Are Online Fatwas Credible? A Critical Analysis of Fifty Fatwas on Organ Donation and Transplantation
Muhammad Waheed Akhtar
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have taken up an important topic and attempted to novelly contribute to the literature by critically analyzing the coherence and credibility of fatwas.
While the approach has merit there are significant critical failures in this manuscript.
Firstly the source material the authors used CANNOT all be classified as fatwas, rather there are a mix of organizational statements, general opinions of non-jurists, and also some juridical fatwas. For example, the JBIMA article they reference is not a juridical opinion (fatwa), the NHS views are organizational opnions of a non-Muslim body, Imam Johari Malik is not a jurist nor even religiously trained yet his organization is cited, MHSN is a study body of medical students not a fatwa organization. Not only do the authors make their literature search strategy opaque and subject to bias, the material they designate as fatwas are not all fatwas. As such any analysis is not credible, and indeed if the authors cannot differentiate between fatwas and student writings then they should not be critically appraising Islamic legal writings.
The other main issue is the speculation that credibility lies with not being aligned with state authorities and associates with democratic freedom. This hypothesis needs justification and it would be a worthy paper to demonstrate from Islamic history and legal principles how this claim could be substantiated. However the authors do not back up such a view. Rather they assume it. Moreover they seem to suggest that 'freedom' = credibility while the opposite may be true on the ground. BY this I mean that people make be more inclined to give weight to fatwas from bodies that are state aligned because that is deemed legitimate and established, as opposed to a rogue scholar. moreover islamic law (hukm al qadi) privileges such state aligned authorities. The authors do not argue for their ideas well.
For this and other reasons the paper cannot be adequately reviewed.
Author Response
Responses to the reviewers
Dear Reviwers,
We would like to thank you for your valuable feedback. To our knowlodge, we incorporated all the points. Responses are below and highlighted. We attached the article versions with track changes and without changes.
We will look forward to hearing you.
Authors
Please refer to the comments of Reviewer 1. Reviewer 1 raises two key concerns which the authors are asked to address.
One, not all source materials used in the paper can be classified as fatwas as they are a mix of organizational statements, general opinions of non-jurists, and some juridical fatwas. Please clarify this by perhaps defining or explaining what is meant by fatwa and how, based on scientific utility, it is employed in the paper.
This is an excellent point. Thanks to the reviewer. Our response is in p 5 in red. The definition of fatwa was added.
This issue is scattered in the result and conclusion sections. Also, in page 8, there is already the following information: “31 fatwa givers do not clearly detail the sacred and historical sources for their pronouncements”. In the results section, we discussed previously that some of these fatwas lack the criteria of deducting of ruling in detail. However, we could not say they are not fatwas because they were responses to questions about ruling on organ donation. In the result section, the credibility of these fatwas are examined in detail if they are or not deduced based on the criteria.
Second is "the speculation that credibility lies with not being aligned with state authorities and associates with democratic freedom". Please explain this and offer a justification and substantiation of such a claim by referring to Islamic history.
Our response is p 9. We provided the source as well.
Apart from this please add a half page in which the studies on digital religion are summarized in particular those of Heidi Campbell and Helland.
We added two paragraphs in the introduction section, including citing Campbell, Helland, Possamai, Linjakumpu and Sands. We thought this was more relevant. However, if you think it is not relevant, then we can revise it again. Because incorporating these two paragraphs in the summary section, does not fit there. However, we incorporated a paragraph into the summary section p 11 upon request of the reviewer.
Finally, we cited Ali’s article which was recently published in Religions, about the topic. We believed having this most recent source would strengthen the argument of the paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
You have selected a very important and contemporary topic. Although this subject has attracted more attention from academics and religious scholars, much more need to be researched. Overall, this paper is a good attempt and a contribution. I would also suggest looking into differences and similarities in the different major schools of thought on this subject.
Overall, it is a very good attempt and contribution to the current debate on this topic. The structure of the paper, discussion, and arguments are coherent.
I have provided detailed notes/comments in the paper. Although statistical analysis has been explained in the analysis section, brief details in the methodology section will be good for a reader to clearly understand the overall methodological approach applied for this paper
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Responses to the reviewers
Dear Reviwers,
We would like to thank you for your valuable feedback. To our knowlodge, we incorporated all the points. Responses are below and highlighted. We attached the article versions with track changes and without changes.
We will look forward to hearing you.
Authors
Please refer to the comments of Reviewer 1. Reviewer 1 raises two key concerns which the authors are asked to address.
One, not all source materials used in the paper can be classified as fatwas as they are a mix of organizational statements, general opinions of non-jurists, and some juridical fatwas. Please clarify this by perhaps defining or explaining what is meant by fatwa and how, based on scientific utility, it is employed in the paper.
This is an excellent point. Thanks to the reviewer. Our response is in p 5 in red. The definition of fatwa was added.
