An emotional Fathima Rifqa Bary–whose personal writings reaveal that she wants to be a modern day prophet–said of her parents:
“My parents are Muslim…I don’t know if you know about honor killing…They have to kill me…Because if they love Allah more than me, they have to do it. It’s in the Quran. And you can, like, give them knowledge about it [gestures to someone off camera, who says something unintelligible].”
It seems that Fathima’s understanding of the Quran comes from whomever she pointed to, whom I can only assume is her pastor (or pastor’s underling more likely). A few more dry runs could have perfected the performance. She just had to memorize a few verses to prove her claim:
13:6 If–your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend, which is as your own soul–entice you secretly, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods,” which you have not known–not you, nor your fathers;
13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, near to you, or far off from you, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
13:8 You shall not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall your eye pity him, neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him:
13:9 But you must surely kill him; your hand must be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
13:10 And you must stone him with stones, that he die; because he has sought to thrust you away from the LORD your God.
Well, that’s pretty damning evidence right there. That sounds a lot like “honor” killing: “If your brother…or your son or your daughter….entice you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’…You must kill him…you must stone him with stones, that he die.” Well, if that’s in the Quran, then we better ban all Muslim immigration to America!
But before we call Homeland Security, I hope you don’t mind if I check the Quran to verify if those verses exist.
[Flipping through pages of Quran]
Hmmm, can’t seem to find it.
Oh wait, *smacks forehead*, I remember now where those verses are from. Ahh yes, they are from the Bible (Deuteronomy, 13:6-10). There are of course many other Biblical verses in the same vein, such as 2 Chronicles 15:13 which reads: “All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.”
Oopsie doopsie!
Maybe it’s not such a good idea to randomly quote someone else’s scripture or medieval texts without any context as a proof to demonize a people or to fear monger.
Introduction
Islamophobes insist that Islam says that apostates must be killed. These ardent critics of the faith are of the view that Islam is for this reason simply incompatible with the Western Judeo-Christian tradition. Their view–which they try to propagate–is that Islam is somehow so inherently different from all other religions that it should be singled out as the one faith that we just absolutely cannot tolerate.
The issue of course is that “Islam” doesn’t “say” anything, since it is not a person. Islam is in fact polyvalent: it has within it different understandings and interpretations of the religion. On this particular issue, Islam itself doesn’t “say” anything. Valerie Hoffman, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of Illinois, commented on the issue of apostasy in Islam: “You can’t say Islam says this or Islam says that.” The question of course is “whose Islam” and “which Islam?”
Yes, the majority “classical” and “traditional” opinion codified hundreds of years ago was indeed that apostates from Islam should be killed. However, such views are abundantly present in the Judeo-Christian tradition as well, yet Jews and Christians have over the course of time reanalyzed their canonical texts and come to different understandings today.
Before the Great War, the Ottoman Empire united Muslim lands under one symbolic leadership. (Perhaps an oversimplification but it suffices for our discussion here.) It is interesting to note that the Ottoman government eventually stopped enforcing the punishment for apostasy and finally abolished it altogether in 1844, more than one hundred and sixty years ago:
Punishment for apostasy (in any case, extremely rare) was not in practice enforced in later times and was completely abolished by the [Ottoman] Turks by a decree of the Ottoman government in 1260/1844.
And we read:
The Ottoman Caliphate, the supreme representative of Sunni Islam, formally abolished this penalty…The Shaykh al-Islam, the supreme head of the religious courts and colleges, ratified this major shift in traditional legal doctrine. It was pointed out that there is no verse in the Qur’an that lays down a punishment for apostasy (although chapter 5 verse 54 and chapter 2 verse 217 predict a punishment in the next world). It was also pointed out that the ambiguities in the hadith (the sayings of the Prophet) suggest that apostasy is only an offense when combined with the crime of treason…
The debate triggered by the Ottoman reform was continued when al-Azhar University in Cairo, the supreme religious authority in the Arab world, delivered a formal fatwa (religious edict) in 1958, which confirmed the abolition of the classical law in this area.
It should be kept in mind that the Ottomans had embraced change, pushing what came to be known as the Tanzimat reforms, a drive to modernize the Islamic state to be compatible with the contemporary age. They abolished the jizya and dhimmi system; the Hatt-i Humayun of 1856 promised full legal equality for citizens of all religions, and the Nationality Law of 1869 created a common Ottoman citizenship irrespective of religious or ethnic divisions.
The point is that the Islamic state had embraced change and reform of their religious understanding. The debate had begun, but after World War I, the Allies occupied Turkey and Arab lands. They broke up the Ottoman Empire, and carved out mandate states, installing despots into power, something which of course retarded further Muslim intellectual growth.
The modern Muslim world is living with the consequences of these events. Unfortunately, feelings of anti-Westernism have emerged as a backlash to colonialism and subsequent events. Extremists and religious fundamentalists began to define themselves in opposition to the West; the more the West condemned their extreme understandings of Islam, the more “street cred” these fundamentalists garnered. Hey, if the West hates you, and the West is the colonialist, then you must be right! Such was the thought process.
So harsher understandings replaced more tolerant ones, and the punishment for apostates–which had been long abandoned by the Ottoman Empire–was re-instituted in a few Muslim majority countries. As Dr. Tariq Ramadan put it:
The opposition and condemnations by the West supplies, paradoxically, the popular feeling of fidelity to the Islamic teachings; a reasoning that is antithetical, simple and simplistic. The intense opposition of the West is sufficient proof [for them] of the [supposed] authentic Islamic character of the literal application of hudûd (Islamic penal code).
In the context of relationships between countries, we often tend to remember only the conflicts and the wars. We focus on the battles and wars between the Muslim world and the Judeo-Christian West, but on a deeper level, there is another more significant aspect, which is an ideological cultural exchange. Muslims now live in the West; when Western Muslims approach the Islamic texts, they come with a certain background and upbringing which necessarily affects their understanding.
What we have witnessed in the last couple decades is a growing trend of a return back to early reformist understanding of freedom of religion. These reform-minded Muslims have realized that not only is the modern concept of freedom of religion permissible in their religion–and not only is it wholly compatible with the Quran–but rather it is mandated and obligatory in Islam.
A “soft reformation” is taking place in Islam, as mentioned by Dr. Tariq Ramadan and others. The reformists are challenging traditional interpretations and understandings of the religion, and pushing for a repeal of apostasy laws in specific where they exist. The struggle is on, and change cannot and will not happen overnight; the post-colonial mess that the Muslim world finds itself in only retards intellectual growth but the process has begun.
Enter the Islamophobes
Instead of seeking to help the reform-minded Muslims, the Islamophobes have demonized virtually all Muslims, except of course a few self-hating Muslims who simply repeat whatever the Islamophobes want to hear (for which they are rewarded handsomely).
The main argument used by Islamophobes is that Islam as a religion itself advocates the death penalty for apostates, and therefore it is the religion itself–not the interpretation of it–that is the problem, an unusually obtuse and altogether unhelpful assertion. Furthermore, some of them argue, Muslims must abandon their belief in the inerrant nature of the Quran. In other words, the Islamophobes posit that the only possible way for Muslims to become “civilized” is to view the Quran as any other text, deleting what they dislike from it and adding whatever they wish to it–or as Daniel Pipes puts it: to make it “defunct.”
While, certainly, that may seem like a plausible solution to an outsider, the problem is that for the vast majority of Muslims it is quite simply not a possibility; it is anathema to question the Quran’s veracity. Regardless of the arguments back and forth on the issue, the practical reality is that the Muslim masses cannot countenance such a thing; the Islamophobes know this, and that’s why they set up this formula. In other words, they know that the Muslims cannot do this and therefore it has become for the Islamophobes the “only possible solution” to the problem.
Yet, it is hardly the case that the Muslims can only take one possible route to modernization. Reform-minded Muslims believe that a change in the texts is not required, but only a change in the understanding and interpretation of said texts.
Open Texts
The Quran is an open text, because it generally refrains from specifics. In fact, names are almost never used in it, in order that its verses have not only a specific meaning but also a more general import. For example, a verse may have been revealed to placate the Islamic prophet Muhammad during a particularly difficult time in his struggle; so even though the verse will have a specific reason for revelation (to one particular man in one specific situation), it can also be used in a general context: Muslims will use that same verse when they themselves are going through tough times.
Because of this unique structure of the Quranic text, what one gets out of it depends a lot on the reader, who tends to inject into verses his own background and biases, for better or for worse. Having said that, it seems to the author that an unbiased and neutral reading validates the argument of the reform-minded Muslims: nowhere in the Quran does it clearly and definitively say one must kill apostates. In fact, it seems to say the exact opposite.
If Muslims can understand it in that way, why this continual insistence by the Islamophobes that the Muslims “must” abandon their belief in the inerrant nature of the Quran? (Again, it is in order to set up a situation whereby Muslims simply cannot fulfill the requirements to be accepted into society, which is exactly what the Islamophobes desire.)
But enough jibber jabber; the proof is in the pudding.
The Quran
Ms. Fathima Rifqa Bary was incorrect: unlike the Bible, the Quran does not at all say to kill apostates if they choose to leave Islam. Rather, it says the exact opposite. The Quran declares emphatically:
“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth is distinct from error!” (Quran, 2:256)
Almost every Muslim knows this verse by heart. It categorically closes the door to religious compulsion, and is used by reform-minded Muslims to promote freedom of religion and the idea that the people have a right to follow whatever religion they so choose. Because “truth is distinct from error,” people should be able to discern it for themselves without having to be forced.
Tafsir al-Jalalayn, a classical Islamic text, says of this verse: “This was revealed concerning the Ansar who tried to compel their sons to enter into Islam.” Some of their children were Jewish, and the parents wished to force them to become Muslims. In Al-Suyuti’s classical text Asbab al-Nuzul (Reasons for Revelation), it also says that there was a Muslim father by the name of Husayn bin Salim bin Awf who had two daughters both of whom were Christians. After failing to convince them to convert to Islam of their own free will, he went to the Islamic prophet Muhammad and requested permission to compel them into Islam. It was for this that the verse “Let there be no compulsion in religion” was revealed, to forbid parents from forcibly converting their children to Islam.
The relevance to the Fathima Rifqa Bary case cannot be understated: contrary to Fathima’s claim, the Quran forbids religious compulsion in general. The verse in question was specifically revealed for parents in regard to their children of different faiths. Amazingly, the Quranic verse was revealed to forbid a Muslim father from forcing his Christian daughters into Islam. Sound familiar? Sounds a lot like Mr. Bary and his daughter! So how accurate was Fathima’s claim that the Quran commands parents to force their children into Islam or kill them if they refuse?
Ironically, it is the Bible–the same one that Fathima holds–that has verses in it commanding parents to stone their daughters should they worship gods other than the Christian one. Considering that Fathima espouses a hardliner literalistic Christian fundamentalist mentality, we wonder if she would even contextualize the verse like the Christian mainstream does? (This is not about Christianity vs Islam; this is about extremists vs moderates; Fathima and the Global Revolution Church are not representative of mainstream Christianity, at least not any more than Al-Muhajiroon is of the Islamic mainstream!)
Alas, I digress. Back to the Quran, which says:
“And if your Lord had pleased, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; will you then force men till they become believers?” (Quran, 10:99)
Reform-minded Muslims use the above verse to argue that forcing people into Islam is wrong because God Himself did not do that. They believe that the power to guide and misguide people rests only with God, and nobody can share in that. The next verse is used by reformists to show that Muslims should just worry about what they themselves do, instead of trying to force people into guidance:
“And had God willed, He could have made you all one [religious] community, but He sends astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. But you shall certainly be called to account for what you (yourself) used to do [i.e. not what others used to do].” (Quran, 16:93)
The phrase–“God guides Whom He wills” and that He “misguides Whom He wills”–appears in dozens of Quranic verses. All of these references are commanding believers that they cannot force or will people into the religion, but that only God can do that.
The Quran commands:
“The Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe and let him who please disbelieve.” (Quran, 18:29)
And the Quran says:
“Exhort them to believe; your task is only to exhort. You cannot compel them to believe.” (Quran, 88:21-22)
Another verse in the Quran indicates that during the life of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, there were people who believed and disbelieved–and then believed only to disbelieve once again; in other words, people entered into and out of the religion freely. The Quran says that such people are weak in faith and God will never guide them in this worldly life. The verse reads:
“Those who believe then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the Way.” (Quran, 4:137)
Reform-minded Muslims use this verse as a proof that there can be no punishment for apostasy. If that had been the case, then those who believe and then disbelieved (i.e. apostates) would have been put to death and therefore no chance would have been given to them to once again believe and disbelieve. Furthermore, the verse says that God will never guide them back to Islam, indicating that the Muslims are to ignore such a person: if God did not guide them to the Way, then why should Muslims?
So there are clear and explicit verses of the Quran that reform-minded Muslims naturally understand to mean that freedom of religion must be extended to all, and that compulsion into Islam is not to be tolerated.
The Hadiths
Enter the Hadiths. For those who don’t know, the Hadiths are a body of collection of the prophet Muhammad’s sayings or traditions. In other words, the Quran is considered by Muslims to be the word of God, and the Hadiths are the words of their prophet. Unlike the Quran however, Muslims do not believe that all of the Hadiths are authentic. Rather, many of them are apocryphal and therefore rejected. In other words, if some Islamophobe claims that such-and-such Hadith exists, be aware of the fact that many of them are rejected by Muslims. The Hadiths do not occupy the same rank as the Quran, but are rather a secondary source open to criticism.
In this huge body of collection, we find the Hadith that Islamophobes rely on as their trump card in this debate, which reads as follows: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” At first glance, that seems pretty clear and unambiguous but has the Islamophobe proven his case? Well, let’s take into consideration that the Bible has many seemingly clear and unambiguous verses which call to kill apostates, yet we never assume that Christians today believe this, nor do we insist that Christianity itself demands it.
A Christian–when confronted with those verses in the Bible–would respond by saying something like the following:
“Well, that’s the Old Testament, and Jesus abrogated that part of the law. Back then during Biblical times, the believers were few and there was a real fear that they would be eliminated so punishing apostates was a deterrent. Furthermore, at that time apostasy was akin to high treason.”
And this answer would completely placate the Islamophobes. In other words, verses that seemed unambiguous and clear from a religious book seemed to indicate one thing at face value, but the people who follow that book have a different way of understanding it: they give an explanation that contextualizes the verses.
Let’s be clear here: we’re not trying to bash Christianity at all. What we are saying however is that if we extend the common courtesy to Christians that they can contextualize such verses in the Bible, then why do we not extend the same courtesy to the Muslims when it comes to the Hadiths? Keep in mind also that Muslims believe that their Bible–so to speak–is the Quran and not the Hadiths. In other words, if Christianity’s primary source seems to say that apostates are to be killed, then why do we not accept any explanation from Muslims about their secondary source? (Hint: Islamophobia is the answer!) It is this terrible double standard that bothers Muslims and those who believe in religious tolerance.
