"the most" influential entity

So what?

The 1991 Shafi'i manual of Islamic Law 'Umdat al-Salik, endorsed by the Islamic Research Academy at Al-Azhar, the most prestigious centre of learning in Sunni Islam, states:

"Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst…When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory…to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed."

[Source: [url=http://www.islam-watch.org/Fjordman/Islam-Compatible-with-Democracy3.htm]Islam Watch - "Is Islam Compatible with ...

read more»

"the most" influential entity

So what?

The 1991 Shafi'i manual of Islamic Law 'Umdat al-Salik, endorsed by the Islamic Research Academy at Al-Azhar, the most prestigious centre of learning in Sunni Islam, states:

"Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst…When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory…to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed."

[Source: Islam Watch - "Is Islam Compatible with Democracy?"]

None of the Muslims I have the honour to know would agree with such hyperfundamentalist insanity, no matter whether contrived or backed by "'the most' influential entity" of the (Sunni) Muslim world.
God bless them!

If people are not following them then they won't follow no matter what kind of edict they issue (good or bad depending on anyone's perception).

Agreed. That's what I said.

I am only glad they [issued] that, that's all.

So am I. All I wanted was to recall the fact that there are antithetic voices in the Islamic polyphony. No surprise - cloaking the entire female body (be it including the eyes or not) is an item of the Qur'an and of the sunnah:

The Noble Qur'an - Al-Ahzab 33:59

O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils)* all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or...

read more»

If people are not following them then they won't follow no matter what kind of edict they issue (good or bad depending on anyone's perception).

Agreed. That's what I said.

I am only glad they [issued] that, that's all.

So am I. All I wanted was to recall the fact that there are antithetic voices in the Islamic polyphony. No surprise - cloaking the entire female body (be it including the eyes or not) is an item of the Qur'an and of the sunnah:

The Noble Qur'an - Al-Ahzab 33:59

O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils)* all over their bodies (i.e. screen themselves completely except the eyes or one eye to see the way). That will be better, that they should be known (as free respectable women) so as not to be annoyed. [...]

*the arabic word here is Jalabeeb (plural of Jalbaab), which is the loose outer garment that covers all a woman's body. It says here to use the Jalabeeb to cover all, and scholars say this means to use it to cover her head (agree upon by all scholars) and her face (agreed by many scholars, not all) and one or both eyes, in order for it to be known that she is a free woman and so not to be exposed to any harm.
[...]

Muslims and Muslimahs across the world have been in "hot debate" for centuries, over the issue of whether or not covering the face is obligatory upon a Muslimah. Those who argue that it is not required, point to the use of the word khimar in the Qur'an, and [...] argue that khimar has never referred to the covering of the face [...]. While one cannot deny the support of Hadith that indicate that the Prophet's wives wore khimar, one must realize that they also covered their faces at all times in the presence of non-mahram men.

[↗Muttaqun on Niqab (Affixed Face Veil): According to Quran and Sunnah]

Now - "face veiling a custom that has nothing to do with the Islamic faith"???

Yes and yes. You will have to read the Qur'an in it's Arabian context. You must be familiar with the 'case of necklace'. Plus it is already known that these restrictions were for the wives of the Prophet. Islam is not frozen in the 7th century Arabia (as much as opponents may try to convince otherwise). Any case, I see variations in the translation of your above quoted 33:59. The issue may be debatable but that's where the Ijtihad comes in and once again to go back to the original topic of the clip, Egypt's highest Muslim authority has released a verdict which first of all will be relevant to Egypt's cultural context (not Islam, not Pakistan, not Indonesia).

I'm not really sure what y...

Yes and yes. You will have to read the Qur'an in it's Arabian context. You must be familiar with the 'case of necklace'. Plus it is already known that these restrictions were for the wives of the Prophet. Islam is not frozen in the 7th century Arabia (as much as opponents may try to convince otherwise). Any case, I see variations in the translation of your above quoted 33:59. The issue may be debatable but that's where the Ijtihad comes in and once again to go back to the original topic of the clip, Egypt's highest Muslim authority has released a verdict which first of all will be relevant to Egypt's cultural context (not Islam, not Pakistan, not Indonesia).

I'm not really sure what you're trying to debate, it is merely a news report.

it is merely a news report

I see. But what does that report and its subject mean to Muslims and non-Muslims (like me) respectively? I can't concur with your focussing the relevance of the Sheikh's opinion on Egypt, for the sources he refers to are believed to be of universal relevance, and it's just those sources - the Qur'an and the sunnah - which can evoke and justify views (and beliefs) that dissent from the Sheikh's opinion.

