Aptos, CA Psychologist. The Tea Party movement is a response to President Obama’s goal to fundamentally change America?

Cameron Jackson DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

Remember the State of the Union message?  President Obama used the ocassion to publicly rebulk the Supreme Court as they sat there with no way to respond back.   The President criticised the Court for  their recent decison that corporatons have First Amendment free speech rights.

The following article about the Tea Party movement is from the Wall Street Journal. Continue reading “Aptos, CA Psychologist. The Tea Party movement is a response to President Obama’s goal to fundamentally change America?”

Share

Aptos psychologist: A confused, angry, depressed 5 year old moves every 3-4 days between parents & says he wants to die. How might a grandparent assist?

Pay close attention when young children say that they want to die. Through probably a plea for help, all threats by children need to be taken seriously. And, probably best to seek appropriate professional help.

What ‘s best for this confused, angry, probably depressed 5year old child who moves every 3-4 days back and froth between his parents? How might a grandparent who provides some weekly care assist?

The issue of stability needs to be addressed:

Would this child do better with less movement back and forth between homes for a while? At least for a period of time (3-4 months) would it be better to stabilize in one home rather than move back and forth? Parents and others such as grandparents who are actively involved in the daily care need to sit down and talk.

Communication abilities between the parents and grandmother:

Maybe the parents & grandparent need to talk with professionals present if they cannot easily do it themselves. After all, the things that cause people to separate and divorce often are the same things that make it hard for them to communicate to each other about their child.

The focus of the discussion should be child-centered.

Keep the discussion focused on this particular, unique child. What does this particular child need most? Is the child more attached to one parent than the other? Can one parent currently better meet the emotional needs of the child?

Talking with the child:

For sure, parents and grandparent talking to the child in language they understand must happen time and time again. It is standard that children blame themselves for parents divorce. Children need to explore their feelings in a safe enviornment.

There are various books that might assist.  Recommended by the Berkeley Parenting Network are:

Dinosaur’s Divorce by Marc Brown and Laurene Brown and

It’s Not Your Fault, Koko Bear by Vicky Lansky (for ages 3 to 5)

Group therapy might assist the parents.

From Berkeley Parents Network, last updated 9-6-2009 from http://parents.berkeley.edu

Some other books out there include:

Children Ages 3-5

When Mom and Dad Divorce , by Emily Menendez-Aponte

My Family’s Changing , by Pat Thomas

Mom and Dad Break Up , by Joan Singleton Prestine

Two Homes , by Claire Masurel

Dinosaur’s Divorce , by Laurene Krasny Brown and Marc Brown

Children Ages 5-7

Let’s Talk About It: Divorce , by Fred Rogers

I Don’t Want To Talk About It , by Jeanie Franz Ranson

When Mom and Dad Separate , by Marge Heegaard

Sometimes a Family has to Split Up , by Jane Werner Watson, Robert E. Switzer, and J. Cotter Hirschberg

Check out the following websites: www.kidsinthemiddle.org www.kidsturn.org Laurie

Share

Aptos psychologist: Time to say NO to Sam Farr, Obama-Care and the Recovery Act.

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

People like Sam Farr, Rep for the 17th District — per how they vote — believe that government can do a better job making decisions for you than you can. Given the last 18 months of government by Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Sam Farr –now is the time to say, “Stop!”

That view — that people should accept what Representatives tell them — is what I took away from listening to Sam Farr during the Health Care debates.

Now Sam Farr says that the Recovery Act has helped. The following is from a recent meeting in San Juan Bautista. Many people said No! to Sam Farr. For more, read the following:

“Calling San Benito County and the tri-county area one of the country’s best areas for agricultural business, Congressman Sam Farr told a capacity crowd of more than 200 people inside the San Juan Bautista Community Center Hall on Tuesday night the county needs to focus on what it does best – produce agriculture.

“We are the Silicon Valley of agriculture,” Farr said.

In the third of four town hall meetings throughout the Central Coast area – the only one in San Benito County – Farr spoke and answered questions for nearly two-and-a-half hours as attendees applauded and booed.

Farr, a Democrat from Carmel, is up for reelection in November and has been the District 17 representative for 17 years. District 17 includes Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito counties. He is being challenged by Republican Jeff Taylor.