So how do reform-minded Muslims contextualize the Hadith in question (i.e. “whoever changes his religion, kill him.”)? First of all, they point out that these are not the words of the Islamic prophet Muhammad to begin with; rather, these are the the words of a man named Ibn Abbas who was paraphrasing the words of the Islamic prophet. The full text of that particular Hadith is as follows:
Some Zanadiqa were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying: Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire). I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle: Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, Number 57)
If this was a paraphrase, what were the actual words of the Islamic prophet Muhammad? We find one such Hadith which says:
“The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that there is no God but God and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: (1) In penalty for murder, (2) a married person who commits adultery and (3) the one who reverts from Islam (apostates) and leaves the community.” (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 12, Book ad-Diyat, Number 6878, p.209)
Based on this, reformists say that a person cannot be given capital punishment except for three offenses: (1) murder, (2) adultery, and (3) apostasy combined with “leav[ing] the community.” Such Muslims say that apostasy is not punished except for when it is combined with “leav[ing] the community,” which they say refers to high treason against the Islamic state. What is meant specifically by “leaving the community” is of leaving the community to join the enemy forces. To bolster this claim, reformists point to another similarly narrated Hadith, which reads:
“The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshiped but God and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: (1) a married person who commits adultery; he is to be stoned and (2) a man who went out fighting against God and His Messenger; he is to be killed or crucified or exiled from the land and (3) a man who murders another person; he is to be killed on account of it.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 4, Number 4353, p. 126)
In other words, we have the exact same three instances in which a person may be put to death: (1) murder, (2) adultery, and (3) “a man who went out fighting against God and His Messenger.” Reform-minded Muslims reason that since the Islamic prophet restricted capital punishment to three classes of people, the third instance must be referring to the same group. In other words “leav[ing] the community” refers to “a man who went out fighting against God and His Messenger.” Reform-minded Muslims tie these Hadiths to the following Quranic verse:
“The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: this is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.” (Quran, 5:33)
Notice how similar the above verse is to the Hadith mentioned in Sunan Abu Dawud (above). The Hadith mentions the one “who went out fighting against God and His Messenger” whilst the Quran says “those who wage war against God and His Apostle,” and the punishment for such is also the same in both: “killed or crucified or exiled from the land.” Reformists point out that the opinion of the ultraconservative Muslims–that peaceful apostates are to be killed–does not jive with the above, since that would mean that a person is to be killed for other than the three reasons, even though the Islamic prophet limited it to only three reasons, not four.
And even if we say that the Hadiths do not limit capital punishment to only three reasons, argue reformists, the issue is that the two Hadiths (as found in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sunan Abu Dawood) both mention three sins–murder, adultery, and apostasy/waging war. It is abundantly clear then that the third sin (other than murder and adultery) is in reference to the same thing in both narrations, due to the congruency of the two Hadiths–which firmly establishes the linkage so the linking of apostasy to treason is firmly established by the congruency of the two Hadiths. This argument stands alone in itself and is not dependent on limiting capital punishment to three sins.
Reasons for Revelation
At the time that this Hadith was said (i.e. to kill apostates that left the community), the Muslims of the city of Medina were under attack by the Quraish “idolaters” of Mecca (which at that time was predominantly non-Muslim). Many of the Muslims in Medina were emigrants from Mecca, who had converted to Islam. Do you see now why religion and national identity was fused at the hip back then? If you were a Meccan who converted from paganism to Islam, you’d be persecuted or even killed by your former co-religionists. So those who converted to Islam would “leave the community” of Mecca to join Medina.
The Meccans reacted harshly to this new religion of Islam and desired to wipe it off the map. They gathered armies and marched towards the fledgling Islamic city-state. Naturally, since the converts to Islam came from pagan families, such battles between Mecca and Medina would result in brother being pitted against brother, and father against son. Some of the newly converted Muslims naturally felt uncomfortable having to fight their families, and therefore would apostatize to the side of the idolatrous Meccans. Others were simply weak in faith and felt overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the invaders, so they defected to the pagan army.
More insidiously, there were some in Medina who conspired with the people of Mecca to betray the Muslims in battle. They hatched a plan that they would “convert” to Islam to join the forces of Medina, only to apostatize and abandon the Muslims in the thick of things, in order to destroy the morale of the Muslim army. The Quran says of this:
“A section of the People of the Book say: ‘Believe in the morning what is revealed to those who believe, and reject it at the end of the day, perchance they may themselves turn back.” (Quran, 3:72)
In the classical Tafsir (commentary) entitled Asbab al-Nuzul (Reasons for Revelation) it says of this verse:
…The town of Uraynah conspired with each other, saying: “Pretend to join the religion of Muhammad at the beginning of the day and declare your disbelief in it at the end of the day. Say: ‘We have looked in our Scriptures and consulted our scholars and found that Muhammad is not genuine; it is clear to us now that he is lying and that his religion is false.’ If you do this, his Companions will doubt their religion. They will say: ‘these are people of the Book and they are more knowledgeable than us. They will then abandon their religion and embrace yours.’”
Reformists believe it was in this particular situation that the Hadiths about killing “apostates” who “leave the community” and “wage war against God and His Messenger” were said. “Leaving the community” is a reference to leaving the community of Medina to join the invaders. Therefore, they reason, it was not merely “peaceful apostasy” which is to be punished, but rather high treason, i.e. trying to destroy the Islamic state’s army. It was a specific plot of the unbelievers to convert to Islam in order to mass apostatize and defect to the pagan side to destroy the Muslims.
One can see then how apostasy and defection are linked; back then, there was a pagan army and a Muslim army. If you were pagan, you fought for the pagan army. If you were Muslim, you fought for the Muslim army. If you converted from one to the other, then you’d likely abandon one army and defect to the other. Hence the phrase “the one who reverts from Islam (apostates) and leaves the community.”
Furthermore, the act of assisting in battle the unbelievers against the believers was in itself considered an act of apostasy. This is why reformists believe that back then religious identity was fused with national identity and state loyalty. This is what professor M. Cherif Bassiouni meant when he wrote,
My position on apostasy…[is] that at the time of the Prophet it was not considered as only changing one’s mind but that it was the equivalent of joining the enemy and thus constituting high treason.
Going back to the now famous Hadith (“Whoever changes his religion, kill him”) this was–revealed about the Zanadiqa:
Some Zanadiqa were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Apostle forbade it, saying: Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire). I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Apostle: Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, Number 57)
The word “Zanadiqa” translates to heretics, and here is referring to a group known as the Saba’iyya. The founder of this group, Ibn Saba, was believed by Muslims to be an enemy of the Islamic state who pretended to convert to Islam in order to instigate civil war and strife. Although his existence is a matter of dispute amongst scholars, his group–the Saba’iyya (Zanadiqa)–did exist. They claimed that the prophet Muhammad’s cousin–a man by the name of Ali ibn Abi Talib–was god incarnate. They instigated revolts against the government and eventually orchestrated the murder of the Caliph (Muslim leader) of the time, a man named Uthman ibn Affan. We read:
Ibn Saba…[whose] activity began during the caliphate of Uthman when he travelled from Hijaz to Syria, stirr[ed] up unrest and rebellion in Egypt, Basrah, and Kufah and incit[ed] to the murder of the caliph by the Egyptian rebels…Ibn Saba was also responsible for the outbreak of fighting between the armies of Ali and Aisha at Basrah. (Shi’ite Heritage: Essays on Classical and Modern Traditions, by Lynda Clarke, pp.9-10)
And:
The Khalif Ali caused the adherents of Abd Allah ibn Saba to be burnt to death…But when Ibn Abbas learned of the occurrence, he said: “I should indeed have put them to death, but certainly not burned them, for the Prophet has forbidden that any one shall be punished by fire, because this is the mode of punishment exclusively to Allah.”
(Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Edited by James Hastings, p.625)
In other words, the Zanadiqa being referred to here were not “peaceful apostates” who simply changed their mind, but rather they were guilty of high treason, causing a civil war, instigating a rebellion in Egypt, and ultimately killing the Caliph. Indeed, they were similar to the group of people who had pretended to convert to Islam in order to apostatize during the thick of things (i.e. in the battle between Medina and Mecca). The bottom line then is that even the Hadith that the Islamophobes rely upon can be used as a proof that only those apostates who wage war against the state are to be killed.
The Traditional Opinion
Yes, it is true that the majority “classical” and traditional opinion of Islamic jurists was that apostasy–even “peaceful apostasy”–should be punished by death. This belief was enshrined into Islamic jurisprudence in the medieval era, and therefore many “classical” Islamic texts do indeed say this. It is for this reason that Alan Kornman of ACT for America–a fervently Islamophobic group–was waving around a copy of Reliance of the Traveler, a fourteenth century manual of Islamic jurisprudence, which does say that apostates should be killed. Is it possible to point out the obvious? The text was written hundreds of years ago in the medieval era. The absurdity of using it as some sort of proof against contemporary Muslims is absurd. Muslims do not consider this book to be religiously binding upon them. The words of the classical scholars are not considered a part of the Islamic canon. Only the Quran and some of the Hadiths are said to have any divine origin.
Contemporary Muslims believe that they are free to agree or disagree with the words of classical scholars. There is no equivalent to the pope in Islam. Yes, they do respect the classical scholars, and do view them as some of the greatest scholars of all time, but that does not mean that they agree with them on all issues. As for “classical texts” like the Reliance of the Traveler, yes many moderate Muslims consider such treatises to be a good source of attaining their Islamic knowledge, but they don’t believe that they must accept every single sentence or dot therein! As the famous Islamic saying goes: they take the good in it, and leave the rest!
Even within the classical Islamic texts, one can find great disagreement therein. For example, there are classical texts which refute some of the views expressed in the Reliance of the Traveler. If that is the case–that Islamic scholars of that time disagreed with some views within that text and others–why shouldn’t contemporary Islamic scholars–and Muslims in general–disagree with some of its views? Is this really so hard to comprehend? I don’t think so.
We understand it perfectly well with classical Christian texts. Let’s look at the work of Saint Thomas Aquinas, one of the most influential Christian scholars in history. The Vatican considers him as “the model teacher” for those pursuing priesthood.
The Summa Theologica, a book written by St. Thomas Aquinas, is considered one of the best summaries of Catholic doctrine to this day, and continues to be relied upon. In other words, here we have a text that is certainly more central to the Catholic faith than the Reliance of the Traveler is to Muslims. Well, let’s take a look-see into what the Summa Theologica says about apostasy; the first part talks about how Jews are apostates and thus worse than regular disbelievers, and the second part talks about how apostates ought to be compelled by the sword to Christianity:
Question 10: Unbelief in General
… It is written (2 Peter 2:21): “It had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back.” Now the heathens have not known the way of justice, whereas heretics and Jews have abandoned it after knowing it in some way. Therefore theirs is the graver sin…He who resists the faith after accepting it, sins more grievously against faith, than he who resists it without having accepted it…[The Jews] accepted the figure of that faith in the Old Law, which they corrupt by their false interpretations, [so] their unbelief is a more grievous sin than that of the heathens, because the latter have not accepted the Gospel faith in any way at all…
Article 8. Whether unbelievers ought to be compelled to the faith?
…I answer that, Among unbelievers there are some who have never received the faith, such as the heathens and the Jews: and these are by no means to be compelled to the faith…On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received…
For, Augustine says “…When a man’s crime [apostasy] is so publicly known, and so hateful to all, that he has no defenders, or none such as might cause a schism, the severity of discipline should not slacken”…Those Jews who have in no way received the faith, ought not by no means to be compelled to the faith: if, however, they have received it, they ought to be compelled to keep it…Christ at first compelled Paul and afterwards taught Him…the rites of other unbelievers, which are neither truthful nor profitable are by no means to be tolerated…
Do we then think it is justified to wave around this seven hundred year old text in the air as a proof that Christians believe that apostates should be killed? Or that “since the Jews are the slaves of the Church, she can dispose of their possessions” and the “the rites of other unbelievers, which are neither truthful nor profitable are by no means to be tolerated?” No sensible person can say so. Rather, Catholics are free to read the book, taking what they like and disagreeing with whatever they dislike.
So why then can’t these people understand the same thing for the Reliance of the Traveler, which says the exact same thing about apostasy as does the Summa Theologica? Muslims use it in a similar manner to learn about traditional Islamic jurisprudence just as Catholics use the Summa Theologica to learn traditional Catholic doctrine, taking the good and leaving the rest. In fact, the Muslim translator of the book, Nuh Keller, did not even translate parts of the book into English which he deemed totally irrelevant to the modern day and age, which shows that Muslims do not consider whatever is in the text as religiously binding. It doesn’t mean that Muslims must abandon the book in its entirety, just as Catholics don’t need to abandon the Summa Theologica altogether.
The Four Schools of Islamic Jurisprudence
A critic of Islam argued back:
Yes there may be moderate Muslims but at this moment in time there is no moderate Islam, as defined by the [four] main schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
First, it is absurd to say that there is no moderate Islam; moderate Islam is what the vast majority of Muslims follow, and how they define it. As for the argument that “all four schools of Islamic jurisprudence demand the death penalty for apostasy,” isn’t this simply restating the obvious? Contemporary Muslims already admit that the traditional and classical opinion of Islamic jurists was that apostates were to be killed (which by the way was also amongst the “traditional and classical opinions” in Judaism and Christianity as well).
Since the four schools of thought were defined and codified hundreds of years ago, doesn’t it already go without saying that the four schools of jurisprudence would take the traditional and classical opinion on the matter? Stated another way: as the four schools were codified hundreds of years ago, is it any surprise that they should follow the old way of looking at the matter as opposed to the new? So what exactly is the critic trying to say? It is simply restating and repackaging the obvious attack in attempt to give an air of authority to it.
His statement also betrays a superficial understanding of the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence. The four schools are not defined by their final rulings or verdicts, but rather based on their methodology (Usul). Within a school itself, all sorts of conflicting opinions can be found, since a school is defined not by a ruling but by the methodology one uses to arrive at such a ruling. In other words, contemporary Muslims can still follow the same methodology and arrive at different conclusions, without betraying the school of thought itself. Many followers of the four schools have done so with regard to the issue of apostasy.
So the fact that a person follows a school of jurisprudence does not at all mean that he must commit himself to one particular ruling. Furthermore, many Muslims do not follow a school of jurisprudence at all, with still others claiming that it is wrong to follow the four schools whatsoever. Bottom line: there are diverse opinions on this matter, and to pigeonhole Muslims into a particular belief is wrong. It is just wrong to speak on behalf of Muslims; let them speak for themselves!
Contemporary Muslims argue that their rejection of an opinion held by the classical scholars does not amount to rejection of the scholars themselves, nor of the schools of thought they founded. Rather, they insist that respectful disagreement is not only permitted but mandated in Islam. Furthermore, the new opinion of contemporary Muslims is simply a reflection of changed circumstances which have allowed Muslims to properly understand the issue. Dr. Mohammad Omar Farooq says:
Undeniably, the traditional position of Muslim scholars and jurists has been that apostasy [riddah] is punishable by death. The longstanding problem of the traditional position, as held by Classical jurists or scholars, can be explained and excused as not being able to see apostasy, an issue of pure freedom of faith and conscience, separate from treason against the community or the state. However, the accumulated experience over the history in terms of abuse of this position about apostasy even against Muslims as well as the changed context of a globally-connected, pluralistic society should help us appreciate the contemporary challenges in light of the Qur’anic norms and the Prophetic legacy. In this context, while the classical misunderstanding about this issue of apostasy is excusable, the position of some of the well-known contemporary scholars is not.
Contemporary Scholars
Whilst ultraconservative scholars tenaciously cling to medieval opinions, moderate Muslim scholars are increasingly adopting the opinion that absolute freedom of religion is mandated in Islam. Hundreds of Islamic clerics have accepted this view as correct. Representatives from all the major Western Muslim organizations have spoken out against the death penalty for apostates.
Indeed, Islam is witnessing a “soft revolution” nowadays, and a reformation is taking place. It seems almost every other day another major Islamic scholar announces that he has studied the issue and come to the conclusion that there should be no punishment for apostasy.
Ijma
The conservative Muslims (and in turn the Islamophobes) insist that there is an Ijma (consensus) on the view that apostates are to be killed. This is an Islamic legal term which connotes a sort of authoritativeness to a ruling, almost like a papal decree. However, this is a hotly contested topic, and this article here explains why it is inappropriate to use Ijma as a proof.
Imam al-Shawkani argued:
“The one who claims that ijma constitutes proof is not correct, for such [a claim] constitutes mere conjecture (zann) on the part of an individual from the community of Muslims. No believer can worship God on the basis of this.”