This issue is scattered in the result and conclusion sections. Also, in page 8, there is already the following information: “31 fatwa givers do not clearly detail the sacred and historical sources for their pronouncements”. In the results section, we discussed previously that some of these fatwas lack the criteria of deducting of ruling in detail. However, we could not say they are not fatwas because they were responses to questions about ruling on organ donation. In the result section, the credibility of these fatwas are examined in detail if they are or not deduced based on the criteria.
Second is "the speculation that credibility lies with not being aligned with state authorities and associates with democratic freedom". Please explain this and offer a justification and substantiation of such a claim by referring to Islamic history.
Our response is p 9. We provided the source as well.
Apart from this please add a half page in which the studies on digital religion are summarized in particular those of Heidi Campbell and Helland.
We added two paragraphs in the introduction section, including citing Campbell, Helland, Possamai, Linjakumpu and Sands. We thought this was more relevant. However, if you think it is not relevant, then we can revise it again. Because incorporating these two paragraphs in the summary section, does not fit there. However, we incorporated a paragraph into the summary section p 11 upon request of the reviewer.
Finally, we cited Ali’s article which was recently published in Religions, about the topic. We believed having this most recent source would strengthen the argument of the paper.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
There is extensive literature on the history and sociology of ijtihad that the author is not at all privy to. There are numerous misrepresentations that suggest a dearth of academic understanding of the field.
Most importantly the statistical method applied to the study is unsuitable for the argument the paper puts forth (the credibility of fatwas). It is not clear what original ideas this paper contributes to the academic study of fatwas, and/or Islamic bioethics.
Author Response
Thank you, please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The basic topic, the nature and reliability of online fatwas and the related issues of religious authority in the contemporary period, is important and deserves study. Unfortunately, this study is weak in several crucial ways. Most significantly, the effort to establish clear criteria for assessing the reliability of online fatwas is not successful. It might be the case that the criteria selected could be of help in assessing reliability, if they were applied more clearly and it were made clearer why these specific criteria are the ones we should employ. But as it is, these criteria come across as rather random and end up adding little to our understanding of this complex issue. The specific issue of organ donation is also interesting, but the range of views on the topic get rather tangled in this article, so that the reader does not gain a very clear understanding of what positions are taken or why. Too much of the article is taken up with rather basic, and insufficiently historical, discussion of ijthad and the general nature of fatwas. In this regard, the paper tends to mix and match sources from different times, places, and madhhabs into a mish-mash that understates the complexity of these issues and flattens the intellectual and historical landscape in which these ideas have been treated over the centuries. It appears that the author(s) is not a native English speaker, and limits in this regard may be significant contributors to the shortcomings of the piece.Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for the feedback. It was very helpful. Our response to your points is attached.
best wishes,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper is on a very significant and vital issue: organ donation and religious verdicts on the permissibility of organ donations and transplantations. The authors evaluate 50 online fatwas from both undemocratic and democratic countries.
First of all, I suggest that the authors limit themselves to analysing these fatwas and their credibility in the light of the index that they developed. Ulama-state alliance, democracy-authoritarianism discrepancy issue does not seem to be relevant. “This study found that the online fatwas by academic or semi-academic institutions in the democratic countries are more reliable than in undemocratic countries.” Authors make these claims but we do not know if the real reason of the weak quality fatwas are authoritarian regimes or the simple fact that those countries are not well developed and their muftis do not follow the required the format because of lack of education, training and so on.
The authors also state that “an absence of experts in related fields, such as physicians and/or psychologists, weaken the credibility of fatwas.” I did not understand how was this measured? Is this a finding of the paper or just an assertion by the authors?
The abstract abruptly states that “we propose that the fatwas must have copy rights like academic works.” Good idea. But what is the relevance here? How was this conclusion arrived on the basis of the analysis in the paper?
The authors need to refer to Ahmet Kuru’s recent book on ulama-state alliance. They speak about similar issues.
Since this is not a think tank report, please incorporate “Recommendations” in to the concluding remarks.
Please translate the non-English terms when first used.
References needed in some places where some assertions are made without evidence, such as “It is noted that in the earliest days of the Islamic polity, the Ulama, including jurists, enjoyed autonomy and independence.” Noted by whom? Who said or wrote this? Please check the entire text.
There are some typos and grammatical mistakes, even in the abstract.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We thank you for your feedback. It was very helpful. Our response to your points is attached. The article was revised, restructured. Methodology, theoretical framework and result sections are added. Some new sources added. A section (historical section) is removed. That will make the article more clearer to the readers. The article was edited again by a professional editor.
Regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The central concerns of the article are underdeveloped. Too much attention to rather vague questions of "credibility" (a classic Islamic question about, say, hadith scholarship/reports, the relevance of which is not made clear here) and not enough to the specific and concrete reasons, evidence, and rhetoric of the fatwas themselves. What reasons do they give for their positions, what patterns do we see in their positions, that sort of thing. These are only touched on in passing, when they seem to require much greater attention if we are to be able to conclude anything substantial about these fatawa, or about what they tell us about fatwa production in the digital age.