In Farr’s opening 30-minute speech he mentioned growing up in the area and traveling to San Benito County to eat dinner and look at the scenery.

“I say this all the time – there is no place in the world, no place in the United States where you have as much diversity in the land,” Farr said. “We sell scenery.”

A part of that scenery is the Pinnacles National Monument, which Farr hopes to change to a national park soon.

“This missing book on geology is Pinnacles National Monument,” he said. “The name change won’t change anything but give it more recognition.”

A large portion of his speech focused on the success of the county and area – mostly the agriculture and schooling. He said there should be a focus on bringing higher-end agricultural jobs to the county.

“The ag that is here is the brain trust for the rest of the agriculture throughout the country,” Farr said. “You always have to sell it and I’m going to be your national campaign. This is an area that we all know and cherish.”

Farr also mentioned that the area has more affordable school institutions than areas such as New York and Boston.

“It doesn’t matter what type of grades you get if you can’t afford the school,” Farr said.

Contention came from the crowd when Farr mentioned the recovery act and the belief that officials needed to “infuse massive amounts of capital” back into the country. Many crowd members shook their heads. Some simply said no.

Questions focused on the health care bill, employment, the economy and Clear Creek Management Area. The group was just about divided in half from those who supported Farr and those who opposed him. Waiting outside were members of the Santa Cruz Tea Party and the Republican Party.

The groups were passing out the literature of Meg Whitman and held signs that said “vote out socialist Sam Farr” and “more freedom and less government.”

See the full story in the Pinnacle on Friday.

Connor Ramey
Connor Ramey is a staff writer for the Free Lance. You can reach him by email or at (831) 637-5566.

Share

Aptos psychologist: Yes there are ways to reduce early signs of autism. Figure out ways so, unprompted, your infant gazes at you. Pay attention most to the non-verbal clues.

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

A family has one  child  diagnosed with autism.  Then they have a second child.  Siblings of autistic children have a 25 times greater  likelihood than average also developing autism.

Can parents reduce likelihood of autism in child #2? Possibly and certainly worth the try. One avenue: what are ways to increase gaze between parent and child which is unprompted?

DSM IV 299.0 Autistic Disorder is characterized by three kinds of difficulties: the hardest to “fix” are the non-verbal social communication problems (poor eye contact, not ‘reading’ facial clues, low social and emotional reciprocity).

It is possible to identify children at risk of autism quite early. Interestingly, when and to whom a child gazes is an early marker. To me that suggests why not figure out all sorts of ways that babies can do something to prompt adults for gaze. The baby is not seeking gaze but by doing something they in fact increase gaze.

Might it not be the total gazing and human interactions that gaze provides that assists children to learn all sorts of non-verbal clues?

 Per article below, at six months, siblings do less gazing at parents when not prompted than children who do not have a autistic sibling.

So what might be some ways to encourage siblings of autistics to increase non-prompted gazing at parents and caregivers? Below are some ideas and why not share your ideas? Continue reading “Aptos psychologist: Yes there are ways to reduce early signs of autism. Figure out ways so, unprompted, your infant gazes at you. Pay attention most to the non-verbal clues.”

Share

Who exploits who? Meg Whitman’s housekeeper “used” the system and gets used as part of a political stunt?

Meg Whitman's Latina housekeeper used by Jerry Brown?

DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

The purpose of hiring an illegal is typically for financial gain: pay the worker less than usual, not pay social security and other taxes.

Meg Whitman got no financial gain out of hiring what turned out to be an illegal, undocumented worker. The facts suggest that the housekeeper hoodwinked her employer.

Let’s say that you, Meg Whitman, live at 24 Edge Road, Atherton, CA and want a housekeeper. You go to an employment agency that you trust. The agency, which presumably checks backgrounds, recommends several persons.

You hire a Latina recommended by your employment agency. You pay the Latina housekeeper $23 an hour. You pay her social security and give her a W2 each year. She and you are on a first name basis. You like her and presumably she likes you.

Years later, the housekeeper confesses to you that she is illegal, that she gave you a relative’s social security number. Your response? You fire her. When you do, you are running for governor of California.

How will this shake out? Jerry Brown says he wants Meg Whitman to admit a mistake and move on. Are Mexican Americans more likely to vote for Jerry Brown because Meg Whitman hired an undocumented, illegal worker and supposedly exploited her?

