iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Fahad Faruqui

GET UPDATES FROM Fahad Faruqui
 

Muslim Clerics Rage Against Twitter and Facebook

Posted: 02/13/2012 12:00 pm

Deja Vu! Saudi Arabia's top cleric, Abdul Aziz Al Shaikh, says that Twitter is a platform for "promoting lies." Two years ago, Al-Azhar's Abd Al-Hamid Al-Atrash reportedly said that Facebook "breaks up families."

Social media doesn't lure a person to flirt with someone, spread a lie about someone, or harness envy, jealousy and hate (read my article "The Accessibility of Envy on Social Media").

Though it is a grandiose statement, it is fair to say that we human beings have been lying since time immemorial. Infidelity is nothing new either. And if I were to ask my father how he flirted back in his heyday, I am sure he would have a few interesting stories to tell me.

Perhaps it is easier to issue a fatwa (religious edict) against an inanimate websites than to tell people to their faces, "you're promoting lies," "you're luring women on Facebook" or "you're enviously staring at pictures of people in your network."

The Egyptian cleric, who later denied having issued a fatwa against Facebook, had allegedly blamed the site for the increasing divorce rate. I spoke to my Egyptian friends about the rumors of such a fatwa for an article (which you can read here) and I remember one of them saying that "they [clerics] would have to ban the Internet, cell phones, e-mail and landline phones."

The crux of the matter is that people who have the urge to lie or gossip or flirt will find a way to do it.

I am not saying that people will do what they want to do, right or wrong, and hence we should give up on them. I am merely suggesting that we strive to find the most effective solution rather than searching for the most convenient target. This is what needs to be done: a) identify the root of the problem, and b) act wisely when you're counseling others. Grandiose statements against this or that website or technology are counterproductive when they merely address a symptom of a problem and not its cause.

The old man within me agrees that you will find little of substance in social media.
Perhaps I am only saying that because Noam Chomsky has made similar statements. He said in an interview: "[I] think it erodes normal human relations. It makes them more superficial, shallow, evanescent."

Just for the record, there is a kid in me as well who spends way too much time, more than I am ready to confess in writing, on Facebook and Twitter. But I do agree with Professor Chomsky.

Coming back to the point, the clerics probably mean well, but the strategy that they have adopted will never bear the intended fruits. There seems to be a gulf between the clerics and their audience; the one factor that I feel is constantly missing is goodwill between the two.

As a teacher, I'm only successful in guiding my students when they know that I want them to be better human beings and that I wish for them to excel in life. And it takes time to build that trust and rapport.

The reasons for accusing social networking sites epitomize deep ethical and moral flaws that cannot be easily amended through a fatwa or a Friday sermon.

 

Follow Fahad Faruqui on Twitter: www.twitter.com/fahadfaruqui

 
 
  • Comments
  • 19
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:26 PM on 02/14/2012
Good post. Social media is a weird animal and the love\hate view of it that the author describes is one that I found relatable.
10:31 PM on 02/13/2012
Twitter is also a platform for getting knowledge out to the masses and pulling back the curtain on some of these government sponsored Imams and scholars or those Clerics with their own agenda. What is happening that they are begin to lose control of the people because social media is causing an awaking to the fact that the masses have a mind of their own. Islam is not a way of life that Government is suppose to enforce on those who accept it. Islam is willful submission to G-d that a Muslim is suppose to enforce on their own because they choose to. This is the day of Religion on Earth where G-d is judging those who use religion to lie.
01:11 PM on 02/14/2012
You are so right, MuslimThinking. Twitter has proved immensely useful to the world of activists. It is how some parts of the world have come to know the true Islam which cannot be dictated to a person. The one who forces their brand of Islam on someone else is playing G-d. The Royal Hu decides the faith someone will practice not the earthly kings.
06:41 PM on 02/14/2012
Thinking,

You are confused. Did not the Prophet and the early Caliphs punish those who committed crimes that warranted corporal and capital punishment? Also, the Prophet did not come to establish mob rule---the whims of the masses have no bearing on what Allah made allowed or forbidden. Among the duties of the Islamic state is to enjoin good and forbid evil. If you have vice and socially disruptive forces spreading in the society, then it is the government's job to quell them.
09:21 AM on 02/15/2012
I agree that among the duties of the Islamic state is to enjoin good and forbid evil. It is the job of the people in Government to do so on themselves.

The job of the Government is to represent and support the will of the people as the Quran teaches Muslims to “pay heed to G-d, and pay heed to the Messenger, and to those from among you who have been entrusted with authority…(4:59). This third category clearly says the trust comes “among you” and is not imposed “upon you” which makes it clear that leaders must be chosen by the people and must come from the people themselves – not dictated upon the people. Yet that is exactly what we see in many Muslim countries.

The world of Al Islam today, most of it is in confusion, most of it is not in unity, most of it is not giving their people a comfortable living.

Only a few who are in ruling positions are in comfortable situations, and the many are denied a comfortable existence.

In the majority of Muslim countries those there cannot preach and live their Religion as they believe they should. If they do, they will be locked up, they will be put in jail some of them might be killed outright, depending on how much they upset the ruling order. There is no freedom of religion in most of the Islamic countries.

According to government wishes, the government decides how it should be preached.
09:25 AM on 02/15/2012
Also the Prophet never implemented punishments before the society in which they were to be applied was ready for it.

It should be noted that the Prophet’s teachings with regard to criminal law was never meant to be applied without understanding the circumstances of the criminal. That is, the Prophet did not conclude that a given punishment is suitable in every circumstance.

The importance of context in applying corporeal punishment can be seen in the crime of theft. In any organized society, stealing is regarded as a punishable act. However, there may be instances when stealing can be understandable, and where the relevant punishment can be dispensed with. For example, during a period of famine in the reign of Islam’s second Caliph, Umar b. al-Khattab, the corporeal punishment for stealing, that is the amputation of the hand, was not applied since in those times of dearth and starvation, stealing could have been a crime of necessity rather than maliciousness.

Islamic punishments, especially those for adultery and theft are meant to be implemented only in an Islamic society where social justice and moral consciousness prevail and where there is no room left for the committing of crimes except as a result of human wickedness.

The Prophet of Mercy never implemented even a single punishment in a context other than this.