Evans" <judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 20:00:19 +0100
> are you saying that you think "fatwas" may be needed 'on occasion'?
I'm saying that legal letters such as the one sent on CAIR's behalf (an action
I implicitly attacked -- see my
>such
>letters have a chilling effect on free speech
-- 'may on occasion be needed'.
Fatwas, well, I'm not religious -- I may have forgotten to make that clear --
so fatwas are, regardless of their content, not my kind of thing. But I think
we need to be clear what a fatwa is -- perhaps the link I gave wasn't clear
enough - a fatwa (in theory, a clarification by a mufti of what Islamic law
entails) can cover (real example) trademark counterfeiting it ('cover' =
declare 'contrary to Islamic law')
http://dinarstandard.com/marketing/IP_PnG0303506.htm
can restrict the behaviour and clothing of women (i.e. can declare certain
types of behaviour/clothing 'contrary to Islamic law')
(various links, not authoritative, but credible)
can condemn terrorism and Osama Bin Laden, e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_fatwas#Fatwa_Against_Terrorist_Acts_in_Spain
can be the subject of disagreement among Muslim authorities, e.g.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2519595.stm
so, if some mufti pronounced a fatwa against the eating of non-halal meat, I
really
wouldn't be that concerned, but if some mufti pronounced a fatwa saying someone
should be killed, I certainly would.
I hope this helps
Other related posts:
