Middle East

Yesterday, the UAE’s Islamic Affairs Authority opened its official fatwa center, which provides religious rulings in English, Urdu and Arabic. UAE residents can obtain fatwas over the toll-free phone line or via SMS (text message). The center is the first of its kind; it is now the only place in the UAE authorized to issue fatwas. In the words of one UAE official:

“This centre will put an end to individual fatwas issued here and there, which can cause doubt and trouble among people,” said the authority’s general manager, Dr Mohammed Mattar al Kaabi.
This is a pretty clear integration of religion into the state apparatus. For better or for worse, the wide difference between fatawa on the same subject minimized the power of each individual edict. Now that they are standardized, their authority (at least within the UAE, and possibly outside the UAE) could be enhanced. And, conveniently, they are now under the purview of a government organization.

Of course, this initiative may backfire. If the rulings are perceived as politically, rather than religiously, motivated, then their credibility may be undermined. The UAE, particularly Abu Dhabi and Dubai, also benefit in this case from a very cosmopolitan and constantly renewing population; it is not as if the fatwa center is operating behind an iron curtain. Traffic in people corresponds to traffic in ideas, and if the fatawa issued are dramatically out of tune with the rest of the Islamic or Arab world then they may be less influential rather than more.

Certainly a development to follow.

For a little background on fatawa, you can take a look at this piece from the International Herald Tribune of last year on fatawa in Egypt. It details several issues - primarily the negative impact of silly rulings - that would prop up an argument in favor of fatwa standardization.

Khalil al Anani, visiting scholar at Brookings’ Saban Center, published this op-ed in al Ahram Weekly last week. The piece asserts that it’s educational to look at the internal dynamics of Islamist parties when assessing the degree to which they have internalized democratic ideals. Some Islamist parties, like the Justice and Development party in Morocco or the al Wefaq Islamic Society in Bahrain, can count transparency and accountablity as normal characteristics of their operation. Others, like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and in Jordan and the Movement of the Society of Peace in Algeria, include those terms and ideas in their political platforms but fail to truly implement them within their organizations.

Al-Anani’s bio at Brookings says that he will be researching nonviolent Islamist movements during his time as a visiting scholar, so presumably this piece comes from some of that research.
It is interesting reading, especially because it demonstrates clearly that not all Islamist groups are created equal, and lumping them together under the heading of ‘political Islam’ can obscure some important differences.

Faisal Yafai has a piece up at commentisfree advocating that Islamic feminists return to secular arguments, as the religious rhetoric they have adopted in the recent past is not serving them well. It is an interesting piece, but he fails to make the case that it’s better to have only one kind of feminism among Muslims. Why can’t there be religious feminism AND secular feminism? And to this argument:

Take the burning of women’s schools in Pakistan (and Afghanistan). The now-resurgent Taliban say they are doing this because Islamic law forbids women’s education; the Islamic feminists reply that in fact education is a religious duty. It becomes a theological argument. Remember who wins theological arguments? The side with the most guns.

I would just say that it’s true, but I am pretty sure the side with the most guns wins non-theological arguments just as often.

The editorial board of the Saudi based English-language Arab News takes a stance against families giving away their sexually immature daughters in marriage on both Islamic and human rights grounds. This editorial is no doubt a response to the divorce hearing (upcoming) in a Saudi court on a marriage between an 8 year old girl and a 50 year old man.

Nujood Ali of Yemen, another child bride, brought attention to this issue when she sought - and obtained - a divorce in a Yemeni court this April.