No exploitation appears to have occurred on Meg Whitman’s part. $23 an hour is a decent wage. Lots of college graduates are not making that wage. Living in Atherton the housekeeper lived and worked in a pleasant environment.

Has Jerry Brown’s campaign exploited the housekeeper?
By going public this woman may face deportation by immigration and federal penalties from social security for falsifying documents.

So who is paying for the law suit against Meg Whitman? Some third party fronting the money to liven up the campaign in Brown’s favor?

The Oct. 2, 2010 Santa Cruz Sentinel states that the Service Employees Inernatonal Union (SEIU) spent $5 million for a Spanish language TV ad attacking Whitman for treatment of Diaz Santillan 12 hours after the story broke.

What do you think?

Share

Aptos psychologist: Do President Obama’s core values resonate with any of yours?

What are President Obama’s core values? Certainly honesty is not one of Obama’s core values. He can say one thing and he simply does not seem to remember what he said. Remember those promises that health care costs will go down and not up… you can keep your doctor and your health care plan?

Obama certainly does not believe that it’s OK to make money and keep it. His actions show that he believes in economic leveling.

Obama certainly does not believe America is great at anything except exceptional in taking what belongs to someone else. Obama repeatedly apologizes that America is responsible for all the ills in the world.

So what do you think Obama’s core values are? Do any resonate with yours?

August 31, 2009
Another Failed Presidency
By Geoffrey P. Hunt
Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson.

In the modern era, we’ve seen several failed presidencies–led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait– they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.

George Bush Jr didn’t fail so much as he was perceived to have been too much of a patrician while being uncomfortable with his more conservative allies. Yet George Bush Sr is still perceived as a man of uncommon decency, loyal to the enduring American character of rugged self-determination, free markets, and generosity. George W will eventually be treated more kindly by historians as one whose potential was squashed by his own compromise of conservative principles, in some ways repeating the mistakes of his father, while ignoring many lessons in executive leadership he should have learned at Harvard Business School. Of course George W could never quite overcome being dogged from the outset by half of the nation convinced he was electorally illegitimate — thus aiding the resurgence of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What’s going on?
Think of modern Presidents that had core values that resonnated with the values of most Americans: President Reagan said, that “The Soviet Union is an evil empire! and remember his speech, Tear down that (Berlin) wall! Remember President Kennedy who said, Ask not what your country can do for you…Ask what you can do for your country…”

What are President Obama’s core values? Certainly honesty is not a core value. He can say one thing and he simply does not seem to remember what he said. Remember those promises that health care costs will go down and not up… you can keep your doctor and your health care plan? His actions show that he believes in economic leveling and more economic leveling… He tells the world repeatedly and apologizes that America is responsible for all the ills in the world…

No narrative. Obama doesn’t have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn’t connect with us. He doesn’t have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don’t align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, Reagan.

But not this president. It’s not so much that he’s a phony, knows nothing about economics, is historically illiterate, and woefully small minded for the size of the task– all contributory of course. It’s that he’s not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn’t command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don’t add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don’t make sense and don’t correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we’ve been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he’s dissed just about every one of us–financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: “For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn’t give me enough time; if only I’d had a second term, I could have offended you too.”

Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state–staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there’s always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.

Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

[editor’s note: The author is not the not the same person as Geoffrey P Hunt, who works at the Institute for Scientific Analysis as a senior research scientist.]

Share

‘Make no graven images of God’ is standard Old Testament. Make a picture of Islamic prophet Mohammand results in death?

Currently, there are a multitude of pictures and sculptures of Jesus — the Son of God — in Roman Catholic churches. Growing up in Asia, I remember seeing a beautiful 100 foot long golden image of Buddha. Clearly, many religions do routinely have images and statutes of God and prophets on display.

In contrast, some churches forbid or do not have any graven images. Best as I know, Episcopal churches and Protestant churches typically do not put graven images — statutes or pictures — in their churches. Yet, no Episcopalian or fundamentalist church threatens the Roman Catholic church with death or other retributions for their graven images.

Whether they should or not, many religions do make graven images of God and God’s prophets. And, they put those graven images in their homes, temples, churches. There are no graven images of God in Jewish synagogues. At least in recent history, the Jews have never attacked Christians or other religions because of graven images or pictures.

