In last week’s article, “Tattooing, tattooing, and changing God’s creation: between the plurality of heritage and the narrowness of contemporary fatwas,” I intended to point out intellectual and methodological problems in the fatwa and some of the religious assessments prevailing today, and they were represented in 3 problems:
The first: the will to bring everyone to a specific opinion or conviction so that other practices are condemned, and in issues that are broad and pluralistic in the scientific heritage itself.
Such a tendency to monotheism is a tendency of a hadith that breaks with the Islamic jurisprudential heritage itself at the time when the hadith is claimed in his name!
The general principle here is to change God’s creation mentioned in the Almighty’s saying: “God cursed him and said, ‘I will take from Your servants an imposed portion, and I will lead them astray, and I will make them secure, and I will command them, so let them be the ears of cattle, and I will command them, so let them change God’s creation.
Second: The direct return to the religious text (the Qur’an and Sunnah) does not solve the perceived problem, but rather creates a problem that takes one of two forms:
The first form: the apparent and literal tendency to understand the text, and then to download it to the behavior of individuals, which creates tensions and accusations of others of violating the religious text or committing forbidden things and being involved in the sin of others.
The second form: the tendency of my intentions to be formal or technical in nature; Where the prohibition is based on generalities that can include every action and any act, and this is an exhortation method that does not agree with the method of the jurists in deduction and inference. The inference about generalities is soft and can be used in every direction (as well as the omission of the explanation, which is the cornerstone of jurisprudence); Because there are no pure interests or pure evil.
The third: that the contemporary fatwa lacks a scientific methodology (and I also confirmed this in my previous article, “The Paths of Fatwa in Medicine”), and therefore is based on selectivity. The other tends to facilitate without a clear general law. If we searched the fatwas of many contemporary muftis, we found that in social issues, especially when it comes to issues related to women, they tend to have personal and social preferences, which are preferences that are driven by fear or desire, either personal or social. Hence, the fatwas are based on personal and cultural prejudices that are dressed up as the authority of halal and haram, although the textual and jurisprudential document in them may be fragile, and tattoos, fonts, and hair extensions are just examples of that.
The phenomenon of the fatwa and the problems associated with it can be addressed from different angles: jurisprudence, intellectual and social, and one approach is not better than the other, but what determines the most appropriate approach is the angle of consideration and the research question.
But in such complex or multi-dimensional phenomena and influences, I see that the most appropriate approach is the multidisciplinary approach that captures the dimensions of the whole picture.
My previous article discussed the issue from the perspective of searching for “the legal dispute”, and the differing perceptions of the jurists in the interpretation of the text and how to derive rulings from it, because its goal was specific, which is to prove that the texts themselves are possible for more than one meaning, and that this possibility created for us a jurisprudential plurality in the opinions deduced from the text , and each of them has its own realization through which it tried to combine the various texts and branches belonging to a single origin, which is “Changing God’s Creation” (that is, the general framework is an interpretive textual framework).
As for this article, it discusses the same issue (changing God’s creation) from a multidisciplinary ethical perspective, as the example presented here combines the two types of ethics: the ethics of actions - which focuses on the act itself - and the ethics of virtue - which focuses on the actor - as it also relates to "" Beyond ethics”, i.e. the sources of moral evaluation and the role of the individual conscience, social norms, and identity politics in determining the good and the bad (individual and public morals), all of which have implications for general social behavior.
The general principle here is to change God’s creation mentioned in the Almighty’s saying: “God cursed him and said, ‘I will take from Your servants an imposed portion, and I will lead them astray, and I will make them secure, and I will command them, so let them fall into the ears of cattle, and I will command them, so let them change God’s creation. The former follows this origin, and must be interpreted in its light.
Because the Qur’an is the origin of the foundations, and the Sunnah of the Prophet clarifies it.
And the phrase “let them change God’s creation” includes visible changes (every change that occurs in the physical image) and inward changes (every change that occurs in the spiritual image).
From the point of view of the physical image, there are various kinds of changes that occur in the body, some of which are considered innate (such as shaving hair, nails, circumcision, and so on), and some of them are intended to correct a congenital defect or emergency (such as various deformities), and some are intended to improve (request for Best).
