The Saudi Gazette reports that "a number of scholars and citizens" are urging the authorities to take a firm line against "self-styled muftis and religious guides who mislead people with false fatwas based on questionable knowledge of religious matters".

One prominent scholar, Sheikh Hassan Safar, is quoted as saying there should be a licensing system for muftis and preachers.

It's not the first attempt to do this. More than two years ago, King Abdullah decreed that the issuing of public fatwas (religious rulings)would be restricted to members of the High Scholars Authority – all of whom are appointed by the king.

However, the king's decree only applied to public fatwas – not those issued privately to individuals for personal guidance. It is private fatwas from unrecognised "scholars" that Sheikh Safar seems to be objecting to in the Saudi Gazette's story. Referring to people who pose as muftis on the strength of their physical appearance, he says:

"By growing a beard, shortening their clothes so that they rest slightly above the ankles and constantly brushing their teeth with a miswak, they try to fool people. 

"However, such people have only little knowledge about the Shariah and even the Arabic language. They can advise people on simple religious matters but they should not dare to issue edicts on matters concerning those permissible (halal) and those forbidden (haram) in Islam."

There is certainly a problem here. Fatwas from people with dubious knowledge and credentials have contributed to the spread of religious extremism.

In the Crossroads Arabia blog, John Burgess writes:

"Some of the fatwas issued are just nonsensical; others, though, create serious problems of intolerance ...

"There is a need to get out of the era of ‘dueling fatwas’, wherein it’s far too easy to find fatwas in complete contradiction with each other. ‘Shopping for fatwas’, i.e., continually hunting around to find a mufti who will issue the fatwa you like, would be ended as well by a single, uniform body. That is indeed what the government has established. It needs now to make it stick."

But there are several objections to that. The idea of granting licences for preaching or issuing fatwas raises questions about who might be approved – or not. Determining whether someone is suitably qualified can often boil down to a matter of opinion and in Saudi Arabia's case it's very likely that approval will depend on adhering to the wahhabi establishment's line.

A second objection is that the principle of free speech should apply to religion as much as to anything else. If Muslims want to express views about what is haram and halal, they should be allowed to do so.

Arab governments have traditionally use licensing systems for newspapers, NGOs and political parties to restrict free expression by not licensing those they disapprove of, and the Saudi government has now begun extending this to preachers.

Basically, the Saudi authorities are approaching it from the wrong direction. This is part of a much wider problem among Arab regimes (which I wrote about in my book, What's Really Wrong with the Middle East) where they treat the public as children or sheep and attempt to protect them from "harmful" ideas.

In the long run, that doesn't work and it tends to result in "harmful" ideas getting more credence than they deserve. The solution is not to suppress them but to let them out into the open so they can be challenged with evidence and rational argument. Ideally, too, ordinary Muslims would rely less on fatwas and move towards a situation where ordinary believers can make their own informed choices on ethical and religious matters.

But that would require a major shift in attitudes and there are some who suggest it's too much to hope for. The last time I wrote on this topic, I received the following comments from a reader:

"While I agree that there are "authoritarian tendencies" in Islam, I think you're overlooking an important point, which is that Islam is a religion. Religions, Islam or otherwise, are designed to be authoritarian. Whether it's Egyptian Christians following [the late] Pope Shenouda III's orders or Muslims following the dictates of scholars and sheikhs, that's what religions do. They're not democracies and they can't change themselves to satisfy the people. 

"Disobeying religion is another thing, which people should be completely free to do should they choose. But if you're going to adhere to a particular religion, the only way to do so is to obey it. At least that's how I see it.

"Regarding your suggestion that Muslims need to 'rely less on fatwas and move towards a situation where ordinary believers can make their own informed choices on ethical and religious matters', I think this is harder than it seems. I am a Muslim, and if in the event that I wanted to make an informed decision on a particular matter of which I was unsure, I probably wouldn't be able to. For a scholar to make an informed and sensible fatwa, he usually has to draw on an enormous body of texts to ensure it doesn't contradict the principles of the religion."

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 10 December 2012.