Should the Islamic prophet Muhammad be an exception? Should a picture of Muhammad – or a contest to make many pictures of him supportive of free speech result in death threats? It did. Recently, Molly Norris – who sponsored a contest to make a multitude of pictures of Mohammad — went “underground” due to Islamic death threats.

In the Islam-ist world, pictures of the Prophet are forbidden. Make a cartoon of him or jest about the Prophet — yes, that can result in a death threat.

There have been many political ideologies — and yes Islam is a political ideology — that seek to dominate the world by violence and intimidation. Telling the world ‘no graven images’ of Muhammad or dire effects will occur is one more instance.

For sure, America can require Islamic mosques/ community centers to abide by American laws. For example, America does not allow Mormons to have multiple wives. Likewise, America can require mosques/ community centers to act similarly as others do: provide charity to the local community and reach out to other Faiths.

How can your church, synagogue or faith organization “shake hands” with local Islamic mosques?
How can your faith organizations encourage a local Islamic faith organization to join the 20th century world and support common spiritual, religious goals? Specifically, get a commitment against jehad, against death threats, and a commitment for tolerance, compassion and the equal treatment of men and women.

Maybe that might be something to put on the agenda for Outreach in your church?

written by Cameron Jackson DrCameronJackson@gamil.com

See the following:

“Everybody Draw Mohammad Day was a 2010 protest in support of free speech, specifically in opposition to those who threaten violence against artists who draw representations of Muhammad.

It began as a protest against censorship of an American television show, South Park, “201” by its distributor, Comedy Central, in response to death threats against some of those responsible for the segment.

Observance of the day began with a drawing posted on the Internet on April 20, 2010, accompanied by text suggesting that “everybody” create a drawing representing Muhammad, on May 20, 2010, as a protest against efforts to limit freedom of speech.

U.S. cartoonist Molly Norris of Seattle, Washington, created the artwork in reaction to Internet death threats that had been made against cartoonists Trey Parker and Matt Stone for depicting Muhammad in an episode of South Park.

Depictions of Muhammad are explicitly forbidden by a few hadith (Islamic texts), though not by the Qur’an.[1]

Today, Catholic Churches have images of Jesus on a cross. Episcopal Churches and Protestent churches do not have graven images of God in their church. Episcopalians and Protestants do not make death threats on Catholics for hanging a statute of Jesus crucified on a cross.

“Postings on RevolutionMuslim.com (under the pen name Abu Talha al-Amrikee; later identified as Zachary Adam Chesser) had said that Parker and Stone could wind up like Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was shot to death by a Muslim extremist. The individuals running the website later denied that the postings were actual threats, although they were widely perceived as such.[citation needed]

Norris said that if people draw pictures of Muhammad, Islamic terrorists would not be able to murder them all, and threats to do so would become unrealistic.

Within a week, Norris’ idea became popular on Facebook, was supported by numerous bloggers, and generated coverage on the blog websites of major U.S. newspapers. As the publicity mounted, Norris and the man who created the first Facebook page promoting the May 20 event disassociated themselves from it. Nonetheless, planning for the protest continued with others “taking up the cause”.[2] Facebook had an “An “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”” page, which grew to over 100,000 participants. A protest page on Facebook against the initiative, named “Against ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed Day'”, attracted about the same number of supporters. Subsequently, Facebook was temporarily blocked by Pakistan; the ban was lifted after Facebook agreed to block the page for users in India and Pakistan.
In the media, Everybody Draw Mohammed Day attracted both support from commentators who felt that the campaign represented important issues of freedom of speech, and the need to stand up for this freedom, as well as criticism from other commentators who found the initiative crass, juvenile, and needlessly offensive.

Share

Aptos, CA psychologist: Laugh and make fun of Fritz M who wants a Dutch politician be-headed. What say you?

An Australian guy named Fritz Muhammad just issued recently a death sentence on a Dutch politician. His web site is kalamullah.com

The reason given by Fritz M. is that the Dutch politician “mocked” and “laughed” at Islam and the Prophet.

Oops! No laughter at “real” religion?

What did the Dutch politician do? He said that Islam religion and political ideology are “retarded”. He and his party do not support more Islamic immigrants to Holland.

According to radical Islamist Australian Fritz M., — an Australian citizen working on a Ph.D. — the Dutch politician should be be-headed.