Refuting Robert Spencer’s Drivel
Robert Spencer of JihadWatch argues that Fathima Rifqa Bary was correct for claiming that the Quran mandates death for apostasy. We have already outlined the numerous verses in the Quran that state the contrary. But let us now deal with Spencer’s “proof.” He claims that the following verse is “direct proof” that apostates are to be killed:
“And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein.” (Quran, 2:217)
Sorry, Spencer, but I don’t see how that’s “direct proof,” especially in light of the explicit verses in the Quran that I have cited above which clearly and unambiguously forbid compulsion in religion. In fact, contemporary Islamic scholars use this verse (the one Spencer just used) as a proof that there is no worldly punishment for apostasy, only a heavenly one. For example, Dr. Jamal Badawi says:
There is no single verse in the Qur’an that prescribes an earthly punishment for apostasy. Verses about apostasy in the Qur’an speak only about God’s punishment of the apostate in the Hereafter [such as] “…But if any of you should turn away from his/her faith and die as a denier [of the truth] – these it is whose works will bear no fruit in this world and in the life to come; and these it is who are destined for the fire, therein to abide.” ([Quran] Al-Baqarah 2:217)
…The silence of the Qur’an on any prescribed mandatory capital for apostasy is quite revealing. More revealing is the fact that there is overwhelming evidence in the Qur’an of freedom of conscious, belief, and worship.
Of course, Spencer quotes an Islamic scholar who lived hundreds of years ago as a proof. Sorry, but that’s not a proof to Muslims, nor is it binding. Whilst moderate Muslims respect Imam al-Qurtubi like Catholics respect St. Thomas Aquinas, they don’t believe his words are divine and simply disagree with them. That is in actuality the bulk of Spencer’s argument, since the verse itself is not at all “direct proof” of anything!
Then Spencer uses verse 4:89 as a “proof:”
“If they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them.” (Quran, 4:89)
But he does not quote what comes right before and after it, thereby removing the context of the verse. The Quran says:
“Why should you be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? …If they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them; Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty of peace, or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you and fight you not, and instead send you guarantees of peace, then God Has opened no way for you to war against them…Therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and do not offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority (to war against).” (Quran, 4:89-91)
This verse is talking about a group of apostates who are pretending to be Muslims (and are thus Hypocrites), so that they can turn renegade during war and destroy the Muslim army from the inside. In actuality, this verse shows the mercy of Islam, in the sense that the Islamic prophet was forbidden to make war against these people until they picked up arms against the Muslims; if, however, they did not pick up arms and instead sent guarantees of peace, then Muslims were forbidden from fighting them. This verse can be used as a proof for the reformist position, namely that peaceful apostates cannot be killed, but those who wage war against the Islamic state (i.e. high treason) should be.
Spencer quotes Tafsir al-Jalalayn as a proof, yet doesn’t realize that the text itself negates his view. Tafsir al-Jalalayn says of the very next verse (4:90):
[Those who come to you] refraining from fighting either you or them, then do not interfere with them, neither taking them as captives nor slaying them…If they stay away from you and do not fight you, and offer you peace, reconciliation, that is, [if] they submit, then God does not allow you any way against them, [He does not allow you] a means to take them captive or to slay them.
Abrogation
Christianity was militarized after Jesus died, by latter day thinkers. A similar thing happened with Islam. The Quranic text prohibits military aggression, allowing war only in self-defense; it also gives absolute freedom of religion. Latter day thinkers within Islam had such a hard time dealing with these issues that they simply decided to “abrogate” the peaceful and tolerant verses in order to make Islam “more compatible” with the warlike times. For example, the author of Tafsir al-Jalalayn had such a hard time reconciling verse 4:90 with the view–that apostates are to be killed–that he rationalized that: “this statement and what follows was abrogated.”
This has importance here: Spencer uses the verse (4:90) as a proof that apostasy is mandated in the Quran, yet the classical scholar he quoted as a proof was so “frustrated” by this same verse–since it seemed to imply freedom of religion–that he was forced to abrogate it. In other words, even those Muslim scholars who believe that apostates are to be killed had to get rid of this Quranic verse in order to make their claim, so how can Spencer now use the verse as a proof?
For those of you who don’t know what abrogation means, it means that a verse was rescinded and basically no longer counts. Translation: the verse still appears in the Quran but it has no legal import to it. Contemporary moderate Muslim scholars reject such a haphazard abrogation of Quranic verses. For example, a Muslim cleric by the name of Shabir Ally says:
[Question:] Now this idea of abrogation altogether seems odd. You have a book–you say it’s from God–and you say ‘well, He didn’t really mean this.’ How does one justify this?
[Answer:] Well, Imam al-Tabari is in a way the father of tafsirs. And his tafsir is the monumental one that came to be used widely in later tafsirs…and he said very clearly that if a verse is to be agrogated, you have to have some definitive information from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself which says that this verse is abrogated, otherwise how would you know if a certain verse is abrogated? You shouldn’t claim that a verse is abrogated without this type of definitive information.
Dr. Jamal Badawi says:
While some scholars have claimed that hundreds of verses of the Qur’an were abrogated, the majority of scholars reject that claim.
Interestingly, the ultraconservative Muslim scholars are inconsistent in their own understanding of the Quran. For example, the ultraconservative Saudi scholar Ibn Baz affirmed the idea that abrogation is to be used only as a last resort when understanding two seemingly “contradictory” verses of the Quran; Ibn Baz stated:
Whenever it is possible to show agreement or reconciliation between various narrations, in a manner which is suitable, without stretching their meanings, it becomes obligatory to do so. Making Reconciliation (al-Jam) between the texts takes precedence over the other two methods of resolving apparent contradiction between proofs–the two other methods being Outweighing (al-Tarjih) and Abrogation (al-Naskh). This is what has been agreed upon in the Science of Usul al-Fiqh.
The above might be very confusing to the layperson, so to summarize: he is basically saying that when two texts seem to contradict each other, then one should first try to reconcile them (al-Jam) before one claims that one is abrogated by the other (al-Naskh). In other words, when we have one text saying “Let there be no compulsion in religion” and another saying “Whoever changes his religion, kill him,” there seems to be an apparent contradiction between the two. One way to resolve these two texts would be to say that the latter abrogated the former (and this is the argument of Bin Baz and other ultraconservative scholars). Ibn Baz is quoted by an ultraconservative Saudi website as saying:
[Question:] Some friends say that whoever does not enter Islam, that is his choice and he should not be forced to become Muslim, quoting as evidence the verses in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning)…“There is no compulsion in religion” [al-Baqarah 2:256] What is your opinion concerning that?
[Answer:] …Ayat al-Sayf (the verse of the sword)…and similar verses abrogate the verses which say that there is no compulsion to become Muslim.
Oddly however Bin Baz does not follow his own rule that Reconciliation of texts takes precedence over Abrogation! Reform-minded Muslims reconcile the texts by simply contextualizing the second narration, which indicates that peaceful apostates are not to be killed but those apostates who “wage war” (i.e. high treason) are.
The way in which Ibn Baz, other ultraconservatives, and some classical scholars abrogated the peaceful verses without direct proof of that must be rejected, argue reform-minded Muslims. As Ibn Al-Hassar, a classical Islamic scholar himself, stated:
It is not acceptable, in the matter of Abrogation, to accept statements of the interpreters of the Quran, not even the ijtihad (reasoning) of those engaging in ijtihad without authentic reports or clear evidence…What is acceptable in that matter is the [explicit] narration [of the Prophet] and history [Sunna/Sira] not opinion or ijtihad.
Therefore, reform-minded Muslims reject any classical or contemporary scholar’s opinion that such-and-such verse was abrogated, unless the claimant brings unequivocal proof of that, such as a direct statement from the Islamic prophet to that effect. But in the absence of that, such arguments are rejected; otherwise, every single verse in the Quran could be abrogated by mere desire! Therefore, when Islamophobes try to build their whole case on Tafsirs (commentaries) written hundreds of years ago, be extremely wary! A Tafsir is not a proof in and of itself; it is simply one man’s interpretation of the Quran open to criticism.
Reform-minded Muslim scholars argue that their understanding of the Quran’s view on this matter is more accurate and truer to the text, since they take into consideration all of the verses instead of simply doing away with whatever verses they cannot reconcile to their preconceived view. Meanwhile, the ultraconservatives are forced to abrogate verses of the Quran without any proof for that, such as the verse that forbids compulsion in religion. Certainly, it is unacceptable to just abrogate verses that one does not agree with!
In other words, neither the ultraconservative Muslims nor the Islamophobes can make their case, i.e. that the Quran says to kill apostates, without having to get rid of certain Quranic verses, those that are abundantly clear that religious compulsion is forbidden. This in actuality shows the strength of the reformist view, namely that if one looks at the Quran as a whole, it mandates religious freedom.
Hypocrites Worse than Disbelievers
In the Quran, it is clear that the worst of mankind are the Hypocrites, a group of people who pretended to be Muslims but were really disbelievers in their hearts. They were a group that sought to destroy Islam from the inside. Reformists point out that forcing people into Islam–be they disbelievers or apostates–would create a legion of Hypocrites within the ranks of the Muslims, something far more dangerous than people simply peacefully following whatever religion they want. Dr. Jamal Badawi argues:
The fear of such assumed [capital] punishment [for apostasy] may lead many to hypocrisy; by pretending to remain Muslims just to save their lives. In the final analysis, hypocrisy is a greater danger to the community than apostasy in itself. Hypocrites may implode the Muslim community from within.
Reform-minded Muslims also point out the fact that there was a Bedouin who apostatized in the lifetime of the prophet Muhammad, leaving the Islamic city-state of Medina; he abandoned both his religious and national identity (as the two were fused back then). Instead of punishing the man, the prophet Muhammad simply replied by saying: “Medina is like a pair of bellows (i.e. a furnace): it expels its impurities and brightens and clears its good.” (Sahih al-Bukhari,Vol.9, No.316, pp.241) Reformists use this narration as a proof that someone leaving the religion is–in a way–a good thing: it purifies the religion from those weak in faith who could become Hypocrites. Is it not better to have a few strong believers rather than many weak Hypocrites?
Dr. Jamal Badawi notes that this incident involving the Bedouin took place after the Islamic city-state of Medina was up and running, so the Islamophobes cannot claim that this was before some mass abrogation of verses:
This incident took place in Madinah when Muslims were living in an independent Islamic “state,” where the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had full authority to implement Shari`ah law.
If indeed the “revealed” prescribed punishment for apostasy is death, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would have been the first to carry out the punishment. In fact, he did not even prescribe any punishment at all against that Bedouin, nor did he send any one to arrest him as an “apostate,” imprison, or ask him to recant or even reconsider his decision as later jurists prescribed. Nor is there any solid ground to claim that this and other similar hadiths were “abrogated.” In fact, these Hadiths are in conformity with the Qur’an and consistent with its central value of freedom of conscious and rejection of any compulsion in matters of faith (Al-Baqarah 2:256).
Nonsensical Defense
Some conservative Muslims argue that the death penalty for apostasy makes “perfect sense,” since “people choose to enter Islam knowing that it is a lifetime decision punishable by death” and therefore “it serves to ensure that their intention is strong” and “dissuades those weak in faith from entering it.”
Reform-minded Muslims argue that this argument is weak from many angles. It is negated by the fact that the conservative Muslims do not differentiate in this matter between converts to Islam and those born into the religion: in fact, some of the classical scholars opined that born Muslims who apostatize (murtad fitri) are more liable to punishment than those who had converted to Islam (murtad milli). The question reform-minded Muslims ask is: does a born Muslim get the chance to enter the religion knowing that he will be killed if he ever leaves it? The answer is of course no; one simply grows up following the religion of one’s parents; therefore, the justification that “apostates knew what they were getting into” falls flat on its face.
Reform-minded Muslims also say that it is quite simply common sense that people change their minds. This is quite obvious: one day a person thinks Islam is the religion for him, but maybe ten years down the line he doesn’t.
Additionally, reform-minded Muslims argue that killing an apostate robs him of the chance to repent later in life. There are for example many youth who leave religion only to come back to it in their elderly years when they become fearful of death and what follows that. A person who apostates today could become Islam’s best follower some day in the future.
Lastly, reform-minded Muslims point out that the Quranic principle is that God has granted humans free will: they have the right to accept Islam or reject it. Nobody can force them to do so. Why would God command Muslims to force people into Islam when it is He Himself Who gave people the ability to leave the religion?
An Important Clarification
Even if Fathima’s parents held the “traditional view,” this does not mean that they were going to kill her. In fact, the traditional view–as espoused by the classical scholars and now championed by the ultraconservatives–has always been that corporal punishments–such as killing of apostates–must be done by the government and not individuals.
Vigilante justice has always been strictly forbidden, and in fact severely punished. The second Caliph of Islam was in fact killed, and his son ended up killing the murderer, vigilante style. Even though his case seemed just, the Muslim authorities punished him for murder, due to it being vigilante justice outside the court system.
We can read this from ultraconservative Islamic websites themselves, which quote classical scholars; for example, the Saudi based Islam-QA strictly forbids “honor killing” on the grounds that it is vigilante justice:
Al-Qurtubi said:
There is no dispute among the scholars that qisaas (retaliatory punishments) such as execution cannot be carried out except by those in authority who are obliged to carry out the qisaas and carry out hadd punishments etc, because Allaah has addressed the command regarding qisaas to all the Muslims, and it is not possible for all the Muslims to get together to carry out the qisaas, which is why they appointed a leader who may represent them in carrying out the qisaas and hadd punishments.
Tafseer al-Qurtubi, 2/245, 246.
No one should carry out the hadd punishments without the permission of the ruler. If there is no ruler who rules according to sharee’ah then it is not permissible for the ordinary people to carry out the hadd [corporal] punishments. Whoever does that is sinning, because carrying out the hadd punishments requires examining the matter and requires shar’i knowledge in order to know the conditions of proof.
The ordinary people have no knowledge of such things, and the carrying out of one of the hadd punishments by the ordinary people leads to many evils and the loss of security, whereby people will attack one another and kill one another or chop off one another’s hands on the grounds that they are carrying out hadd punishments.
And that’s the opposite of a reformist site. So even they don’t advocate honor killings or vigilante justice. The point here is not to justify the ultraconservative view. Rather, it is simply to show that this entire thing has been a hyped up situation used to demonize Islam and Muslims in general. Most Western Muslims don’t believe in killing apostates, and even the small fraction that do don’t believe it can be done in the West.
Conclusion
The Quran does not at all say to kill apostates. As for the Hadiths, yes there are some texts which could be interpreted as such, but reform-minded Muslims believe that if you properly contextualize them, this is not the case. Furthermore, they believe that if a Hadith contradicts a basic tenet of the Quran, it is to be rejected; in other words, the Quran takes precedence over all other texts.
As for a parent forcing a child to convert to Islam, an explicit verse in the Quran rejects this practice, which was specifically revealed for a Muslim father who was trying to force his Christian daughters to accept Islam, a remarkably similar situation to what we see in the Fathima Rifqa Bary case today.
What seems apparent is that Fathima’s parents never threatened to kill her; rather, she was brainwashed by some Christian extremists (who by the way look down on the Christian mainstream) into thinking that Islam itself–and the Quran in particular–mandates death for apostates. Notice in her emotional interview that she clearly was of the view that: the Quran mandates it, ergo religious Muslims believe in it. This logic is faulty and problematic.
The Islamophobes have jumped on this opportunity to spread fear and hate, insisting that Islam is intrinsically culpable, a pagan and heathen religion incompatible with those who love Christ.
Yes, a legitimate criticism is that it is unfortunate that there are Muslims–even some big time scholars who are not ultraconservatives–hold onto this view. This is in fact a self-criticism that the reform-minded Muslims themselves engage in, and if the critics limited their input to this, there would have been no problem. But the Islamophobes wanted to impugn Islam as a whole, and the Muslims in generality.
The issue of apostasy is at “the heart of a burning debate among modern Muslims,” explained Sherman Jackson, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of Michigan. It is a time of reassessment, flux, and hopefully change. But to reduce that all down to “Muslims (or Islam) say that apostates are to be killed” is preposterous. Muslims are undergoing a soft reformation, led by the Western Muslims and the likes of Dr. Tariq Ramadan. But it will take time, just like Europe did not reform overnight.
Even if there happens to be a case of Muslim parents killing their children for changing religions, this shouldn’t be used as an example of what Islam advocates, or what Muslims in general think. Such demonization is altogether unhelpful and only helps to strengthen a binary worldview. If indeed such a case takes place (and they do from time to time), then the fault lies with the murderers, not Islam and not the Muslims in generality. Certainly we shouldn’t encourage extremists and xenophobes who seek to co-opt such tragedies for their own nefarious agendas of fear mongering and singling out of Muslims, who are already one of the most maligned minority groups in the West.
September 28th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Another extraordinary piece. It goes into the history with depth and analysis. I however, have the sneaking suspicion that this won’t be last word from crazed Islamophobes on apostasy.
I know except for in a few countries it is not on the books at all. The attempt to bring up sources from the past deny the ability of interpretation of faith to change. Good piece, and worth the read. Will comment again.
September 28th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Thank you, Ustadh. I added a big chunk under the Hadiths section. Please refresh and read that part again.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Thanks for taking the time to publish this, it is well-written, well-put.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Yea, I love how Islamophobes bring up the Ottoman penal code the middle ages to “prove” that Muslims still believe in enforcing Dhimmi’s, force conscripting Janisaries, and of course killing apostates….
September 28th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Wow. Very well researched! I’m impressed. I hope you guys are journalists and do this for fun on the side. We need people like you reporting the actual news. Will comment again.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
The writer of this article is using the crisis of a little 17-year old girl to capitalize on his own agenda.
Rifqa is in fear for her life period. She knows how to read her Bible better than writer of this article does.
Taking Old Testament Bible verses out of context doesn’t explain what is happening in the world TODAY, but the U.N. has some things to say about what is happening in the world TODAY:
5,000 “honour” killings estimated by the U.N.
http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2000/english/ch03.html
Islamaphobes? How about: Name-calling! Stirring up hatred for the sake of sensationalism!
It appears to me the writer of this article is attempting to verbally crucify this little girl.
Jesus loves you man! Rifqa loves you too! She forgives you because of the blindness that pervades your eyes just now.
The writer of this article does not know what he is saying.
Nonetheless, Jesus wants you to open up your heart and call on Him to be your Messiah. He is knocking at the door of your heart. Just pray and ask Jesus to save you. He will do the rest.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Yet again they misquote all the verses of the Quran,and they are not the only ones!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2462603/Commonly-Misquoted-Verses-From-the-Quran
September 29th, 2009 at 7:10 am
Hi A.W. Messenger,
The “5,000 honor killings” are a serious problem, no doubt. However, the Islamophobes are trying to conflate “honor killings” with “apostasy killings,” when this is clearly not the case.
What are honor killings? They are when a family kills a girl in their family for having sexual relations outside of marriage. They have NOTHING to do with apostasy.
So to bring up this magic number of 5,000 is simply trying to sensationalize the issue (which ironically you have accused me of doing).
Honor killings are strictly forbidden in Islam, and is a cultural phenomenon that exists in many Non-Muslim areas as well. Having said that, one cannot deny that the problem is something that Muslims have to do deal with head on, and it does seem that they are tackling this issue in their communities.
As for what you said about the Old Testament, let’s be clear here: nowhere am I going around yelling “the Bible (and Christians) believe that apostate children are to be killed!” Rather, I am saying that if we employ the same methodology of Ms. Fathima Rifqa Bary (who no doubt is acting under the influence of the cult she is in, i.e. the Global Revolution Church), then by the same token one could do this to the book she herself holds as holy.
Let’s be clear: we here at LW are a bunch of laid-back “live, and let live” types who wouldn’t dare malign anybody’s faith, including Christianity. If you want my view of what Christianity is as practiced by the vast majority of Christians: it’s a religion of love. My issue here is only the double standard towards what others believe is the religion of peace.
Sincerely,
Danios.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Danios, you are a terrific researcher/blogger and loonwatch.com is a gem of a site. For years I have been reading trash on Islam and Muslims on the blogosphere and wondering what the other side had to say if there was another side. So glad to have come across this site, it is a true educational experience for me. Everybody share it with your friends, if they’re like mine, they need to read this stuff!
September 29th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Thanks, Jake!
September 29th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Lorgan, didn’t you look at the wonderful cartoon comic at the top of the page? Reform-minded Muslims are fighting such “Talibanization” as has taken place in Afghanistan. Like we said in the article, colonization has created a conservative backlash in the Muslim world, with some countries rejecting the reformist Ottoman view and going back to the hardliner opinion on the issue.
Instead of demonizing the entire religion and everyone who is a part of it, you should realize that neither Islam or Muslims is/are monolithic.
Reform-minded Muslims recognize that this issue–of freedom of religion for everyone (including apostates)–is something that must be fought for. There is an internal battle in Islam between the reformists and ultraconservatives. This is not a battle between the West and Islam. It is a battle between two interpretations and understandings of the same religion.
One other note: I did not say that “Islam is the religion of peace.” I believe such comments are largely useless, since the real question is: “whose Islam?” Certainly there are peaceful interpretations and understandings of Islam.
We here at LW hope that Ali A. Rizvi is released and granted his freedom.
Sincerely,
Danios.-
September 29th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
“Rifqa is in fear for her life period.”
Actually that’s true to a degree and no I’m not talking about her parents; there was a ‘we need to kill rifqa’ facebook group that had over a hundred members before being shut down.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Barry:
Anyone can create a facebook page pretending to be someone they are not. Pamela Geller can easily create a facebook account with that description. As for their being “over a hundred members” in it, are you automatically assuming that they are all people who think Fathima Bary needs to be killed? In fact, people routinely join facebook groups in order to debate with the creators of the facebook group.
I am sure you were equally incensed by Robert Spencer joining a genocidal facebook group, right? (Read here: http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/09/the-blog-wars-charles-johnson-takes-on-robert-spencer-for-hanging-out-with-the-extremists/ )
Spencer argues that the facebook page was created as a trick. The Islamophobes with your views jumped to his defense. I’m sure you will apply the same standards here, right?
Were any arrests made based on the facebook page? Can you cite any mainstream media outlet that reported any arrests made for death threats made against Fathima Rifqa Barry? After all, if you threaten someone with death on facebook, that’s a crime. So if the page was real–and the guy who created was really a Muslim–then where are the arrests? Or is this another conspiracy and a further sign of the “dhimmitude” of all of the authorities involved in the case?
Anyways, I think all of this exposes the Global Revolution Church pastor’s idiocy. Let’s say I actually believe him that Fathima’s life is at risk. (I don’t.) Do people–whose lives are at risk from groups of extremists–wish for their faces to be splashed all over the media? The pastor made no attempts to hide her identity even though she is a minor. Instead he put her video up on youtube for his own propaganda against Mooooozlims.
This is another indication that the girl’s life was never at risk; if it had been, they would have sought to keep her identity hidden. But the pastor doesn’t really care about her, and is just exploiting her. In fact, he is the one who put her in harm’s way by putting her in the spotlight. If some disgruntled Muslim extremist were now to hurt her–or even a Christian who wanted to “prove” that her life was in danger–well, is that not a consequence of using her as some religious holy war icon in the media? What other better way to anger extremists than to have Fathima attack Islam publicly?
Certainly nobody here denies the existence of extremists. Are her parents now suddenly responsible for the existence of any extremists anywhere? The entire attitude of the Islamophobes is: (1) Her parents want to kill her, (2) Ok if they don’t, then her mosque wants to kill her, (3) or surrounding Muslims want to kill her, (4) Damn it, someone wants to kill her!
This is a simple issue: did her parents wish to kill her? The authorities have said no and that her life was in no danger. Case closed. Could her life NOW be in danger due to the Islamophobes using this whole incident to incite a holy war? Possibly. But even if that is the case, she should be sent back to her family and protected over there.
Barry, your other post was a huge rant so I did not approve it. You are welcome to resubmit it, but only one point at a time. I don’t have the time or energy to write an entire refutation post just for you. So keep it one point at a time. You can eventually submit all your points, but by doing it one at at a time, I can respond to you after each one of them. You obviously didn’t even read the article, since you brought up Hadiths like “Whoever changes his religion, then kill him,” even though I dealt with that extensively. You’re obviously not here to learn; you’re here to hate.
Sincerely,
Danios.
September 29th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
“Anyone can create a facebook page pretending to be someone they are not. Pamela Geller can easily create a facebook account with that description. As for their being “over a hundred members” in it, are you automatically assuming that they are all people who think Fathima Bary needs to be killed? In fact, people routinely join facebook groups in order to debate with the creators of the facebook group.”
There wasn’t any debate and I think in a group with over a hundred members, there’s at least a few psychos willing to kill her even if it’s all talk and posing you have to admit it’s quite disturbing and worth mentioning.
“I am sure you were equally incensed by Robert Spencer joining a genocidal facebook group, right? (Read here: http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/09/the-blog-wars-charles-johnson-takes-on-robert-spencer-for-hanging-out-with-the-extremist”
Yeah but this isn’t about spencer, I’m not interested in that sad little man who is in dire need of a shave.
“Spencer argues that the facebook page was created as a trick. The Islamophobes with your views jumped to his defense. I’m sure you will apply the same standards here, right?”
I don’t see how anyone could be ‘tricked’ into joining a facebook group, I haven’t read any of spencer’s books and I don’t read jihadwatch.
“Were any arrests made based on the facebook page? Can you cite any mainstream media outlet that reported any arrests made for death threats made against Fathima Rifqa Barry? After all, if you threaten someone with death on facebook, that’s a crime. So if the page was real–and the guy who created was really a Muslim–then where are the arrests? Or is this another conspiracy and a further sign of the “dhimmitude” of all of the authorities involved in the case?”
My point is that it’s quite possible that at least some of those people are willing to murder her and it’s worth mentioning.
“This is another indication that the girl’s life was never at risk; if it had been, they would have sought to keep her identity hidden. But the pastor doesn’t really care about her, and is just exploiting her. In fact, he is the one who put her in harm’s way by putting her in the spotlight. If some disgruntled Muslim extremist were now to hurt her–or even a Christian who wanted to “prove” that her life was in danger–well, is that not a consequence of using her as some religious holy war icon in the media? What other better way to anger extremists than to have Fathima attack Islam publicly?”
Interesting point, but I doubt that cult has the brains to start a holy war.
“Certainly nobody here denies the existence of extremists. Are her parents now suddenly responsible for the existence of any extremists anywhere? The entire attitude of the Islamophobes is: (1) Her parents want to kill her, (2) Ok if they don’t, then her mosque wants to kill her, (3) or surrounding Muslims want to kill her, (4) Damn it, someone wants to kill her!”
So nobody in that facebook groups wants to murder her? I find that somewhat hard to believe that there’s not at least one person in that group who wants to murder her.
“But even if that is the case, she should be sent back to her family and protected over there.”
Agreed.
“Barry, your other post was a huge rant so I did not approve it.”
Your post was large hence my reply was large. Also why did you approve the poorly spelled historically inaccurate supremacist rants by SugaNSpice and Karon Terah in the Pam Geller post? And why did you approve the anti-semitic rant by Salah udeen Al Ayoubi Lives in the link below?
http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/09/hate-mail-of-the-day-from-ed-clark/
“Bolshevik Jews have killed more Christians than the other way round, yet where is the outrage?”
That’s one of the oldest anti-semitic cliches out there, plus he brings up Geller and Green’s Jewish backgrounds for no reason other than his anti-semitism.
“You obviously didn’t even read the article, since you brought up Hadiths like “Whoever changes his religion, then kill him,” even though I dealt with that extensively.”
That wasn’t the only verse I posted.
“You’re obviously not here to learn; you’re here to hate.”
I don’t hate anyone, I’m simply critical of islam and religion in general, I’m also critical of that terrible movie Boondock Saints, but that doesn’t mean I hate BS fans. Also by that logic you’re an anti-semite (fyi I don’t think you are) for criticizing Israel, see how silly that argument is? Debates should take place without attempts to paint someone as a bigot, sane criticism of islam isn’t bigotry. The difference between sane criticism and bigotry of course is nonsense like joining genocidial groups, wanting to tax people for wearing a cloth on their heads, Geller’s babble and so on.
September 30th, 2009 at 2:03 am
Barry, do I think it’s possible that out of the millions of Muslims in America, there might be one or two extremists who NOW want to kill her? Sure. But let’s remember that the threat didn’t exist for Fathima until she was thrust into the spotlight by her pastor. But I’m glad you agree with me that her identity should have been hidden and that she should remain with her parents, with authorities giving her protection if they deem it necessary.
So I agree with you that’s it completely possible that there might be one or two–or maybe three or four–crazy Muslim extremists who want to kill her, but I would also say that there are some Christian extremists and Islamophobes who pray that she dies so that she can be used as a martyr. In fact, I would say that the Muslims are praying harder for her safety because they know her death will mean bad news for the Muslim community as a whole, just as the backlash of 9/11 was horrible for them.
As for your complaints that an antisemitic rant was accepted but not your post, all I can say is that I have not seen that article or comment. Every member of LW has his/her own style of “moderating” and I think I’m stricter when it comes to moderating than others. You will never see an antisemitic rant or such comment in my articles. So maybe other mods would have tolerated your rant but I don’t. For the record, I didn’t snip your post because it was deemed “Islamophobic” but rather because it brought up multiple points in a bullet form which really would make it difficult for me to reply to all of them at once.
As for your claim that you are “simply critical of Islam and religion in general,” I could honestly care less for militant atheists/agnostics, which your rant (the one I snipped) showed you to be. Militant atheists/agnostics to me are as useless as religious extremists. They bash religions just like Islamic extremists bash Christianity, and Christian extremists bash Islam. If you want to be an atheist/agnostic, certainly that’s your right, but don’t be militant about it. Many atheists/agnostics have realized that many of them have adopted the same odious characteristics and traits (chauvinism, intolerance, etc.) that religious people have, which was one of the causes of their consternation towards religion in the first place! An Animal Farm like irony of course.
Don’t get me wrong: there are plenty of well-balanced atheists/agnostics; I’m only talking about the militant ones here. (And I use the term “militant” metaphorically here.) Many religious studies and history departments are full of well-balanced atheists/agnostics, so this is not at all a criticism of atheists/agnostics in general.
One more point: comparing criticism of Israel to criticism of Islam is not correct. Criticizing Judaism is the same as criticizing Islam, and criticizing Israel is the same as criticizing Iran. When it comes to religions, you need to exhibit more tolerance and softness. But the reality is that you don’t follow a religion so you think that gives you a pass to trample religions in general; show some compassion and realize it’s ok to show some tolerance towards something you don’t follow.
So my advice to you is to calm down: you’re at a 10 when you need to be at a 2. There is nothing wrong with intellectual, nuanced, and sophisticated critiques of religions. But bashing and wholesale attacking is certainly not helpful and only makes you look as stupid as the religious people who go around saying intolerant things about people of other faiths.
Let’s have some mutual respect and tolerance for people of all faiths (or no faith at all).
Sincerely,
Danios.
September 30th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Barry Lyndon,
We do not approve anti-Semitic rants, where ever they have (rarely) popped up we have moderated and deleted those comments and also sent out strong warnings to commenters regarding that or banned them altogether. Furthermore, our policy on moderating is that we moderate off topic comments and racist comments. So such an accusation on LW is a very unfair one, meant to attempt to delegitimize the site.
Looking at Salahdi post in the article I agree that it is an over the top accusation. We allow over the top accusations about Islam and Muslims here as well, as long is it stays within the parameters of not going over the line calling for genocide or racism. I agree that it is an inaccurate statement as well that ignores historical context and other factors but if we were to moderate everyone of those comments we would have moderated a lot of your inaccurate comments as well.
September 30th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
What most people fail to understand is that for Christians the Hebrew Bible’s only purpose and use is to legitimize the Messiahship of Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior based on interpretations of “Old Testament” prophecy. Any mention of violence in it can be completely overruled by statements such as “Jesus gave us the New Testament and made the Old Testament obsolete”, or “Jesus is love”. Some scholars argue that the Earliest Jewish Christians (who some believe to the Ebionites) did not view Jesus as G-D but simply as the awaited Jewish Messiah (not a G-d in Jewish terms simply a very righteous leader who would herald the Messianic Age on earth). Unfortunately if he was the awaited Messiah, him dying on the Cross was not a good look for them thus ideology had to changed (by Jewish Christians or Gentiles?)