I am not trying to debate anything. I only advert to the problem the Islamic scholars have with the fact that in Islam, on the one hand, not only Muslim habits at the time of Mohammed but also pre-Islamic Arabic customs and, on the other hand, substa...

it is merely a news report

I see. But what does that report and its subject mean to Muslims and non-Muslims (like me) respectively? I can't concur with your focussing the relevance of the Sheikh's opinion on Egypt, for the sources he refers to are believed to be of universal relevance, and it's just those sources - the Qur'an and the sunnah - which can evoke and justify views (and beliefs) that dissent from the Sheikh's opinion.

I am not trying to debate anything. I only advert to the problem the Islamic scholars have with the fact that in Islam, on the one hand, not only Muslim habits at the time of Mohammed but also pre-Islamic Arabic customs and, on the other hand, substantially Islamic matters are (in my humble opinion, inextricably) interwoven.

Okay, now that we're not debating anything, allow me to say that Islam is not a monolith and there is diversity in it across the cultural and religio-political history. Not every Muslim women wears hijab and not everyone follows Hadiths to all degree. Hadith literature is in itself contentious and it is not a replacement for man's own intellect in reasoning the way of life (Islam) according to the time and context. It is man's own responsibility to identify what is faith and what is culture and how it is interwoven and affects one's life. I know there is lot of literalism among extremist quarters and majority follows the whims and fancy of their local imams, shaikhs etc (as you mention...

Okay, now that we're not debating anything, allow me to say that Islam is not a monolith and there is diversity in it across the cultural and religio-political history. Not every Muslim women wears hijab and not everyone follows Hadiths to all degree. Hadith literature is in itself contentious and it is not a replacement for man's own intellect in reasoning the way of life (Islam) according to the time and context. It is man's own responsibility to identify what is faith and what is culture and how it is interwoven and affects one's life. I know there is lot of literalism among extremist quarters and majority follows the whims and fancy of their local imams, shaikhs etc (as you mentioned above), but non-Muslims would be wise to not paint everyone with the same brush.

For diversity in Islam, here is a good read.

On understanding the Qu'ran, here is a good read.

Sumerian temple priestesses wore veils in 5000 B.C. In 1300 B.C., Assyrian kings introduced the veil for married and wealthy women. This is similar to the Byzantines (4th to 5th centuries A.D.), the Sassanids (c. 224-652 A.D.), in Ancient Greece and old Rome, where to be veiled was a privilege reserved for high society.
So the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University Mohammed Sayed al-Tantawi is absolutely right when he describes the niqab as a tradition from a pre-Islamic era. But this view has not made the theologian [...].
[...]
The Grand Mufti of Dubai [...] spoke of a "restriction of the freedom of women," and said the move was "in total contempt of their faith, their culture and thei...

Sumerian temple priestesses wore veils in 5000 B.C. In 1300 B.C., Assyrian kings introduced the veil for married and wealthy women. This is similar to the Byzantines (4th to 5th centuries A.D.), the Sassanids (c. 224-652 A.D.), in Ancient Greece and old Rome, where to be veiled was a privilege reserved for high society.
So the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University Mohammed Sayed al-Tantawi is absolutely right when he describes the niqab as a tradition from a pre-Islamic era. But this view has not made the theologian [...].
[...]
The Grand Mufti of Dubai [...] spoke of a "restriction of the freedom of women," and said the move was "in total contempt of their faith, their culture and their traditions."

The Saudi Arabian Sheikh Mohammed al-Nojaimi from the Institute of Islamic Law spoke of a possible division of Egyptian society into two camps, for or against the niqab. At the same time, he contradicted his Egyptian counterpart Tantawi's claim that the face veil has nothing to do with Islam: "The niqab is mentioned in reports on the traditions of the Prophet," he said. These state that a woman should only take off her face veil during the pilgrimage to Mecca, as "this goes to prove that she wore it at all other times."
[...]
"What are we supposed to do?" asks Sadaf Farooqi in the Saudi-Gazette newspaper. [...] "Within a few days after Mohammed Sayed al-Tantawi's comments, all kinds of groups from Italy to Canada began calling for a ban on the niqab."
[...]
For Sadaf Farooqi, who is proud to wear her niqab, this is something she finds difficult to understand. The journalist thanks God that in her country, she is allowed to leave the house in her veil, visit educational establishments and go for a walk without fear of abuse. "A luxury that our Muslim sisters in Britain, France and Canada do not enjoy," she says.

↗Niqab Debate in Egypt - Divided Scholars