All these changes fall under the general principle of cleanliness and adornment, which are legitimate purposes, and even fall under the so-called bodily virtues, of which beauty is.
In terms of the moral image, there are different types of change, starting with the change of nature, i.e. the natural state in which man was born, in which the value and faith meanings were focused on knowing good and evil and acknowledging the Creator. It includes changing the morals and negative traits that a person is endowed with, such as stinginess, anger, and so on; That is why Greek and Islamic philosophers have been discussing the question, "Are morals (ie, the qualities of the inner soul) innate or acquired? Can it be changed?" The opinion that prevailed is that it is subject to change and moving from being vices to being virtues, by getting used to and self-control and controlling it with the laws of virtue and Sharia, and that a person is not virtuous except by changing his negative characteristics, so that he acquires psychological virtues in their place.
He concluded from this that virtues are of two types: physical and psychological, and he spoke of this Imam Raghib al-Isfahani, who emphasized the importance of the interrelationship between the two types of virtues, and said: “People have underestimated this, and said: It is enough for a person to be healthy in body and free from diseases that preoccupy the investigation of mental virtues. It is not like that, for the hull is for the soul as a machine for the maker, and the ship is for the master, with which he became a maker and a master. For there is a connection between the body and the soul, and between the psychological and physical virtues.
But the previous colors of change in the physical and moral forms are included in the generality of the concept of “changing God’s creation.” Undoubtedly, this generality is not intended by the verse (and the hadith follows the verse), and this explains why the majority of commentators have confused the concept of changing God’s creation here;
So they went to the fact that the meaning here is “changing the religion of God,” which leads to the transition from faith to unbelief, and from obedience to the Most Merciful to obedience to Satan, and it is not the physical change nor the change of one’s morals from vices to virtues, and their basis for that is two things:
This generality, which the apparent meaning of the text benefits from, collides with many other texts, and established issues, instinct and morals.
The context of the verse itself does not help this general interpretation that includes every change;
Because it came from the tongue of Satan in the context of a challenge to the children of Adam and intended to mislead them doctrinally, and that the forbidden change is that change that takes place in obedience to Satan.
But far from the interpretation related to the textual origin of the subject, today we find that we are faced with many applications that are related again to the concept of “changing God’s creation”, especially with modern technologies that have expanded the limits of the possibility of changing the outward and inward, including, for example, genetic modification (which is similar to internal change through physical intervention). And extensive plastic surgery (which is an apparent change that has internal psychological motives and effects), and if we go to treat this according to the traditional perspective, we will have a short understanding, either we make every change permissible based on a general intent, or we prohibit every change based on the previous general and apparent text.
In my opinion, it requires a complex ethical treatment that befits a multidisciplinary approach, and here we can distinguish between 3 levels: post-halal and haram, ethical standards for evaluating change processes, and identity politics that refer to special organizational ethics.
Level One: Beyond Halal and Haram
With regard to the first level, my goal in tattooing, embossing, and connecting in last week’s article was not to convince the readers of the permissibility or sanctity of this or that act, but rather to show that there is amplitude in the matter, and that it is up to the conscience of each individual and his choices that he is comfortable with on two levels: a religious level and a level Personal;
So that the perfection of his outward and inward forms is achieved for him, and he reconciles with himself and his body, and his knowledge matches his work on an individual level.
Referring to the singular pronoun is a well-known practice in Sharia;
Especially when the fatwas of the two muftis conflict, so the person in charge of himself will weigh them for himself, according to criteria in which they differ, but it is clear that he asks a fatwa in his heart: that is, his moral conscience governs (not his desires), or when the mufti permits, but the heart tends to prohibition, so the fatwa of the heart contradicts the fatwa of the mufti. This applies to himself and not to anyone else.
Taking such an act out of control, and referring it to the individual moral conscience, means that the obligation is not a condition to confirm the importance of any practice, and the prohibition is also not a condition for criticizing any practice or warning against it, through the use of the authority of the religious text or the rule of Sharia; The halal and the haram are religious issues on which sin is based, and religious dimensions are afterlife, and therefore they are not based on personal or partisan preferences.