September 30th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Hi Stan,
The point of the article was that Christians have a method of “explaining away” the verses in the Bible I mentioned, so if one accepts that, then one should also accept that Muslims have a way to explain the Hadiths which are so often quoted by Islamophobes.
The problem arises when Islamophobes completely accept the explanations given by Christians (”that’s the Old Testament”) but cannot tolerate any explanation by Muslims (”based on other Hadiths, we believe only apostates guilty of high treason are to be killed, not peaceful apostates”). So this leads to the situation where Muslims are “called to task” for all their canonical texts which are controversial, but Christians and people of other faiths are given a free pass. It’s a double standard.
Sincerely,
Danios.
September 30th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Also the fuss over Fathima smacks of sexism to me; they assume that she’s a victim and her father’s subhuman because of gender, no doubt they have juvenile fantasies of ‘rescuing’ her. It’s same sort of mentality that’s led to people believing accusations of rape or child abuse without any proof.
September 30th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
“We do not approve anti-Semitic rants, where ever they have (rarely) popped up we have moderated and deleted those comments and also sent out strong warnings to commenters regarding that or banned them altogether. Furthermore, our policy on moderating is that we moderate off topic comments and racist comments. So such an accusation on LW is a very unfair one, meant to attempt to delegitimize the site.
Looking at Salahdi post in the article I agree that it is an over the top accusation. We allow over the top accusations about Islam and Muslims here as well, as long is it stays within the parameters of not going over the line calling for genocide or racism. I agree that it is an inaccurate statement as well that ignores historical context and other factors but if we were to moderate everyone of those comments we would have moderated a lot of your inaccurate comments as well.”
Fair enough, I’m sorry.
September 30th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Just to clarify what I said earlier about moderating comments, I didn’t mean to imply that any other mods on this site would condone antisemitic remarks. Every single member of LW opposes antisemitism; we were formed on the basis of fighting bigotry. What I meant was simply that other mods may not wish to moderate comments due to freedom of speech reasons, i.e. to promote unfettered debate. I should have made that clear earlier.
September 30th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
I understand and I’m sorry.
October 1st, 2009 at 2:36 am
Honour killings happen all over the world, including the west.
When a man kills his wife for having an affair that is called a honour killing.
Honour killings are wide-spread in India, but this is hardly ever reported, it is not specific to religion or a region of the world.
October 2nd, 2009 at 4:28 am
Wow, Danios,
Is there a way that an atheist/agnostic could criticize the Quran or Islam without you labeling him or her “militant”? As an atheist, I am interested in the content of your response.
Next, let’s have a look at the full quote of one of the clips you presented, plus the next verse, which for whatever reasons you left out:
2:256 “There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
2:257 Allah is the Protecting Guardian of those who believe. He bringeth them out of darkness into light. As for those who disbelieve, their patrons are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness. Such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein.”
The Quran says people will be burned in the Fire, presumably in the afterlife or on Judgement Day, because they “disbelieve,” i.e., because they are not believers. That seems disproportionate and intolerant. I would imagine that this would be a painful, torturous punishment. It doesn’t seem fair to me, nor would I wish this upon anyone, nor would I agree to become a member of a group that endorsed such a punishment.
It doesn’t make much sense, either.
First of all, what does “no compulsion in religion” mean, if disbelievers in the very next verse are threatened with torture by fire if they don’t become believers? How does this square with modern notions of religious/non-religious freedom? If punishing people for their religious/non-religious beliefs is unjust in this life, how is it deemed to be just in the next? If it’s bad when people administer the punishments, why isn’t it bad when Allah administers the punishments?
Second, if the right or true direction is in fact clear from error, then why does this not seem obvious to those who are not believers and remain non-believers after they’ve read the Quran? Moreover, if the right or true direction is so clearly distinct from error, then why threaten disbelievers with the penalty of hell-fire for not believing in this religion?
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:07 am
Questioner:
Your post is ridiculous. This is not a religious website, and I’m not here to promote one religion over another.
The point of the article is that there is no worldly punishment for disbelieving/apostasy, only a heavenly one. Yes, Muslims do believe that ‘kufaar’ (the word translated in the Quran as ‘disbeliever’) suffer a bad fate in the next life, but Islam is no different than other religions in this regard, such as Christianity, in which those who do not find Christ will be punished with eternal damnation.
Having said that, not all Non-Muslims are considered ‘kufaar’ by Muslims. The term means ‘to cover up the truth’, so it refers to those who cover up the truth of God…not all Non-Muslims. To be clear: Muslims do NOT believe that all Non-Muslims are going to Hell.
Sincerely,
Danios.
October 3rd, 2009 at 12:14 am
Danios, you wrote:
D: “Your post is ridiculous.”
That’s not very friendly.
D: “This is not a religious website, and I’m not here to promote one religion over another.”
The content of this website is mainly about defending Islam from specific categories of critics. Islam is a religion. The apostasy penalty at issue is the one associated with Islam.
D: “The point of the article is that there is no worldly punishment for disbelieving/apostasy, only a heavenly one.”
Regarding 2:256, which you cited in your article, I quoted it fully and the following verse to provide some context. In relating this to the issue of the earthly penalty, I asked “If punishing people for their religious/non-religious beliefs is unjust in this life, how is it deemed to be just in the next? If it’s bad when people administer the punishments, why isn’t it bad when Allah administers the punishments?”
You may not wish to answer these questions here, but they are relevant to the issue of the earthly penalty (on the issue of consistency of principles).
“To be clear: Muslims do NOT believe that all Non-Muslims are going to Hell.”
Are you speaking for all Muslims? I haven’t seen survey data on this issue, but if you can cite some, please do. In any case, I did not address the issue of “Muslims” as distinguished from other “believers” that might arguably be included according to some interpretations of the Quran.
That said, and not asking you to speak for all Muslims, which non-believers do you believe are going to hell? You accept that apostates from Islam are going to hell, right? How about Polytheists? Atheists? Agnostics? Who are called “kufaar” in the Quran?
October 3rd, 2009 at 6:21 am
Dear Questioner,
“If it’s bad when people administer the punishments, why isn’t it bad when Allah administers the punishments?”
A Muslim would argue that God alone has the ability to judge people’s souls and determine who is and who is not a kafir. Since not all Non-Muslims are kafirs–and since some Muslims may also be kafirs–this ability is only with God, reason Muslims. Let me put it this way: a murderer is to be put to death, but only after a fair trial and by the proper authorities–not by vigilantes. Similarly, Muslims believe that the ultimate punishment can only be done after a fair trial in God’s court–so to speak–and only by God.
Muslims believe that you canNOT point to any single person and say ’so-and-so is a kafir and will go to hell.’ This ability, they believe, rests with God alone.
Sincerely,
Danios.
October 3rd, 2009 at 9:50 am
All posts in regards to the Ottoman Empire (including my own) were deleted for being off-topic. Keep on point. This article is about Fathima Rifqa Bary’s claim that the Quran says to kill apostates. So keep the conversation to this topic.
If you think I’m censoring too much, my response is simple: too bad, oh so sad. I don’t want the Islamophobes to derail this conversation.
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:42 am
The thing is it is also professors of Islam who are even are criticized as being Islam apologists like Princeton Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies, Bernard Lewis who say the punishment for apostasy is death:
“Islam is not so much a matter of orthodoxy as of orthopraxy. It is what you do, not what you believe, that matters. Only God, it was argued, can judge sincerity in belief. What you do is a social fact and of concern to constituted authority. What Islam has generally asked of its believers is not textual accuracy in belief, but loyalty to the community and its constituted leader. This has led to a broad tolerance of deviation, until the point when it becomes disloyalty, easily equated with treason, or when it becomes seditious and subversive, a danger to the existing social and political order. When that happens, before very long the deviant crosses a boundary - not between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, which is relatively unimportant, but between Islam and apostasy. When deviation in belief reaches that point, it becomes an issue of law, a matter for action. And apostasy, according to all schools of Muslim jurisprudence, is a capital offense.” (p.124-125, The Multiple Identities of the Middle East).
At the end of the day I don’t think it matters as much what non-Muslims believe as much as what Muslims believe. Apostates from Islam face the possibility of death from Muslims who follow any of the four schools of Muslim jurisprudence. I hope itheir influence on this matter will change and reform Muslims are the majority, but until then it is what those Muslims believe and are willing to carry out against apostates that is of concern.
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:58 am
Dear TYO:
What Bernard Lewis said was with regard to the traditional opinion. But things have changed and certainly most Western Muslims have adopted the opinion that apostasy is a crime punishable by God, not man.
“Apostates from Islam face the possibility of death from Muslims who follow any of the four schools of Muslim jurisprudence.”
This is false. Following one of the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence does NOT at all entail that one must believe that apostates are to be killed. There are plenty of Muslim scholars who follow one of the four schools of thought and yet believe that apostasy has no earthly punishment. I have addressed this topic in the article; please read it.
Sincerely,
Danios.
October 3rd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
A case of divine judgment there I think Danios. Nice one mate, you really are a joke. Is that ‘on-topic’?
October 4th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Danios,
Thanks for that polite reply. I see you are being a good sport in fielding my questions, so there’s no need for the formalities. I’ll bring this back to Rifqa Bary and the apostasy penalty issue, and wrap up my visit with some comments and a suggestion.
What Rifqa claims the Quran says about apostasy penalty is of course an interpretation. One may speculate about how she arrived at that interpretation. One may debate the validity of that interpretation, and there are considerable variations. Because interpretation is a key issue here, what we need is a review of whatever polling and survey studies have been done on what Muslims believe about this. What percentage of Muslims believe, as Rifqa believes, that Islam does support the death penalty for apostasy, and what percentage believe that it does not support such a penalty? I’m not aware of any poll data specifically on American Muslims’ beliefs on this, but I have not searched extensively. The debates about the validity of the competing interpretations will go on and on. In light of all of this back-and-forth, it would be helpful to be able to estimate the actual percentages of Muslims with one opinion or the other on this issue. So my suggestion is this: if it is possible, supplement this extensive article with some empirical studies of Muslims’ beliefs on the apostasy penalty–if such studies are available.
P.S. With these results regarding beliefs, one would also have to look at practice/behavior. How many Muslim majority countries today have the death penalty for apostasy? Are there precedents in the West for apostates being killed by vigilantes and what is the rate?
October 4th, 2009 at 6:48 am
“What Bernard Lewis said was with regard to the traditional opinion. But things have changed and certainly most Western Muslims have adopted the opinion that apostasy is a crime punishable by God, not man.”
I am glad that most Western Muslims don’t believe that. Lewis may be talking about the traditional opinion as you’ve labeled it, but he makes no such distinction in his writing.
The four schools are unanimous about apostasy being a capital offense according to his book: “When that happens, before very long the deviant crosses a boundary - not between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, which is relatively unimportant, but between Islam and apostasy. When deviation in belief reaches that point, it becomes an issue of law, a matter for action. And apostasy, according to all schools of Muslim jurisprudence, is a capital offense.”
My question is now those in the four schools whom you say don’t think apostasy has an earthly punishment, how influential are they in the four schools? Have they managed to officially change the jurisprudence decision? If it has not yet been officially changed, what are the chances of that happening in all four schools? Those four schools may be considered traditional by some, but unfortunately traditional doesn’t necessarily mean obsolete.
It would be helpful to know how many Muslims believe in the traditional four schools of Muslim jurisprudence that apostasy is a capital offense, versus I guess reform Muslims within and without the four schools who say there is no earthly punishment?
October 4th, 2009 at 6:49 am
Correction, Lewis didn’t say four schools, he wrote all schools.
October 4th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Hey Questioner,
Now you’ve made a very reasonable post and we can have a conversation.
The thing is this: even the Muslims who believe that apostates should be killed believe that it must be done by the government, nobody else. Please read the part of the article where I mention this.
My main issue with Fathima Rifqa Bary is this: even if her parents really did threaten to kill her for converting to Christianity, she should have had the sense to say that her parents are Islamic extremists. Instead, she was CLEARLY trying to attack Islam and Muslims in general, evidenced by her statements: ‘you don’t know this religion’ and incendiary things like that, which were designed specifically to attack Islam and Muslims as a whole.
Clearly she is under the influence of her pastor, the one who espouses a binary ‘us vs them’ view of the world, and who believes that the End of Times is here, which will culminate in the battle between good (Christians) and evil (Muslims).
The reality is that both Christianity–just like Islam–has its moderates and extremists, and it seems that Fathima’s parents are the moderates in this case and the pastor is the extremist.
Look, if your criticism was that far too many Muslims believe in the traditional opinion instead of the reformist opinion, then we could start having a conversation. Like I said in the article, that’s a self-criticism of many reform-minded Muslims themselves. It’s when you go beyond that and start attacking Islam and Muslims wholesale that there is a problem. The question is: when you give criticism are you trying to help or only trying to demonize? It’s all about intentions.
Sincerely,
Danios.
October 4th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Dear TYO:
Thanks for your very reasonable post. You asked some very good questions.
Like Questioner, you asked me what percentage of Western Muslims believe in the traditional or reformist opinion. I don’t know. Dr. Tariq Ramadan in one of his books did mention some percentages but I do not know if he was just guesstimating them or if he was referring to some actual statistics. He basically said that of the Muslims in the West 75% of them are non-observant, “irreligious”, agnostics/atheists, and/or just “culturally Muslim.” Twenty-five percent are religious, and he says that most of them are reform-minded.
Muslims tend to discuss issues when they are confronted with a situation which forces them to reassess the matter. Due to recent world events and the intense news coverage of Islam, Muslims are being forced to reassess traditional opinions. Reform-minded Muslims have done ijtihad and come out with these new opinions, but they are now facing a theological war with the ultraconservatives. As you said, traditional does not necessarily mean obsolete. Rather, for ultraconservatives the traditional opinion is the ONLY opinion.
So we are now witnessing the theological and ideological battle that is going on within Islam between the reformists and the ultraconservatives. As to where it will end up, one can only guess, but I think that in the end it will result in a powerful reform-minded group that will dominate, although the ultraconservatives will continue to operate in isolated pockets. As the reform-minded group becomes more influential, various Muslim governments will give support to it, due to wanting to placate international opinion.
As for your last question, I can just say this: a scholar following one of the four schools (or any school) does not at all affect if they are reform-minded or ultraconservative.
Sincerely,
Danios.
October 4th, 2009 at 9:35 am
I hope that reform minded Muslims will dominate to the point that all the schools of Muslim jurisprudence then say apostasy is not a capital offense.
Since this is the time of theological and ideological battle, Rifqa isn’t completely wrong in worrying that a Muslim who believes that the traditional opinion by all the schools of Muslim jursiprudence is the only opinion could harm her. She is fortunate that this is less likely in the Western world, most likely is safe, but since no school currently says otherwise I do think we cannot say there is no threat for her.
I wish the reformers much luck in winning this debate with their fellow Muslims. This will be a wonderful thing for them all in my opinion.
October 4th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Hey TYO:
Thanks for your post. Yes, I also hope that the reformist opinion becomes the only acceptable position amongst Muslims as a whole. However, I don’t think you quite understand the issue of schools of jurisprudence. But I’ll leave it for now since it would require too much explanation.
Having said that, I must forcefully reject that Rifqa wasn’t completely wrong. She was 110% wrong. She said that according to the Quran, her parents have to kill her. No Muslim scholar has this view, not even the most ultraconservative scholar in the world. Even the most ultraconservative traditionalist Muslim scholar would condemn such an action, since it is rigorously established that only a government can enforce capital punishment. So Rifqa was 110% wrong.
Not only was she wrong, but she is quite frankly ignorant and a bit unintelligent, because the book she herself so strongly believes in has those verses (not the Quran), which make her entire attack ironic. Furthermore, to add to her “wrongness,” she doesn’t know that honor killings have nothing to do with apostasy. Like I said, she seems ignorant in general. She is after all only 17 years old, yet she thinks she has the entire world figured out.
