Dr. Hossam Badrawi Official Website
I follow with deep concern the discussions in Parliament about the new draft law regulating fatwas (religious edicts). Before it is issued, I feel the need to express my opinion—before doing so becomes, under the new law, something punishable by law.
Many of our intellectual, religious, and social conflicts do not stem from true disagreements in essence, but from ambiguity in meaning. We argue over words without agreeing on their definitions.
“Fatwa,” “opinion,” “criticism,” “religion,” “law,” “interpretation,” and “exegesis”—these are all terms frequently thrown around in daily discussions, yet they often mean something entirely different to each speaker or listener.
What Is a Fatwa?
A fatwa, in its linguistic origin, comes from fitya, meaning a response to a religious question. In Islamic jurisprudence, it is a non-binding, interpretive opinion issued by a qualified Muslim scholar in response to a question on a matter not clearly addressed by unequivocal religious texts.
Therefore, a fatwa is:
- Not a judicial ruling
- Not a public law
- Not binding on anyone except those who choose to follow it voluntarily in their lives
Most scholars agree that fatwas are not legally or religiously binding and that they are subject to error, as they are human efforts. Imam Al-Shatibi said:
“The mufti (issuer of a fatwa) is reporting the ruling of God, but he may be right or wrong.”
On Criticism
Criticism is not a rejection of religion. Rather, it is an intellectual process that reviews statements, not people, and examines ideas, not intentions. True criticism is not destructive—it refines ideas and invites reconsideration from different angles and perspectives.
On Opinion
An opinion is an expression of a stance, analysis, or interpretation—whether religious, scientific, or emotional. It does not have to be correct, but it reflects a freedom of thought that should be protected in any society, especially in an Islamic society that encourages people to express their views and holds them accountable for doing so. In fact, speaking the truth in the face of injustice is considered a religious duty, and if someone dies defending it, they die a martyr—just as one who dies defending their religion, homeland, honor, family, or property.
Fatwa vs. Law
When a fatwa contradicts the law or constitution, the matter depends on the nature of the state:
- In a religious state, fatwas are given priority, even at the expense of agreed-upon civil rights.
- In a civil state, governed by a civil constitution, the law takes precedence. People cannot be bound by a fatwa—regardless of who issued it—unless they voluntarily choose to follow it.
A civil state protects diversity, separates pure religious practices from shared social matters, and gives every citizen the freedom to believe what they wish, without being forced to follow what they have not personally accepted through reason, intuition, or conscience.
History Repeats Itself
Throughout history, new phenomena have often been met with prohibition and accusations of heresy based on fatwas—only for those same phenomena to later become cornerstones of daily life.
- Coffee, for instance, was banned by some Muslim scholars in the 15th century who considered it intoxicating or a “devilish innovation.” Those who drank it were excommunicated based on fatwas. Today, it is a symbol of hospitality and part of cultural identity.
- Printing was banned in many Muslim countries for centuries, under the pretext that it would “distort the Quran” or be used for “immoral publications.” Today, printing is fundamental to education, religious outreach, and culture.
- The same happened with music, women’s education, theater, and even sports—all once viewed with suspicion or declared haram (forbidden) by fatwas, yet they became tools of enlightenment and progress.
This raises a serious question: Why does this pattern keep repeating? Why is the fatwa used to block new ideas instead of to understand them?
Health and the Female Circumcision Debate
Until recently, a fatwa-based call for female circumcision was unquestionable, despite the obvious tragedies and harm it causes. Those who performed it were even honored. Only with great effort was this narrative challenged.
The New Law: A Return to Theocracy?
Now, in the 21st century, amid all this scientific progress, a new law is being proposed in Egypt that would ban any opinion—religious or otherwise—that deviates from what a specific group of senior scholars considers “correct.” This is a complete monopoly over religious interpretation, criminalizing independent thought and new reasoning.
We are facing a disguised return to a religious state—under a legal, civil mask. When intellectual monopoly is legalized, independent reasoning is closed off, and discussion is criminalized, we are not protecting religion—we are imprisoning it in the past and turning the fatwa into a sword over the necks of thinkers.
If fatwas are not binding, why legislate them? Why restrict them?
Let us ask:
- What is the difference between a fatwa and an opinion?
- Is a fatwa knowledge or authority?
- How does it relate to scientific research and credible references?
A fatwa is essentially a human interpretation that should be based on the goals of Sharia and the conditions of time and place. It is not binding because it is not a court ruling, but rather a fallible opinion.
An opinion, on the other hand, is simply a personal interpretation or stance grounded in the freedom to think.
If fatwas intersect with scientific fields, then just as jurists can issue opinions, so too can experts in medicine, economics, or physics. But no one has the right to silence others.
If every fatwa becomes “sacred” and beyond discussion, we are raising human authority above reason and condemning researchers, thinkers, and writers for opposing the mainstream. We would be putting creativity itself on trial.
A modern civil state is not anti-religion. It simply distinguishes between religious worship and human social matters that are open to critique and re-evaluation. No institution should monopolize religious interpretation or block discussion in its name.
We do not need a law to ban criticism—we need space for thought and reasoning, and the right to ask and debate. Only then do we protect religion from stagnation, the state from isolation, and the individual from tyranny.
As Imam Al-Shafi’i, one of the pillars of Islamic jurisprudence, said:
“My opinion is right but may be wrong, and the opinion of others is wrong but may be right.”
Where is such intellectual humility today, amidst all this ideological rigidity?
Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
“The Quran holds multiple meanings; interpret it in the best way.”
If the text itself allows for many interpretations, how can we confine it to a single fatwa and ban all others?
In Islamic history, when Imam Malik was asked to make his book Al-Muwatta’ the official legal code of the state, he refused and said:
“I have heard that the people of Iraq have knowledge, and so do the people of the Levant. Do not restrict people.”
The great scholars understood that diversity of opinion is a mercy, and that jurisprudence is not religion itself, but a human endeavor to understand it.
From modern history, consider what Imam Muhammad Abduh said:
“There is nothing in Islam that prevents Muslims from following any path that grants them strength and dignity, even if others walked it before them.”
Precedence does not invalidate innovation, and reasoning must not be banned.
The President has repeatedly called for renewing religious discourse, yet now we face a new scene: Parliament has preliminarily approved a bill that grants the authority to issue fatwas and speak on religious matters to a single group of sheikhs. This is a new religious state—one that contradicts the constitution.
Upon researching and reflecting, I found that this proposed law contradicts the Holy Quran, the Sunnah, the consensus of the companions, and the interpretations of leading scholars.
In Surah Al-Imran, verse 7:
“They follow what is unspecific of it, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. But no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah.”
And in the Hadith:
“Consult your heart, even if people give you a fatwa after fatwa.”
Also: “Wherever the benefit lies, there lies the law of God.”
This proposed law is a monopoly of opinion. It shuts the door to intellectual engagement and prevents the renewal of religious discourse.
This law is a regression—a setback.
Thinking and using reason is a religious obligation in Islam. How could it not be, in a religion that has no clergy and no intermediaries between a person and their Creator? The Quran addresses the free, rational individual, urging them to reflect on God’s signs in the universe and within themselves to understand their existence. There is no priesthood, no spiritual gatekeepers in Islam.
I am astonished—and my experience tells me there are no coincidences in politics. I sense a political agenda behind this: a revival of the Salafi-Brotherhood surveillance mentality. And God knows best.
