Safiya has a comment on her post about t…
Safiya has a comment on her post about the abuse suffered by women in religious groups (linked below by Willow):
The sort of consensus Safiya mentions would ultimately require political patronage and regulation of some sort. In Muslim-majority states, of course, the political and legal clout exists to simply ban or regulate religion (I am not saying if this is good or bad, simply that it exists). This happened in the past and happens today in many Muslim countries, even secular ones, where the teaching of religion is controlled, vetted and authorised by the state.
In ‘minority’ contexts, I know Yahya and Sh. Daoud Rosser-Owen have talked about similar needs for Muslims, at least those in the UK:
At about the same time, the Caliph, conscious of the vast Muslim population of the British Empire, appointed the Queen-Empress a beylerbeyi: in essence a tributary ruler over Muslims under the Caliphate.
The authority to make Islamic religious appointments, and to regulate the administrations of mosques and tribunals, including the appointment of the Office of the Shaykhu-l Islam, in the United Kingdom and Crown Dependencies rests with Queen Elizabeth II as the great-great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria. And, by residuary sovereignty, in the Republic of Ireland with the President.
Perhaps it is time to petition [Her Majesty] to revive this august Office of State? It is, of course, predominantly administrative, and would bring in expert advisors as needed. It could even commission fatwas from such authoritative sources as the University of Al-Azhar, when needed. But the trouble is who has the stature to fill it?
But I cannot see how such an office will ever prevent a group of people who dislike a particular shaykh, institution, or a set of teachings they will create their own group, given the legal and political freedoms in the UK. This is apart from the problem of which Muslim political authority will grant the patronage necessary for the new office to gain widespread acceptance. The Ottomans were regarded, by and large, the rulers of (Sunni) Islam, de jure or de facto. No such political power exists today; Saudi Arabia, despite its control over the Hijaz, cannot command the same loyalty and respect. (Numerous factors have also changed considerably since the late 19th-century.)
Perhaps the emphasis would be on the symbolism of such an office (Muslims being people who are interested in symbolism), and the inevitable community pressure it would generate (the creation and acceptance of authorities is a two-way street) in speaking out against (but which will have both positive and negative consequences)?
thabet and 
Safiya Outlines 4:50 pm on October 4, 2009 Permalink
Salaam Alaikum,
I meant more in the terms of Sheikh being a protected professional title, like physiotherapist, accountant or dietitian. So there would be a set level of training before you could give yourself that title.
Unlike now, where anyone can sit at the back of the class, somewhere hot and sunny for a few years and then come back an alim.
thabet 12:27 am on October 9, 2009 Permalink
wa’alaykum as-salam
Yes, but protection ultimately comes from state recognition. I can’t declare myself a doctor, solicitor or pharmacist in the UK. But I can call myself an engineer — something I cannot get away so easily with in Germany or Canada. This is because engineer is not a legally protected title in the UK and not recognised by the state (though there is guidance in the law for ‘competent persons’ to do engineering works). This is why, upon hearing I am an engineer, a lot of people ask me if I can fix their washing machine or television…
In Muslim countries this is relatively easy: the state either recognises (e.g. Egypt and Al-Azhar) or creates (e.g. Turkey and Ministry of Religious Affairs) a body to oversee and protect titles, i.e. learning required to call yourself a sheikh, mufti, etc. People who come from these institutes are allowed to teach religion, and can be recognised by others as competent in doing so.
I do not see how this can work for us in the West, beyond the sort of thing discussed above. There are groups/organisations like the Deobandis who have set up a madrassa programme in northern England which facilitates what you’re saying to a significant degree. But if you’re not Deobandi you’re not really going to pay attention to what they say, and can easily go and get some other shaikh, or just set yourself up as one — as Omar Bakri Mohammad did (he used to call himself “sharia judge of the UK”, a title which didn’t exist outside of his small band of followers).
I suppose we do have the other system of ‘authority’, the ijaza. But outside of a country which has sharia as a source of law, it relies on social pressure/conformity, which just goes back to my point before about minority contexts being difficult to regulate.