But I do thank you for your sensible tone, and I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph.
Sincerely,
Danios.
October 10th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Firstly, I fully applaud reform-minded Muslims who want to bring Islam into the 21st Century, and removing the death penalty for apostasy is a very good start.
However, despite the voluminous evidence presented here (not all of which I read), it might still be the case that Rifqa’s parents are still of the “old-school” frame of mind and want to kill her.
I mean, even the word “reform-minded” means there’s something to reform, and it may just be the case that Rifqa’s life is, indeed, in danger. Her parents might want to conflate “honor killing” with apostasy killing, because after all, wouldn’t an apostate harm the honor of a pious Muslim family?
October 10th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Proud Loon:
“However, despite the voluminous evidence presented here (not all of which I read), it might still be the case that Rifqa’s parents are still of the “old-school” frame of mind and want to kill her.”
The issue is that even the “old-school” does not endorse killing your child if he/she converts to another faith. Please see article.
Sincerely,
Danios.
October 20th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
This whole thing makes me sick, Danios. This is not a scriptural thing. Quit being so obtuse. This is not even a question of religious tolerance. This is a domestic situation and people should butt the hell out. You’re no better than the Islamophobes who attack the Bary family.
Granted, it’s disgusting that they would baptize the young girl against the wish of her parents. They should have waited a few months, until she was an adult.
That said, this is about a 17 year old girl who has run away from home. Girls don’t do that on a whim. I can say that there were plenty of times where the authorities found no reason to to suspect abuse when there was absolutely abuse.
The focus needs to be on the welfare of the girl, not putting “loons” in their place.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:23 am
Nofau,
“The focus needs to be on the welfare of the girl, not putting “loons” in their place.”
The girl herself is the one who attacked Islam and Muslims wholesale, instead of limiting it to just her parents.
Your comment is therefore inappropriate.
-Danios.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:55 am
Does anyone know which version was being taught in the mosque, and how well did the teachers there explain what happens to apostates?
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Danios says of “The Reliance of the Traveler” (Umdat al-Salik, A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law):
The text was written hundreds of years ago in the medieval era. The absurdity of using it as some sort of proof against contemporary Muslims is absurd. Muslims do not consider this book to be religiously binding upon them. The words of the classical scholars are not considered a part of the Islamic canon.
The “Umdat has four “Documents” after its introduction attesting to both the accuracy of the text and to its currency. For example, the Islamic Research Academy of al-Azhar University of Cairo — the ancient and most respected seat of Islamic learning — states: “…we certify that the.. translation corresponds to the Arabic original and confirms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community” and the International Institute of Islamic Thought says: “…a valuable and important work, whether as a textbook for teaching Islamic jurisprudence to English speakers or as a legal reference for use by scholars, educated laymen, and students in this language…. The book will be of great use in Southeast Asia in particular and in America, Britain and Canada.”
These Documents were written and appended to the Umdat in February 1991 and December 1990 respectively. So it cannot be correct to say that “The words of the classical scholars are not considered a part of the Islamic canon”. They are very much so, not on my say-so, but on that of respected Islamic scholarship.
What the “Umdat” says on apostasy is:
f1.3: “Someone raised amongst Muslims who denies the obligations of the prayer, zakat, fasting Ramadan… thereby becomes an unbeliever (kafir) and is executed for his unbelief”.
o8.2: “When a person has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.”
These are clear, canonical statements with current effect. Nota bene: this is not me saying this; it is the classic canon of Islamic jurisprudence, certified by the highest Islamic authorities. It may well be that there is discussion and debate in the Muslim community (as well there should be!), but the task of the would-be reformer is made rather difficult in the face of these clear and unambiguous statements of what the currentpunishments for apostasy must be.
Even if there is this debate in the Muslim community, even if it is “the heart of a burning debate among modern Muslims” according to Sherman Jackson (above), doesn’t that in itself tell us something?? That in the 21st century we’re having a “burning debate” about whether or not it’s ok to kill someone for changing their religious belief should surely give us pause. For in the rest of the world, that debate was over centuries ago. And if prof Bassiouni exemplifies the quality of the “moderates’” case, there’s a long way to go — I read all of his exchange with Spencer and found it wanting at best, specious and disingenuous at worst. In the end, he picked up his bat and left the field, head bowed.
There are many other points in the blog above which are wanting. More later, maybe….
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Peter:
Please read articles carefully before commenting on them; that way, points will not need to be repeated. I already acknowledged that the Reliance of the Traveler is used in orthodox schools, just as the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas is still used today in Catholic schools. As I’ve already mentioned in the article (please read it carefully!), the Summa Theologica also says that apostates are to be killed. And yes, that book is used by Catholics up until this day as an orthodox guide to their doctrine.
The fact that a group recognizes an ancient book as an orthodox manual does not at all mean that they take every single word of it without question. Rather, they can agree with it in general, and disagree with it on points. In fact, this typifies the Islamic tradition, with absolutely no book after the Quran being beyond question. You will in fact find ancient Islamic texts which differ with the Reliance of the Traveler on many points, so what makes you think that contemporary Muslims cannot do that? In fact, it is well known that in the Islamic tradition, a student would oftentimes take differing opinions than his own teacher, and even debate and refute him.
Your next claim is that Al-Azhar has approved of the text. This is a case in point of what I said in the above paragraph. Yes, Al-Azhar approves the text, but didn’t I already write in my article that Al-Azhar issued a fatwa in 1958 firmly opposing the death penalty for apostates? Again, please read the article so that our time is not wasted. Al-Azhar approving of the text is no different than the Pope and Catholic Church approving of the Summa Theologica. In fact, Al-Azhar has approved many books that contradict each other on many views.
“That in the 21st century we’re having a ‘burning debate’ about whether or not it’s ok to kill someone for changing their religious belief should surely give us pause.”
Like I said, the Ottoman Empire had long since abandoned the death penalty for apostasy. After colonization, the Muslim world was reduced into third world countries. So you might be living in the 21st century in your nice Western country, but the developing world lags behind. It goes to reason that the expression of a religion is affected by this. The Christianity that is practiced in America is far different than the Christianity practiced in Nigeria. For example, a mob of Nigerian Christians killed an atheist at a witchcraft conference:
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/08/01/nigerian-atheist-attacked-by-a-mob-of-christians-at-a-child-witchcraft-conference/
Should we know impugn all of Christianity–all of the Christians–simply because of this?
Yes, I agree with you that you live in the 21st century. But the developing world is still living hundreds of years ago, with 1.5 billion people living under the poverty line.
Sincerely,
Danios.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:27 am
Danios,
I wonder why you have not posted my latest comment in answer to your post above?
October 27th, 2009 at 3:01 am
Because it was too long and I do not have time to respond to huge posts by people who refuse to read my article in the first place. Keep your post short, raise only one point at a time instead of a series of points, and most importantly please make sure that I haven’t already dealt with your point in my article.
In your last post, there were once again points I had already addressed but which you seem to have missed. I do not have the time to repeat myself, as that will only hamper my ability to post new articles aimed at Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Bat Ye’or, and Pam Geller.
As I have said in other threads on this site, I have a more rigid policy of moderation than other mods here. The Jihad Watch type crew has a lot of foot-soldiers who can force me to waste my time responding to them, but I don’t care to do that. I want to debate Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Bat Ye’or, and Pam Geller directly. So if any of them post rebuttals to my articles on their sites, then I will reply in great detail. Quite frankly, I don’t have the time to waste on you.
-Danios.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Egypt’s Grand Mufti, Ali Gomaa, confirms that there is punishment for apostasy, as does the Islamic Research Centre of al-Azhar University, supporting him: there is punishment “in this life” for apostasy.
Article in Gulf News July 07.
http://gulfnews.com/news/region/egypt/top-cleric-denies-freedom-to-choose-religion-comment-1.191048
October 30th, 2009 at 1:25 am
Peter, thank you for keeping your post short and to the point. Unfortunately every single word and letter in your comment is incorrect, despite how knowledgeable you thought of yourself when you posted it.
First: Ali Gomaa is not the head of Al-Azhar. Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi is the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar and holds the highest position of authority there. Please click here to see that clearly. Tantawi’s view on apostasy is that “peaceful apostasy” is not to be punished. It is only to be punished if it is coupled with seditious acts against the state.
Second: as for the Islamic Research Department of Al-Azhar, here is their view on the matter:
“The Islamic Research Department of Al-Azhar University has called the penalty for apostasy as null and void and has said that the ways of repentance are open for the whole life…So an apostate can repent over his mistake anytime during his life and there would be no fixed period for it.” (source: Al-Alamul Islami, Rabita Alam al-Islami, Aug. 23rd, 2002)
Third: You are incorrect about Ali Gomaa. His view is that apostasy is only to be punished if the apostate poses a seditious threat to the state. Initially, his comments against the punishment for apostasy were included in the Washington Post. After that, Gulf News published an article saying that he was misquoted, which you duly included in your comment. Unfortunately, in your haste, you did not come to know that a third article was then published in the Middle East Times in which Ali Gomaa said that it was in fact the Gulf News which misquoted him. In the Middle East Times article, Ali Gomaa says: “Some members of the press and the public understood this statement as a retraction of my position that Islam affords freedom of belief. I have always maintained the legitimacy of this freedom and I continue to do so.” So the top two Imams of Sunni Islam reject the death penalty for apostasy.
Three strikes, Peter. You’re out.
Do you realize now why I didn’t approve your huge misinformed post before? It would have taken me too long to point out all your numerous mistakes.
Tell me: did you enjoy being schooled?
-Danios.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:58 am
LOOOL
Btilliant work Danios! I had a good chuckle at your response to Peter, you truly showed him up, i bet he is licking his wounds somewhere, and hasn’t had time to assess if he “enjoyed having his ass handed back”…Oh beautiful…… ROTFL
EDIT by Danios: Thanks for your comment. I snipped some of your post simply because I didn’t want to extend the debate. Hope you don’t mind and can trust me on this. Thanks.
October 30th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Danios, kudos to you for this article; highly informative.
October 31st, 2009 at 1:30 am
Thank you, Goldberg. TYO, please repost your comment. I accidentally clicked delete instead of accept. Sorry about that.
Sincerely,
Danios.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:12 am
““The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: this is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.” (Quran, 5:33)”
Okay. My questions were what actions would be considered acts of waging war against God and his Apostle? What are acts of “mischief through the land?”
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Thanks for your question, TYO.
The verse you mentioned (5:33) is about “hiraba.” The verse reads:
“The punishment of those who wage war (yuharibuna)…”
Yuharibuna is the verbal form of hiraba.
Hiraba is defined as taking something by physical force and the threat or use of violence. In those times that the Quran was revealed in, there was a problem of brigandage, and so it was referring to that in specific, but encompasses any people who use weapons and force to terrorize the citizenry.
The Islamic ruling is that those who do such things are: (1) to be crucified if they kill a person and steal his wealth or take something away from that person (including rape or sodomy), (2) to be killed (but not crucified) if they kill a person but did not take anything, and (3) banished from the land if they took something or tried to but did not kill anyone.
The ultraconservative Saudi scholar Sh. Salih al-Munajjid (of http://www.Islamqa.com fame) defines hiraba as follows:
———
Definition of hiraabah
Hiraabah means ambushing people and threatening them with weapons and so on, in the deserts or in the cities, killing them, terrorizing them and seizing their property by force and openly.
Wealth is mentioned specifically because this is what usually happens, but the ruling applies also to people who terrorize others for the purposes of rape or sodomy.
Hiraabah is one of the most serious of major sins, and it is forbidden according to the Qur’aan, the Sunnah and ijmaa’ (scholarly consensus).
The Qur’aan says: “The recompense of those who wage war against Allaah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land…”
Whoever kills someone and steals their property, should definitely be killed and crucified, so that everyone will know about him…
Whoever kills but does not steal, should definitely be killed, but not crucified…
Whoever merely terrorizes people, but does not kill or steal, should be banished from the land to another country, where he should be detained until he has repented sincerely and is reformed.
———
Contemporary scholars include domestic terrorism under the category of hiraba. It’s basically about people who use physical force to create a feeling of fear in society such that people are afraid to use the streets or go out. Here are some quotes from classical Islamic scholars who lived in the medieval era:
Ibn Abd al-Barr (died 1070 A.D.) said: “Anyone who disturbs free passage in the streets and renders them unsafe to travel, striving to spread corruption in the land by taking money, killing people or violating what God has made it unlawful to violate is guilty of hiraba … be he a Muslim or a non-Muslim, free or slave, and whether he actually realizes his goal of taking money or killing or not.”
The Hanafi jurist, al-Kasani (d. 1191 A.D.) defines hiraba as “attacks upon pedestrians for the purpose of taking money by force and in such a way that people are rendered unable to pass freely through the streets …”
The famous Shafi’i scholar, al-Nawawi (d. 1277 A.D.) says of hiraba: “Whoever brandishes a weapon and terrorizes the streets (akhafa al-sabil) inside or outside a city…through their killing and taking [of] money.”
Ibn Qudamah (d. 1223 A.D.) defines hiraba as “the act of openly holding people up in the desert with weapons in order to take their money.”
Hope that helps.
Sincerely,
Danios.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:07 pm
All I can say is that Danios is simply a brilliant man…meticulous, yet remarkably simple and easy to understand. Thanks for taking the time out to prepare this post Danios
November 7th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Hello Danios:
Read your article,you lack knowledge.First of all in the NT Paul specificallly says the Law of Moses is no longer valid.So Christians do NOT have a command to kill apostates.That is BASIC.You have not studied basics.
Secondly,another BASIC.In Judaism the Law of Moses is ONLY for Jews.So no Jew would agree to kill a non-Jew for apostasy.
Third,there is a hadith in BUKHARi,which is considered authentic,where Mohammed says:”In the last days many will apostasize an they mst be KILLED.”Now THAT shows that the 8 times Mohammed in the hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim says to “kill apostates”he was making a GENERAL statement for ALL time,not just referring to a local 10 year war with the Meccans.
Again,you can verify what I have said,it is correct.
November 7th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Hello Danios:
I forgot to add,since you believe Islam is against death for apostasy then can you affirm you are 100% for freedom to criticize Mohammed and the Koran ANYWHERE,even in Muslim countries and not be sanctioned?And of course that includes other religions and thought systems.
And also that you are for the 100% freedom of people of other religions or none to convince Muslims anywhere to leave Islam and not be punished?
I hope you do,otherwise,you position would be illogical.
November 7th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Dear iSherif, thank you for your kind words.
Dear Maturin,
With regard to your comment about the Christians not having to follow those verses in the Bible that specify killing apostates, I completely understand that contemporary Christians do not believe in fulfilling this today, and that they have ways and methodologies of contextualizing this.
My only point was that it is therefore inappropriate to simply cherry pick some verses of a person’s religious book and then claim that they MUST believe such-and-such based on that.
Therefore, it is just as inappropriate to take a Quranic verse or hadith and claim that the religion of Islam commands such-and-such, if you reject a similar approach to the Bible and Christianity.
So when you bring forth some hadiths to prove your claim that Islam itself commands that apostates are to be put to death, then understand that Muslims also contextualize this. Christians contextualize those Biblical verses by saying they are abrogated and therefore no longer applicable, whereas Muslims contextualize those hadiths by saying that they apply to those apostates who commit high treason (not just “peaceful apostates”) by joining the disbelieving army’s forces, something which was very common at that time.
As for your comment about Jews and the Law of Moses only applying to Jews, Muslims also believe that the Islamic law (Sharia) only applies to Muslims. Furthermore, your comment makes no sense whatsoever, since the Law did say to kill apostates from Judaism based on the fact that they are Jewish and cannot leave the religion. But of course, contemporary Jews contextualize all of this, just like Christians.
As for your quote from Sahih al-Bukhari, you have made up a hadith. There is no such narration. You inserted the word “apostatize” into the hadith and even the words “then you must kill them”; the hadith about the End of Days which Islamophobic sites refer to is not about apostates at all, but about the khawaarij, a religious sect which believes that it is permissible to rebel against the government and shed the blood of whoever disagrees with them. (Many Islamic scholars have said that Usama bin Ladin and Al-Qaeda belong to the khawaarij sect.) And the Islamic belief about these khawaarij is that they cannot be fought/killed until and unless they actually revolt and shed blood, not before that.