And thus Fritz M. issued a death sentence on the Dutch politician.

Frankly, I think that Australian Fritz M. should work on be-heading small creatures such as fleas and ants. And then work up to be-heading his personal nails.

I say it is time that moderate Christians, Jews and Islams unite. Is this possible?

Let’s laugh and make fun of people like Fritz M. No, not make fun of Islam. Make fun of Fritz M. who wants to use Islam for his purposes.

So what do you say Fritz M.? If anyone wants to Comment on his web site they MUST leave an e-mail. Not here. Say what you like here. And, no “be-heading” will be recommended.

Fritz M’s web site is: kalamullah.com

written by DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

Share

Friz Muhammad’s fatwa to behead Dutch politician is only binding on the author.

A fatwa is only binding on its author ….

“Following the Salman Rushdie affair, Western media frequently use the term to mean an Islamic death sentence upon someone who is considered an infidel, apostate or a blasphemer.[2] This is indeed one possibility, but is a rare use for a fatwā, and the equation of fatwā with capital punishment is considered offensive by many Muslims.

The term’s correct definition is broader, since a fatwā may concern any aspect of individual life, social norms, religion, war, peace, Jihad and politics.

Most Islamic opinions—millions of fatwā have been issued over the 1,400 year history of Islam—likely deal with issues faced by Muslims in their daily life, such as the customs of marriage, financial affairs, female circumcision or moral questions.

Fatwa are issued in response to questions by ordinary Muslims, and go unnoticed by those not concerned, while the much smaller number of fatwā issued on controversial subjects such as war, Jihad, Dhmimmis, particularly by extremist preachers, sometimes get wide coverage in the media because of their political content (see examples below).

A fatwā is not automatically part of Islamic teachings. While the person issuing it may intend to represent the teachings of Islam accurately, this does not mean that that person’s interpretation will gain universal acceptance. There are many divergent schools within the religion, and even people within the same current of thought will sometimes rule differently on a difficult issue. This means that there are numerous contradictory fatwā, prescribing or proscribing a certain behavior. This puts the burden of choice on the individual Muslim, who, in case of conflict, will be forced to decide whose opinion is more likely to be correct. On the other hand, some fatwās are considered absolute.
[edit]History

In the early days of Islam, fatwās were pronounced by distinguished scholars to provide guidance to other scholars, judges and citizens on how subtle points of Islamic law should be understood, interpreted or applied. There were strict rules on who is eligible to issue a valid fatwā and who could not, as well as on the conditions the fatwā must satisfy to be valid.

According to the usul al-Fiqh (principles of jurisprudence), the fatwā must meet the following conditions in order to be valid:

The fatwā is in line with relevant legal proofs, deduced from Qur’anic verses and ahadith; provided the hadith was not later abrogated by Muhammad.
It is issued by a person (or a board) having due knowledge and sincerity of heart;
It is free from individual opportunism, and not depending on political servitude;
It is adequate with the needs of the contemporary world.

With the existence of modern independent States, each with its own legislative system, or its own body of Ulemas, each country develops and applies its own rules, based on its own interpretation of religious prescriptions.

Many Muslim countries (such as Egypt and Tunisia) have an official Mufti position; a distinguished expert in the Sharia is appointed to this position by the civil authorities of the country. But his fatwās are binding on no one: neither the State that appoints him, nor any citizen.
[edit]Issuer qualifications

See also: Ijazah and Madrasah
During what is often referred to as the Islamic Golden Age, in order for a scholar to be qualified to issue a fatwā, it was required that he obtained an ijazat attadris wa’l-ifta (“license to teach and issue legal opinions”) from a Madrassah in the medieval Islamic legal education system, which was developed by the 9th century during the formation of the Madh’hab legal schools. Later during the Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe, the ijazat attadris wa’l-ifta evolved into the doctorate, or more specifically the Doctor of Laws qualification, in medieval European universities.[3]
To obtain an ijazat attadris wa’l-ifta in the Madrassah system, a student “had to study in a guild school of law, usually four years for the basic undergraduate course” and ten or more years for a post-graduate course. The “doctorate was obtained after an oral examination to determine the originality of the candidate’s thesis,” and to test the student’s “ability to defend them against all objections, in disputations set up for the purpose”, which were scholarly exercises practiced throughout the student’s “career as a graduate student of law.” After students completed their post-graduate education, they were awarded doctorates giving them the status of mudarris (meaning “teacher”), faqih (meaning “master of law”), mufti (meaning “professor of legal opinions”) and which were later translated into Latin as magister, professor and doctor respectively.[3] Note that these terms are not yet standardized nor has a syllabus been agreed upon. hence there is vast variance in qualification and skills based upon schools and teachers
[edit]National level