Dexter Filkins, the NYT’s Baghdad correspondent of 2003-2006 and author of the forthcoming book The Forever War answers questions at Baghdad Bureau, the blog of the Times’ … Baghdad bureau. Naturally the purpose of the Q and A is to promote his book, and he certainly makes a few comments to that effect, but generally his reponses are refreshingly humble and candid. An excerpt:

Q: Aside from the obvious personal changes you’ve gone through, have your personal politics changed because of your time in Iraq?
— Posted by Publius

A: Dear Publius. (Three cheers for the Federalist Papers!) That’s a very good question. I think I have become far less politically minded the longer I have spent here. What I mean by that is, I’ve been overwhelmed by the reality of it — ­the death and the chaos and the suffering. When I go back to the United States and listen to the people argue about this place — ­who was right and who was wrong — I often find their arguments incomprehensible, from whatever side they are coming from.

Expressing confusion, particularly on political issues (and particularly when you are a politician - an overrepresented group on Iraq commentary), is somewhat unfashionable, and hearing Filkins’ willingness to admit that he really is confused by the situation in Iraq makes me more inclined to trust his reporting and perhaps even to read his book. His home newspaper ran an article adapted from the book this past week if you are interested in a preview. (Release date 9/16)

n.b. there is also a Part II

Secretary Rice has been a frequent traveler to Israel/Palestine in the recent past (17 times in the past 2 years), and she is now in the middle of another visit in an attempt to broker an agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians by the end of 2008. Read her remarks with Israeli Foreign Minister (and now Acting Prime Minister) Tzipi Livni here and with Mahmoud Abbas here. Settlements, unsurprisingly, continue to be a thorn in the side of all three parties; PeaceNow, an Israeli pressure group, released a report shortly before Secretary Rice’s visit documenting a rise in settlement activities relative to this time last year. (Almost twice as many new buildings are under construction as there were in the first half of 2008). Rice said, in her press conference with Livni, that the settlement activity was “not helpful” but pointed out that negotiations were proceeding despite it. Abbas and Livni were slightly more pointed in their comments; Livni said 

“… the peace process is not and should not be affected by any kind of settlement activities. I mean, at the end of the day, we are talking about the future borders of the Palestinian state, considering more than 40 years we are talking, plus minus, about the same blocks of settlements, and this is part of the negotiations. And as I suggested also to my co-partners on the Palestinian side, to try — and I understand that sometimes (inaudible) and sometimes how does it affect on different parts of Palestinian society. But at the end of the day, the role of leaders is to try and find a way to live in peace in the future, and to avoid any kind of — not to let any kind of noises that relate to the situation on the ground these days to enter the negotiations room. I mean, it could have been easier also for me to use some excuses, and to say that this affects my ability to negotiate. But I decided not to do so, even in harder days of terror. So I would like to suggest my co-partners not to use it as an excuse. And I know that they are not using it as an excuse, but I understand the frustration sometimes.”

Abbas, later on the same day, made the following comments:

We have focused also on the settlement activities that continue, that are ongoing, and that are undoubtedly an obstacle, a main obstacle in the road of the peace process. And as you all know, we reject all the settlement activities in principle because they contradict with the agreements and the Roadmap plan and the objectives of Annapolis that have started one year ago – almost one year ago.

So, Rice has got her work cut out for her. As Fareed Zakaria said, no one has ever lost money betting against the peace process. There is one interesting new development, though – Rice has appointed Lt. Gen. Will Fraser to oversee the progress of the Roadmap. He’s established a system for quantifying the impact of each of the roadblocks up in the West Bank/Gaza and East Jerusalem, ostensibly so that the most disruptive roadblocks can be removed first. Sean McCormack discusses this in greater depth at DipNote, the State Dept’s blog.

Hello all, my name is Susan and I am the new Middle East blogger at FPA. You can refer to the About page to see the list of places that I lived/studied. I am replacing Brian, who has moved on from FPA to a new job, so I will be writing daily about news and developments in the region. My background is in Arabic, so expect more on the Arabic-speaking countries in the Middle East, with some coverage of Iran and Israel as well.

It’s my feeling that blogs work best when they provide a space for dialogue, so I hope that readers will share their thoughts in comments, or, if you prefer, via email. You can reach me at fpamiddleeast@gmail.com. I will do my best to respond to all comments and emails.

Welcome, me.