With regard to your comment about freedom of speech, I am an ardent advocate of that, and so are many Muslims, who find no problem with that.
Sincerely,
-Danios.
November 19th, 2009 at 3:51 am
Just beautiful. I wish all controversial discussions which are based on attacks by people of other believes would be held like that. The ordinary Muslim unfortunately doesn’t know enough of his / her own religion to be able to defend it in this way. If we were able to held more intellectual discussion about all these miss understandings and accusations I believe the muslim community would grow even faster.
Allahu akbar - God is Greater.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Hello Danios:
I just read your comment today.Here is the hadith,from the great BUKHARI,who is considered very reliable.How did your Muslim scholars come to the conclusion that the general rule here has something to do with POLITICAL ACTIVITY?
Bukhari (84:64-65) - “Allah’s Apostle: ‘During the LAST DAYS there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will GO OUT FROM (leave) their RELIGION as an arrow goes out of the game. So, WHEREVER you find them, KILL them, for whoever KILLS them shall have REWARD on the Day of Resurrection.’”
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
You said you are an ardent advocate of it.Then,simply yes or not,does that mean you agree 100%we non-Muslims can criticize Islam and Mohammed ANYWHERE,even Muslim countries and not be sanctioned in any way?Does your espousal of freedom of speech go that far,yes or no?It is not to bother you but I want to know.
Anyone can say they are for freedom of speech,but to WHAT extent?In 1990 no less that 57 Muslims nations signed the CAIRO ISLAMIC DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS,where they made freedom of speech LIMITED by ISLAMIC-SHARIA law,in other words you would be sanctioned for criticizing Islam.
November 25th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Hello Danios:
You said SHARIA LAW only applies to Muslims,yet history shows otherwise.In 855 AD no less than FIFTY Christians in MUSLIM SPAIN,in CORDOBA,the capital,were KILLED for speaking NEGATIVELY against Mohammed and Islam.Muslim law has a segment on treating NON-MUSLIMS,so yes SHARIA law is applied to non-Muslims.
November 29th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Dont forget Matthew 10:34 also…
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010:33-38&version=KJV
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword”
November 29th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
To answer Intensity about MATT 10:34,assuming my comment will make it past screening,since others have not,though they had no foul language or insults,it is METAPHORICAL.Jesus takes the trouble to say so in the NEXT verse MATT 10:35-37,it means your family can turn against you for following Jesus.
You see the ethical heart of Christianity is the GOLDEN RULE or ETHIC of RECIPROCITY found in James 2:8/Matt 7:12/Luke 6:31/Rom 13:8-10/Galat 5:14.One version of it is “Love your neighbor like yourself”.
Where the DEFINITION of LOVE is in 1 Cor 13:1-8/13:13.Now Paul says in 1 Cor 9:21 that Law of God=Law of Christ(not surprising since for Paul Jesus was God incarnate).We have Law of Christ also in Galat 6:1-2 and what the fruits of the Holy Spirit are in Galat 5:22.
So if YOU don’t want ANOTHER to bring war and the sword to you then do not do it to others.
November 29th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Maturin, your previous comments were not rejected. I just haven’t had a chance to approve them yet. I will do it shortly. I have been really busy with work. I just didn’t want to approve your comments and then not have a reply. Give me a day or two to approve them.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:32 am
Maturin, I just approved both of your comments. It’s interesting how you were so desperate for me to approve them even though they are of course weak sauce.
As for the hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari which you mentioned, I already responded to that. Are you unable to read?
The hadith is about the khawaarij, a specific sect which believes it is permissible to shed blood of innocents. There are many hadiths on this topic. You in your internet searches (since you don’t have any real knowledge but just google) stumbled on the hadith which was reproduced on an anti-Islam site. But had you any REAL knowledge, you would have known that even the ultraconservative Muslims who believe in the death penalty for apostasy do NOT use that hadith because that one is about the khawaarij. But what can I expect from a furious google warrior?
You said:
“Then,simply yes or not,does that mean you agree 100% we non-Muslims can criticize Islam and Mohammed ANYWHERE,even Muslim countries and not be sanctioned in any way?”
Yes.
“Does your espousal of freedom of speech go that far,yes or no?”
Yes.
“It is not to bother you but I want to know.”
I had already answered your question long time ago in the comments above yours.
The reason I believe in absolute freedom of speech is that I believe that the foolish should be allowed to talk, because it only exposes their foolishness. You are a case in point.
-Danios.
December 12th, 2009 at 2:32 am
“…Muslims also believe that the Islamic law (Sharia) only applies to Muslims.”
I thought Islamic law applied to everyone, but was not to be imposed on everyone: that the fact that alcohol (for example) is forbidden to Muslims does not mean that it is okay for non-Muslims to drink; only that the Islamic state should not penalize non-Muslims simply for drinking.
Is my understanding correct?
December 13th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Awesome! How many words? In excess of ten thousand, I’m sure. This little girl scares you to death, doesn’t she?
December 13th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Reading and knowledge scares you to death, doesn’t it?
December 14th, 2009 at 6:55 am
Sorry, Ms Danios, you can’t get away with that. Everyone is familiar by now with the islamic tactic of accusing everyone else of your own failings.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
LOL, can’t stop laughing…
Danios, I bet Dolly is Pamela Geller, Spencer, Debbie Schlussel or Brigette Gabriel.
Most likely it’s Geller, because she fears that Rifqa will suss that that she is being exploited by this fifth column and also take out..
and Danios, she’s trying to find out if you’re a man or woman. Don’t respond to her “Ms Danios”. You guys, must be giving these Loons, sleepless nights.
by the way, Geller was cheering on the SIOS demo in the UK, but only 15 turned up, it’s no wonder she’s desperately looking for alternative meal tickets.
LOON WATCH IS THE BEST.
December 14th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Do I care if Danios is a boy or a girl? She writes like a girl, and that’s all that matters. And I disincline to think that Pamela would waste her time coming here. Unlike you, she has real work to do. And she comments under her own name.
December 17th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Danious:you are a liar.The Muslim countries do not allow you to criticize Mohammad or Islam.Have you heard of BLASPHEMY LAWS of Pakistan.Your ignorance is beyond belief!!!
December 17th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
“Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law–a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
The context is unmistakable: Jesus (or, rather, the fictional character the author wants us to believe is Jesus) intends his teachings to create strife and division, to tear up families, and destroy the foundation of love upon which society sustains itself, and in its place secure the universal rejection of human society in favor of single-minded pledge of love and allegiance to jeZsus khrist (which translates in practical terms to love and allegiance for the church whose propaganda this Gospel represents). All for the single purpose of selfishly securing salvation for the individual after death.
The words are plain: “I did not come to bring peace.” That means what it says: he is not preaching peace. Hence in the parallel passage in Luke (12:49-53) he says: “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! …” Thus, the passage pertains to something he wishes to happen, not anything that saddens him or that he wants to stop. So he continues, “Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.
December 17th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
“Jesus takes the trouble to say so in the NEXT verse MATT 10:35-37,it means your family can turn against you for following Jesus”
CAN U BELIEVE THIS LOAD OF BS? DO YOU GUYS know that the different authours of the nt portrayed jesus in a different light? The man himself says, ” I HAVE COME TO BRING DIVISION” “…HOW I WISH THE FIRE WAS ALREADY KINDLED…”
THE master of BS CALLED “maturin” says, “…family can turn against u for following jezuz.” The truth is that jezuz DESIRES that families be DIVIDED if he(jezuz) is REJECTED. SELFISH , ISN’T IT? this “peaceful” jesus could of said ,” hey, you don’t need to LOVE ME more than ur parents,i still love you even if u love me less than your parents.”
Puting jezuz’s division to the test.
christians assume that thier jesus was a “man-god”
lets see how well this “man-god” will sell in an orthodox jewish family
if one member accepts the “man-god” myth and the rest in the family reject the “man-god” myth, the one member should get ready to follow his “peaceful” jesus’s command: “BEGIN TO DIVIDE”.
December 17th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
“You see the ethical heart of Christianity is the GOLDEN RULE or ETHIC of RECIPROCITY found in James 2:8/Matt 7:12/Luke 6:31/Rom 13:8-10/Galat 5:14.One version of it is “Love your neighbor like yourself”.
yeah man, talk more BS like your nt authours.I guess the pharises saw the “golden rule” in jezuz when he INSULTED THEM IN THE PUBLIC.
OR how about when he goes in to the temple, makes a whip of cord, then drives out those who bought and sold.i guess they all thought, “what a lovely hooligan”?
December 18th, 2009 at 5:38 am
Reboman,If you spit at the sun,it falls back on your own face.I am glad you have read the Gospel but without understanding.Like a poisonous snake,you have nothing intellectual but venom to spit.Can you prove any sin committed by Jesus-the Christ?If you are a Muslim,can you prove any SIN,not committed by you prophet?Normally,I ignore the barking dogs!!!
December 18th, 2009 at 8:22 am
greetings
why hasn’t my comment been posted?
December 18th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Reboman, almost any religion can seem wierd if you look at it from a particular angle. It’s important we learn to respect every major faith on the planet even though we might disagree with its central tenets. I’m afraid the language you use in your posts cannot be condoned. Why can’t you articulate your ideas respectfully just like everyone else? Please stop referring to Biblical verses as ‘BS’, how would we feel if somebody referred to the Quran as ‘BS’?
December 18th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Laurence
“Can you prove any sin committed by Jesus-the Christ?If you are a Muslim,can you prove any SIN,not committed by you prophet?Normally,I ignore the barking dogs!!!”
You argument and comparison is a non starter.
Jesus religion was Judaism, which has the same moral code as Islam with only a few differences, and religious practices. Pauline Christiantiy is in stark contrast to Judaism because Paul (not Jesus) dumped the Torah.
The early Christians were a Jewish sect, monotheistic and who saw Jesus as Messiah, man only, and saw the Torah as binding. It was Paul who changed that.
Paul fulfils this prophecy in
(Daniel 11.14)
“And the members of the outlaws of your nation would be carried to make a (prophetic) vision stand. And they stumbled”
Pauline Christianity is not the religion that Jesus brought. Jesus in his time, only differed with the Jews over his status as Messiah. He didn’t call himself God. In Jewish history there have been others who have claimed the title of example (about 40 others) for example Shabtai Tzvi, and they had their followers, nevertheless they were all MONOTHEISTIC and regarded the laws (Torah) as binding, and they were still within the bounds of the Jewish faith because they did not give divinity to their Messiah and followed the laws.
What Paul did was dump the laws, create a man God, rewrite the Bible and create a new religion with a new deity and trinity. Below are two books, one written by a Pastor as to how Paul paganised Christiantiy.
My point is, that Jesus moral code came from the Torah (he was a Rabbi), so if you dump the basis of Jesus religion by following Paul, you are not following Jesus. You are following Pauls mythical creation. History supports this, these are historical facts.
Your argument is false and null. Jesus being God was something Paul created, because he didn’t want the inconvenience of following the laws when the Romans were persecuting the Jews. That included the early Christians who were a Jewish sect. As for the Prophet’s character and morals, and “sins” even non Muslims marvel at his moral code. See the next post after this.
———–
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (Hardcover)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060738170/ref=nosim/103-3247524-5003047?n=283155
Though himself schooled in evangelical literalism, Ehrman has come to regard his earlier faith in the inerrant inspiration of the Bible as misguided, given that the original texts have disappeared and that the extant texts available do not agree with one another.
———-
Pagan Christianity: The Origins of Our Modern Church Practices (Paperback)
by Frank Viola (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Pagan-Christianity-Origins-Modern-Practices/dp/0966665732
The core of Christianity — the worship of a dying Godman who is resurrected, ascends into heaven and brings salvation to mankind — was also the core of a number of ancient Pagan religions that began in the Near East two thousand years before Jesus. Christian theology borrowed more than the archaic myth of the dying-resurrected Godman.
————-
December 18th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
For the record, I’m not even reading the posts by Reboman and Lawrence. It seems like they are way off topic though.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Laurence,
“If you are a Muslim,can you prove any SIN,not committed by you prophet?”
Read and weep O ignorant one! The opinion of one ignorant bigot such as yourself, pales into insignificance when compared to these eminent names!
————
Dr. John William Draper, M.D., L.L.D., A History of the Intellectual Development
of Europe, London 1875, Vol. 1, pp. 329-330
Four years after the death of Justinian, A.D. 569, was born in Mecca, in
Arabia, the man who, of all men, has exercised the greatest influence upon
the human race… To be the religious head of many empires, to guide the
daily life of one-third of the human race, may perhaps justify the title of
a Messenger of God.
————–
Edward Gibbon and Simon Oakley in ‘History of the Saracen Empire,’ London,
1870
“The greatest success of Mohammad’s life was effected by sheer moral force
————–
(Lamartine, Historie de la Turquie, Paris 1854, Vol. 11 pp. 276-2727)
‘ If greatness of purpose, smallness of means and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad.
The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled before their eyes. This man Muhammad moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples and dynasties but millions of men, and more than that he moved the alters, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and the souls. On the basis of a Book, every letter of which has become law, he created a spiritual nationality which blended together peoples of every tongue and of every race.
Philosopher, Orator, Apostle, Legislator, Warrior, Conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational beliefs, of a cult without images, the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire. That is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?
————
Muhummed is the most successful of all Prophets and religious personalities.
Encyclopedia Britannica
————
.”The British writer H. G. Wells says in his book Milestones in Human History:
“Every religion that is not suited to civilization should be rejected. I
have not found any religion that is suited to civilization except Islam. “
——–
Arthur Glyn Leonard in ‘Islam, Her Moral and Spiritual Values’
It was the genius of Muhammad, the spirit that he breathed into the Arabs
through the soul of Islam that exalted them.
—————
His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral
character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as a leader,
and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his fundamental
integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems that it
solves.
W. Montgomery Watt in ‘Muhammad at Mecca,’ Oxford, 1953.
————-
Serious or trivial, his daily behavior has instituted a canon which millions observe this day with conscious memory. No one regarded by any section of the human race as Perfect Man has ever been imitated so minutely. The conduct of the founder of Christianity has not governed the ordinary life of his followers. Moreover, no founder of a religion has left on so solitary an eminence as the Muslim apostle.
D. G. Hogarth in ‘Arabia’
—————–
Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but, he was Pope without the Pope’s pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man had the right to say that he ruled by a right divine, it was Muhummed, for he had all the powers without their supports. He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life.
Rev. R. Bosworth-Smith
————
In little more than a year he was actually the spiritual, nominal and
temporal rule of Medina, with his hands on the lever that was to shake the
world.
John Austin, “Muhammad the Prophet of Allah,” in T.P. ’s and Cassel’s Weekly for 24th September 1927.
—————–
It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great
prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel
anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers
of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things
which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a
new way of admiration, a new of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.
Annie Besant, The Life and Teachings of Muhammad, Madras 1932, p. 4
———-
Tolstoy :
“ There can be no doubt that the Prophet Muhammad was one of the greatest
reformers who have rendered great services to human society. It is
sufficient to say that he guided an entire nation to the light of truth, and made it incline towards tranquility and peace, and preferred a life of
asceticism, and prevented bloodshed and human sacrifice; he showed them the
way to advancement and civilization. This is a great achievement that can
only be made by one who is given strength; such a man is deserving of
respect and honour
——-
The Austrian doctor Shabrak:
“Mankind should be proud to have a man such as Muhammad as a member, for
despite being illiterate he was able, ten-plus centuries ago, to bring laws
that we and other Europeans would be very happy if we could reach the same
level. “
—————
Lane-Poole in ‘Speeches and Table Talk of the Prophet Muhammad’
He was the most faithful protector of those he protected, the sweetest and
most agreeable in conversation.
