The photo fatwa

This is the man who has issued a fatwa against photography. You can see that he has no qualms about striking a pose.

I am really tired of saying that a fatwa means zilch. Yet, every other day — often in reply to a question — there is an edict. It is not binding on anyone.

Only the media seems to take the Darul Uloom Deoband seriously, and always refers to it as "India's leading Islamic seminary".

Quite naturally, a bizarre fatwa grabs attention. Some Muslims consult the seminary for general information. An engineer wanted to know if he could pursue his passion for photography. I am assuming he did so because of Islam's stand regarding iconography. He was told that photography is a sin.

This is ridiculous. How and why did it transform into a fatwa? The media tends to follow the Deoband's advise columns, and what it posts on the website. When push comes to shove, the organisation is more than ready to show muscle. A fatwa materialises as the last word. Newspapers and TV channels get excited.

The reporter is soon on the phone talking with the vice chancellor, Mufti Abdul Qasim Nomani, who says:

"Photography is un-Islamic. Muslims are not allowed to get their photos clicked unless it is for an identity card or for making a passport."

The reporter goes all Wahabi on him, mentioning how Saudi Arabia "that aspires to return to the earliest fundamental sources of Islam" (duh) permits it and even telecasts the Haj live. To which the Maulana replies:

"Let them do it. We do not allow it. Not everything they do is correct."

I like the last bit.

At any other time, the media would have used this to scream with joy about how Indian Muslims are under no threat of being Saudi-ised, and everybody can breathe free. But now is not the time. Now we have to prevent Indian Muslims from being denied their Nikons and Canons and dual camera phones. They need to be 'brought into the mainstream', and saved from such backward fatwas.

Really, take a chill pill. Most Muslims in India don't give a rat's ass about the Deoband and don't even know where it is, who runs the show, and what stuff they smoke.

Next on the reporter's itinerary is the All India Muslim Law Personal Board. One Mufti Abul Irfan Qadri Razzaqi agrees with the fatwa:

"Islam forbids photographing of humans and animals. Whoever does that will be answerable to God."

Reporter is on a mission. He "reminds" him about Saudi Arabia. To which the gentleman says:

"Just because they are richer than us doesn't mean they are also correct. If they are allowing photography they will be answerable on the Day of Judgement in the court of God."

See. You can do all you want, fatwas be damned, till you are alive. You may even perform the pilgrimage to Mecca in the horrid land that permits photography. You will finally be judged by a 'non-human' who, alas, cannot be photographed.

End note: I've used this picture before, but is it halal?

The Dolphin Person

I have nothing against dolphins. In fact, I find them delightful. However, the scientific understanding of them as individuals, raises a few questions.

The Centre for Ethics and Business at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles has come up with a ten-point charter for “life, liberty and wellbeing”, among others.

A group of scientists and ethicists argues there is sufficient evidence of the marine mammals' intelligence, self-awareness and complex behaviour to enshrine their rights in legislation. Under the declaration of rights for cetaceans, a term that includes dolphins, whales and porpoises, the animals would be protected as "non-human persons" and have a legally enforceable right to life.

Is intelligence the only yardstick to project an ethical perception of rights? This would put to test many humans – the physically handicapped, the mentally challenged, those who behave differently from what is the norm, and those who might not quite fathom the complex nature of abstract thought. There are parts of the world where people still live on basic necessities and follow rudimentary rules of social intercourse.

"Dolphins are non-human persons. A person needs to be an individual. And if individuals count, then the deliberate killing of individuals of this sort is ethically the equivalent of deliberately killing a human being. The captivity of beings of this sort, particularly in conditions that would not allow for a decent life, is ethically unacceptable, and commercial whaling is ethically unacceptable.”

The scientists quoted examples of how dolphins know to work on the reward principle. Early experiments conducted on rats have shown similar behaviour. Dogs, as in the Pavlov experiment, expressed their reaction through salivation. There is an understanding where survival makes animals and humans behave in a certain manner.

So, is such ethical treatment based on a human paradigm the right and only one? Protecting a species is fine. But is it really necessary to ‘dignify’ it on the basis of being a ‘person’. This, strangely enough, contradicts the effort to not treat human beings as superior. Then, why elevate only some species to that level?

Animal rights activists might want all animals to be protected. The movement against zoos, cages, slaughter, meat-eating has been active and often vocal. They too use the human in a trapped situation to emphasise the point about rights. It does not quite work because there is a tendency to glamorise and bring out the beast in the person behind the cage or dressed in fur. It sexes up the message.

The dolphin lobby is using a parallel argument by saying that they are ‘non-human persons’ and therefore as good as individuals.

I can see that there is a pecking order here, and wonder just how a species will seek to gain the sanctified position of being human. It really isn’t the best thing to be when the record of human rights is abysmal and the ethics of how certain being are treated as opposed to others affords it less ethical validity than an elephant squashing an ant unknowingly.

Rehman Malik, Wah Ustad!

I don’t understand why Pakistan’s interior minister Rehman Malik’s ten commandments to the cricket team should cause a “furore”. All the poor guy did was to lay down some basic rules: thou shalt concentrate on practice, thou shalt go to bed early, thou shalt wake up according to schedule, thou shalt ensure discipline, thou shalt dedicate yourself to the game for Pakistan, thou shalt not indulge in match-fixing…

Now, this is the one that has raised eyebrows among former players. Zaheer Abbas said he is demoralising players. Rubbish. Their ammis, abbas and biwis would be telling them the same things, except probably the last. Imran Khan thinks the minister has problems with the English language, so he must have meant something else. How many of us can understand the language used in scriptures?

The idea that he is spying on the team is ridiculous. Or maybe it is meant to sound like that. 

Rehman Malik needs to be applauded for thinking on his feet. He is acting as cricket’s messiah by declaring that his country has sent “clean players” and can’t take chances after the ICC had banned three for spot-fixing. His target is not the players at all. He is preparing the ground for the outcome of the game. (Yes, I understand his English and more.)

If Pakistan wins the semis against India, then not only will the country rejoice but Pakistan’s image as detergent nation will also get a boost. If it loses, then pin it down to match-fixing. And everyone knows that such fixing is not a one-way street. So, which is the other one? Conspiracy theories galore will float. Rehman Malik and the Pakistan government will have ready scapegoats and their own hands will be clean. If only the cricketing greats understood basic bat and ball stuff.