An individual can criticize permissible behaviors and actions in which Sharia does not give preference to a specific ruling, and refrain from doing them, for personal, cultural, or even medical reasons and prejudices. The obsession with cosmetic operations, for example, is a phenomenon that can be criticized today (which is not the legal prohibition), especially since it has become part of the process of widespread consumption at the expense of other priorities, and that those who control the authority to determine beauty standards are major companies to maximize profit and impose a certain cultural pattern, so that we have become Sometimes in front of the disappearance of the natural features and the formal differences that characterize individuals, without having to prohibit the cosmetic act itself, even if it was performed by a medical operation.
The use of the authority of religion for political purposes or certain cultural or social prejudices by a mufti, regime or group has turned the pestilence on religion itself and on the authority of halal and haram, which has become very flexible and subject to individual, cultural or social preferences, to the extent that some contemporary muftis have become like an old class of poor people. The hadeeths who said: “If we used up something, we made it modern,” claiming that there is a difference between lying to the Prophet and lying to him, and the Qur’an clearly speaks of the importance of separating these preferences and subjective considerations and between permissible and forbidden as objective issues separate from our preferences, as God Almighty says: And do not say when your tongues describe the lie that this is permissible and this is forbidden in order to invent a lie against God.”
The great imams of Sufism used to forbid themselves a lot of what is permissible, and place many of the recommended ones in the position of duties - in their own right - for the sake of discipline and advancement in pursuit of perfection, and to reach the rank of close predecessors. But such strict assessments remain in the right of the self and not in the right of others, and do not change the objectivity of what is permissible and what is forbidden, independent of individual desires that take into account the varying conditions of human beings and their degrees of perfection. In addition, the fact that what is permissible is permissible does not necessarily mean that everything that is permissible is covered. Because it is negligence in the right of oneself that may bring the forbidden closer, and cancel the distance between the permissible and the forbidden, which is like a safe precinct that prevents it from the forbidden.
Moreover, not every harm is forbidden, nor is every beneficial thing obligatory, since benefit and harm are universal principles that have meanings and levels: some of them are worldly and some of them are religious, some of them are devotional and some of them are ordinary, and some of them are definitive and some of them are speculative, some of them are direct and some of them are cumulative, and some of them are few and some of them are many. Although the harm of smoking has been proven - for example - a strong jurisprudential dispute occurred in it (far from contemporary fatwas); This is because the jurisprudential dispute in it is due to religious, doctrinal, and not purely medical, considerations. The fact that Zaid or Amr is harmed by it does not place it in the rank of religious forbidden; Especially since its harm is the result of different interactions and the same effect does not occur in every individual in the same way and in the same time period, but whoever is harmed by it must bear the consequences of that from his health, money and the life span he will live (harming others by smoking in public places is another consideration). As for what is beyond that of the eschatological sin, it is outside these medical considerations, and the sin and reward are not based on purely medical or scientific considerations.
The maximization of the areas of duty and the forbidden to include the ordinary and devotional together, the worldly and the hereafter together, and to cover the area of disparity in people’s pursuit of perfection and degrees of morality, and to stifle the permissible whose area is wide in Sharia, all of this led to many distortions, narrowing and embarrassment for people and confusion in religious perceptions and concepts.
Level Two: Ethical Standards for Evaluating Change Processes
These criteria must go beyond the generality of benefit and harm based on the foregoing, and from here some interpreters and jurists considered that every beneficial change is permissible, meaning that it does not rise above the degree of permissibility that is left to the individual’s choice, which is more likely based on the fortunes of himself and his conscience. In a lengthy study of “genetic modification” I have endeavored to set ethical criteria for change or what separates what is “normal” and “abnormal”, and I attributed this to the fact that it is the immoral change of nature that is to come out with it. about its natural biological characteristics and laws that are stable in its gender, which - by this - does not include the partial change that restores the organ or the body to its nature. Its nature is represented in two things: the form (the eye or the image) and the function (the description or the efficacy) for which it was created or assigned to it, and any departure from the organ of its image and function destined for it in its species is a departure from human nature, and therefore it is a change of God’s creation and a breach of his order.