In nations where Islamic law is the basis of civil law, but has not been codified, as is the case of some Arab countries in the Middle East, fatwā by the national religious leadership are debated prior to being issued. In theory, such fatwā should rarely be contradictory. If two fatwā are potentially contradictory, the ruling bodies (combined civil and religious law) would attempt to define a compromise interpretation that will eliminate the resulting ambiguity. In these cases, the national theocracies expect fatwā to be settled law.
In the majority of Arab countries, however, Islamic law has been codified in each country according to its own rules, and is interpreted by the judicial system according to the national jurisprudence. Fatwā have no direct place in the system, except to clarify very unusual or subtle points of law for experts (not covered by the provisions of modern civil law), or to give moral authority to a given interpretation of a rule.
In nations where Islamic law is not the basis of law (as is the case in various Asian and African countries), different mujtahids can issue contradictory fatwā. In such cases, Muslims would typically honour the fatwā deriving from the leadership of their religious tradition. For example, Sunni Muslims would favor a Sunni fatwā whereas Shiite would follow a Shi’a one.
There exists no international Islamic authority to settle fiqh issues today, in a legislative sense. The closest such organism is the Islamic Fiqh Academy, (a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)), which has 43 member States. But it can only render fatwā that are not binding on anyone.
[edit]Legal implications

There is a binding rule that saves the fatwā pronouncements from creating judicial havoc, whether within a Muslim country or at the level of the Islamic world in general: it is unanimously agreed that a fatwā is only binding on its author. This was underlined by Sheikh Abdul Mohsen Al-Obeikan, vice-minister of Justice of Saudi Arabia, in an interview with the Arabic daily “Asharq al awsat”, as recently as on July 9, 2006, in a discussion of the legal value of a fatwā by the Islamic Fiqh Academy (IFA) on the subject of misyar marriage, which had been rendered by IFA on April 12, 2006.[4] He said : “Even the fatawas of the official Ifta authority (official Saudi fatwā institute) is binding on no one, whether individuals or the State.”
Despite this, some times, even leading religious authorities and theologians misleadingly present their fatwā as obligatory,[5] or try to adopt some “in-between” position.
Thus, the Sheikh of al-Azhar in Cairo, Muhammad Sayid Tantawy, who is the leading religious authority in the Sunni Muslim establishment in Egypt, alongside the Mufti of Egypt, said the following about fatwās issued by himself or the entire Dar al-Ifta:
“Fatwā issued by Al-Azhar are not binding, but they are not just whistling in the wind either; individuals are free to accept them, but Islam recognizes that extenuating circumstances may prevent it. For example, it is the right of Muslims in France who object to the law banning the veil to bring it up to the legislative and judicial authorities. If the judiciary decides in favor of the government because the country is secular, they would be considered to be Muslim individuals acting under compelling circumstances.” Otherwise, in his view, they would be expected to adhere to the fatwā.[6]
In Morocco, where king Mohammed VI is also Amir al-Muminin (Commander of the faithful), the authorities have tried to organize the field by creating a scholars’ council (conseil des oulémas) composed of Muslim scholars (ulema), which is the only one allowed to issue fatwā. In this case, a national theocracy could in fact compel intra-national compliance with the fatwā, since a central authority is the source. Even then, however, the issue would not necessarily be religiously binding for the residents of that nation. For, the state may have the power to put a fatwā in effect, but that does not mean that the fatwā is to be religiously accepted by all. For instance, if a state fatwā council made abortion acceptable in the first trimester without any medical reason, that would have direct impact on official procedures in hospitals and courts in that country. Yet, this would not mean that the Muslims in that nation has to agree with that fatwā, or that fatwā is religiously binding for them.
[edit]Sources

Sources of fatwā include:
Al-Azhar University
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
Darul Iftaa
Cairo University Center of Islamic Research and Studies

Share