Accordingly, if the genetic intervention alters the stable function or form in (the human race), it is not morally justified;
for two things:
The first is that it is a negative intervention based on individual and cultural choices and preferences that affect the human species and its balance (natural engineering);
The decision to change is not based on a rational or legitimate reference in determining what is better or worse, but rather on personal whims and cultural or social biases, and it necessarily entails a negative judgment about a specific natural form of God’s creation that God desires for another formula that He desires.
The second: that improvement threatens the stable concept of what is natural, which is referenced and measured against, and this naturalness does not differ culturally or individually, despite the great diversity that exists among humans.
What is meant by all of this is to maintain a stable standard to which the human species is invoked so that it is not subject to experimentation or deviation from man from his stable nature in the species, not in individuals or narrow groups or exceptions outside what is stable in the sex, such as blindness, deafness, baldness and others.
Here, the concept of treatment in genetic intervention is to return what is outside the natural to its supposed nature, and the concept of prevention is to prevent what will lead to a departure from what is normal and stable in its likeness.
Based on this definition of the concept of ameliorative intervention (what changes the stable function or form in its species), we have two types of intervention:
Interference related to the job (the functions of the organs), and some of it takes the member out of his job, and some of it only achieves it, but the achievement of the job may be by restoring its origin (blindness of the eye, for example), or improving it (achieving perfection of sight and vision) until it reaches its highest ranks in the gender of the member.
Interference related to the form (the shape of the organs or the human being), some of which deviates from the stable form in his gender, and some of it is related to the preferences allowed by what is familiar in his gender, which achieves legitimate interests, and does not violate the established standard in his gender.
Level Three: Identity Politics that Refer to a Special Organizational Ethics
There are processes of analysis and prohibition related to the organizational issue and behavioral control of groups and sub-organizations, which is part of the identity politics concerned with collecting the demands of belonging and loyalty to the group or organization.
And they are - mostly - what is most concerned with rituals and outward appearance, because they are distinctive signs of the group as expressing a distinct identity and a specific form of religiosity.
The form here is a communicative message capable of being communicated in the public space, and it expresses the social position and the symbolic, social and political power of the group, especially if it is engaged in politics.
For example, the veil itself - which is a general religious feature - may express a sub-identity by introducing modifications to it in color and shape to confirm belonging to a particular group (Al Qubaysiat, for example).
On the other hand, other ideological groups may take the forms of an opposition phenomenon that distinguishes them from religious trends. These symbols often represent the form of relationships with women, drinking, etc., to express their progressiveness, and they are all different forms of communication in the public space, and reflect the conflict of ideologies.
There are factors that play a role in identity politics, including:
The ideological and competitive conflicts between the parties, which make some of them approach or outbid each other, especially in the Islamic circle: “credit” some of the Brotherhood, for example, or “liberate” some of them, according to the circles of the movement and competition in the areas of religiosity and political action.
The predominance of cultures, personal prejudices and local culture, so how can a Mauritanian mufti - for example - determine the optimal behavior of a Lebanese questioner or a person living in Europe, for example, in issues related to appearance, customs and dress, for the form is one of the most specific characteristics of cultural and social issues and personal preferences, which are characterized by enormous pluralism in different societies, geography and times. , and even the age groups.
The social and cultural space is the most prominent space that had to explain the Islamists' influence in society and the control of their project.
On the other hand, it was the most prominent field for their opponents who exaggerated the issues of individual freedoms, with their inability to achieve other freedoms or with their secondary interest in political freedoms for a period of time (as is the case with the old discourse of the left, for example).
Organizational thought narrows individual spaces, and thus is keen on controlling and controlling operations through the establishment of a general law that governs everyone, and it is one of the inheritances of the predominance of politicization and legal tendency of modern Islamists, which characterizes the various Islamic groups, whether those that invoke violence (such as the state organization) or those who They beg for political action (such as the Muslim Brotherhood), because they are modern movements that tend towards control, control and control, and they are among the modern concepts of power, and control is a preferred method of analysis and prohibition.