———–
W.C. Taylor in ‘The History of Muhammadanism and its Sects’
So great was his liberality to the poor that he often left his household
unprovided, nor did he content himself with relieving their wants, he
entered into conversation with them, and expressed a warm sympathy for their sufferings. He was a firm friend and a faithful ally.
—————
J.W.H. Stab in ‘Islam and its Founder’
Judged by the standards to human renown, the glory of what mortal can
compare with his?
————–
Washington Irving in ‘Life of Muhammad,’ New York, 1920.
His military triumphs awakened no pride nor vain glory as they would have
done had they been effected by selfish purposes. In the time of his greatest power he maintained the same simplicity of manner and appearance as in the days of his adversity.
————-
Stanley Lane-Poole in ‘Studies in a Mosque’
He was one of those happy few who have attained the supreme joy of making
one great truth their very life spring. He was the messenger of One God, and never to his life’s end did he forget who he was or the message which was the marrow of his being. He brought his tidings to his people with a grand dignity sprung from the consciousness of his high office, together with a most sweet humility.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Not read the whole article or all the comments (it is long, they are many…), but to add more - it was over a thousand years ago that scholars were arguing that apostasy should not be punished with death.
More over, the quranic verse also states that the person has to leave islam, and also fight the community - so treason. The historical evidence from the time of the Prophet (saw) and the khilafah rashidah is also taken from times of war, around battle fields where people (potentially out of fear of losing) renounced their faith. The commanders who killed them were later told it would have been better if they were just imprisoned.
It is a sad thing that muslims are being taught about some history and the teachers pretend that it was a unanimous view, when it rarely was.
December 25th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
she was just a spoiled brat teenager who wanted to get her way and pulled all this crap and wasted good tax money and pulled her family through the mud and also showed how stupid child protective services are in most cases and for what?i think it was more about what or who she wanted than it was about fear or religion
December 30th, 2009 at 4:05 am
There is no compulsion in religion,says the Quran but prescribes death penalty for apostasy.If the Quran is to be trusted,Rifqa Bary should be allowed to choose the faith of her choice.After all she is not living in a JAIL ,called Islamic country where there is no freedom of choice,thought or expression.Her parents who are illegal aliens should be deported to Bangla-Desh where they can enjoy the bliss of Poverty.
December 30th, 2009 at 4:49 am
Lawrence:
The Quran does NOT say to kill apostates. Learn to read. Read the article instead of just vomiting your hate-filled comments here.
LOL @ the way you spelled Bangladesh…shows how truly uneducated you are.
Also, Fathima Rifqa is also an illegal immigrant then.
Sincerely,,
Danios.
December 30th, 2009 at 8:37 am
@Lawrence clearly you did not read the article…that or you can’t understand the big words!
Also genius boy- the Bary’s are from Sri Lanka why on Earth would they be deported to Bangladesh?
All brown people are not from the same place and also not all brown people are poor or live in the ‘bliss’ of poverty, whatever the hell that means.
Clearly you live in the ‘bliss’ of ignorance.
December 31st, 2009 at 6:58 am
Nissa,I agree with you.The Barys should be deported to Sri-lanka and not Bangla DEsh for being ILLEGAL Aliens but Rifqa could apply for asylum for religious persecution.I am sure she would be granted that,so that she could live in freedom rather than prison of Islam.The thinking of Muslims in general is the same,where ever thy come from.Have you ever come across a Cobra from any country less poisonous?People from the third world come to the West to better themselves except for the Muslims,who wish to impose their will and backward way of life on others.
December 31st, 2009 at 7:45 am
Oh well I didn’t realise you were an expert on Muslims! Clearly you must be right with that insightful analysis. (that was sarcasm- I don’t think you’re smart enough to get it on your own.)
Comparing people to cobras is ridiculous, the analogy does not work on any level.
We get it, you hate Muslims…but a more pressing question is- why did you think the Bary’s were from Bangladesh?
January 1st, 2010 at 9:33 am
Great site! Great discussions! I feel much better informed after reading Danios. I am sure real understanding of this issue of apostasy is a tough one. Danios has helped me to see the Reformist side. Thanks.
The reason for my post is to reference a poll which claims to give a rough idea of what British Muslims actually think about this issue.
“36% of 16 to 24-year-olds believe if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death, compared with 19% of over-55s”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6309983.stm
I don’t vouch for it though.
January 12th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
@Danios,
Just wanted to thank you for your absolutely sublime articles, I will be sending them out to friends!
Just wanted to add these excerpts from the Quran to support the argument:
1.
“Let him who wishes to believe, do so; and let him who wishes to disbelieve, do so.” (Al-Kahf: 29)
وَقُلِ الْحَقُّ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ فَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيُؤْمِنْ وَمَنْ شَاءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ
2.
“Many of the people of the book, after the truth has become manifest to them, would desire, out of sheer envy generated by their minds, that after you have believed,
they could turn you into disbelievers. But do forgive them, and
overlook till God sends down his decree. Surely, God has full power
To do all that he wills.” (2: 109).
وَدَّ كَثِيرٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ لَوْ يَرُدُّونَكُمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ إِيمَانِكُمْ كُفَّارًا حَسَدًا مِنْ عِنْدِ أَنْفُسِهِمْ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُمُ الْحَقُّ فَاعْفُوا وَاصْفَحُوا حَتَّى يَأْتِيَ اللَّهُ بِأَمْرِهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ
As for forced conversion:
3.
Surely, thou canst not guide whomsoever thou pleasest; but God guides whomsoever He pleases, and He knows well those who would be guided (28:56).
إِنَّكَ لَا تَهْدِي مَنْ أَحْبَبْتَ وَلَكِنَّ اللَّهَ يَهْدِي مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ
4.
If thy Lord had enforced His will surely all those on the earth would have believed, without exception. Wilt thou, then, take it upon thyself to force people to become believers?
Except by God’s leave no one can believe; and He will afflict with His wrath those who will not use their understanding (10: 99-100).
وَلَوْ شَاءَ رَبُّكَ لَآَمَنَ مَنْ فِي الْأَرْضِ كُلُّهُمْ جَمِيعًا أَفَأَنْتَ تُكْرِهُ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَكُونُوا مُؤْمِنِينَ (99) وَمَا كَانَ لِنَفْسٍ أَنْ تُؤْمِنَ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ وَيَجْعَلُ الرِّجْسَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ لَا يَعْقِلُونَ
5.
“Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct from the crooked path.” Al Baqarah, 2:256.
لَآ إِكۡرَاهَ فِى ٱلدِّينِۖ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ ٱلرُّشۡدُ مِنَ ٱلۡغَىِّۚ فَمَن يَكۡفُرۡ بِٱلطَّـٰغُوتِ وَيُؤۡمِنۢ بِٱللَّهِ فَقَدِ ٱسۡتَمۡسَكَ بِٱلۡعُرۡوَةِ ٱلۡوُثۡقَىٰ لَا ٱنفِصَامَ لَهَاۗ وَٱللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ (٢٥٦)
6.
[And so, [O Prophet,] exhort them; your task is only to exhort. You can not compel them [to believe].] (Al-Ghashiyah 88:21-22)
فَذَكِّرۡ إِنَّمَآ أَنتَ مُذَڪِّرٌ۬ (٢١) لَّسۡتَ عَلَيۡهِم بِمُصَيۡطِرٍ (٢٢) إِلَّا مَن تَوَلَّىٰ وَكَفَرَ (٢٣) فَيُعَذِّبُهُ ٱللَّهُ ٱلۡعَذَابَ ٱلۡأَكۡبَرَ (٢٤) إِنَّ إِلَيۡنَآ إِيَابَہُمۡ (٢٥) ثُمَّ إِنَّ عَلَيۡنَا حِسَابَہُم (٢٦)
7.
Verily, We sent down to you [O Muhammad] the Book [Qur'an] for mankind in truth. So, whosoever goes astray, he goes astray to his own loss. And you [O Muhammad] are not a guardian over them. (Az-Zumar 39:41)
إِنَّآ أَنزَلۡنَا عَلَيۡكَ ٱلۡكِتَـٰبَ لِلنَّاسِ بِٱلۡحَقِّۖ فَمَنِ ٱهۡتَدَىٰ فَلِنَفۡسِهِۦۖ وَمَن ضَلَّ فَإِنَّمَا يَضِلُّ عَلَيۡهَاۖ وَمَآ أَنتَ عَلَيۡہِم بِوَڪِيلٍ (٤١)
8.
[Thus, [O Prophet,] if they argue with you, say, “I have surrendered my whole being unto God, and [so have] all who follow me’ – and ask those who have been vouchsafed revelation aforetime, as well as the unlettered people, ‘Have you [too] surrendered yourselves unto Him?’ And if they surrender themselves unto Him, they are on the right path; but if they turn away – behold, your duty is no more than to deliver the message: for God sees all that is in [the hearts of] His creatures.] (Aal `Imran 3:20)
فَإِنۡ حَآجُّوكَ فَقُلۡ أَسۡلَمۡتُ وَجۡهِىَ لِلَّهِ وَمَنِ ٱتَّبَعَنِۗ وَقُل لِّلَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ ٱلۡكِتَـٰبَ وَٱلۡأُمِّيِّـۧنَ ءَأَسۡلَمۡتُمۡۚ فَإِنۡ أَسۡلَمُواْ فَقَدِ ٱهۡتَدَواْۖ وَّإِن تَوَلَّوۡاْ فَإِنَّمَا عَلَيۡكَ ٱلۡبَلَـٰغُۗ وَٱللَّهُ بَصِيرُۢ بِٱلۡعِبَادِ (٢٠)
January 12th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Also Danios, is it possible to email you or reach you somewhere?
I have a nagging question on a matter similar to apostasy, but don’t want to bring it up here as it is off-topic.
January 12th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Danios seems to be a skilled dissimulator in Islamic matters but it is his character which says more than the arguments do.
I have seen for myself the miserable outcomes of the “death for apostasy” ruling, from different parts of the Muslim world. It is a policy that is very much alive and kicking, whatever Muslims and their apologists say is the case. Is it so wrong of non-Muslims to be alarmed and horrified by this? For Danios to sneer at what he is pleased to call “Islamophobia” and airily blame Muslim problems on “colonialism” is to me indicative of the Muslim character, which always seems to trump logical arguing. That is, arrogant, fond of lying, quick to belittle an opponent, blaming others for personal and collective shortcomings.
Riqfa Bary, whether or not her parents were going to kill her, could not have returned to live with them if she BELIEVED they would kill her. There have been many precedents to create that fear in her. I personally know one man whose family tried to kill him for heresy. Darios does not speak for the Muslim world, whatever his “reform” agenda is (and presumably he uses a false name if he is pushing for reform; his peaceful fellow Muslims might get angry with him…)
And how dare Darios say that there are Christians praying for the death of Riqfa? Such spiteful remarks negate all the scholarship and effort he has utilized in his article, to me anyway.
Muslims are always complaining; they want everything their way and on top of everything they think they are entitled to “respect”! Get your house in order, stop bragging about how great you are, and we will respect you when we feel your collective behaviour warrants it.
January 12th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
PG:
“Is it so wrong of non-Muslims to be alarmed and horrified by this?”
Both Muslims and non-Muslims have every right to be opposed to the use of the death penalty for the punishment of apostasy. I myself am a part of those who oppose such restrictions on the freedom to choose one’s religion. You seem to have misunderstood the issue here. The issue is you Islamophobes who try to claim that Islam itself says something (instead of clearly saying that one particular interpretation does) and that Muslims believe such-and-such (without acknowledging that certainly not all do); and the worst part is that you Islamophobes demonize the Muslim community. You are quite frankly a bigot.
You deny that you are a bigoted Islamophobe? Your own comment has the proof. You claim that Muslims do not speak with logical “arguing” (your pathetic English speaks volumes about your deep critical thinking skills that Muslims obviously lack), and you claim that Muslims are arrogant liars. So yes, you are an Islamophobic bigot.
“Riqfa Bary, whether or not her parents were going to kill her, could not have returned to live with them if she BELIEVED they would kill her.”
Fathima Rifqa Bary is an extremist cult member, who believes she is a prophet of God sent to convert the heathens to Christianity. She is loco. So her belief that her parents are going to kill her is to be rejected as the rantings of a crazed cult member. In any case, the authorities investigated and found there to be no credible threat. That’s the bottom line.
As for this particular article I wrote, it has to do with Fathima’s lie (or blunder) that the Quran says parents need to stone their children should they choose to convert out of Islam. Not only does it say the opposite, but her own holy book says exactly what she claimed the Quran did! Such is her level of ignorance, no doubt a reflection of her age.
“we will respect you when we feel your collective behaviour warrants it”
O mighty white Christian man, the Muslims desperately want your respect and approval.
Sincerely,
Danios.
January 21st, 2010 at 6:54 pm
The article had me until you quoted 2 Chronicles 15:13.
That particular passage DOES NOT give cause to kill non-believers as you suggest. It is a chronicle of what HAPPENED. The passage is from the Old Testament. Jesus came and ended that stupid way of thinking!
At any rate, because you misrepresented and misquoted the Bible, the same as that of those whom you have condemned for doing such to the Quran, I must also condemn your journalistic integrity.
Pity since the article seemed nice. But as it goes, since you used a deceitful tactic I can only reason you are deceitful.
January 21st, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Jim:
“That particular passage DOES NOT give cause to kill non-believers as you suggest. It is a chronicle of what HAPPENED.”
According to the Bible, it is the covenant that the Judeo-Christian God had with the people. So you are wrong: it is a command by God to kill those people. It is what the Jews and Christians considered the Law of God. For example, the Geneva Study Bible says of this verse:
“(g) These were the words of their covenant, which commanded all idolaters be put to death, according to the law of God, De 13:5,9,15.”
http://bible.cc/2_chronicles/15-13.htm
As for whether or not Christians believe it was abrogated, see my comment below.
“The passage is from the Old Testament. Jesus came and ended that stupid way of thinking…
My article already says that Christians have a way to mitigate the text, namely through abrogation.
Your comment is therefore retarded.
Sincerely,
Danios.
January 25th, 2010 at 8:53 am
Herbrand:
“This site is such a joke.”
Actually, the hate mongering site you come from, “faith freedom”, is the joke.
“no mention of Abdullah Sa’d”
Abdullah ibn Saad left the camp of the Muslims and joined the camp of the enemy. His example cannot be used as a proof by the ultraconservative side to justify death for peaceful apostasy because the Prophet Muhammad waived his punishment when Uthman bin Affan interceded on his behalf. Had it been that Abdullah ibn Saad was being punished for his apostasy, then Uthman could not have saved him from it, because according to Islamic law, hadud punishments must be carried out when they reach the ruler…So we know from this that it was not a hadud punishment at all, but a tazir one. And the ultraconservative side does not believe that apostasy deserves a tazir punishment…They believe it deserves a hadud one. (If you say that apostasy is punished by tazir only, then this would make the punishment discretionary and optional…which would actually be a proof for the reform-minded Muslims.)
In any case, Abdullah was not told to embrace Islam to save his life…Instead, the intercession of Uthman was enough. He was one of the few who was to be punished after the conquest of Mecca, and it clearly was not for peaceful apostasy, because otherwise he would have been given the opportunity to convert back to Islam. Instead, he was simply forgiven on the intercession of Uthman…without any need to convert back to Islam.
The point is that this example has no relevance to the subject matter, which is why I did not cover it.
“the Quraysh was caused by the Muslim attack at Nakhla in A.H. 2; and both Ishaq and Tabari clearly show that the Quraysh did not had a problem with Islam for being a different faith, except when Muhammad started disparaging their own gods and traditions;”
The above is all nonsense, and indicative of your profound bias. The state of hostility between the Quraish and the early Muslims began with the persecution of the new faith in Mecca.
I will be addressing this topic in more detail when I refute chapter one of Robert Spencer’s Islamophobook.
“on the other hand the, let’s call them like this, “Islamic supremacists” have a much simpler and straightforward job in interpreting the very same scriptures in their favour.”
That is your opinion only. Many Muslims feel that their peaceful interpretation is more in line with the Quran, which clearly says that there is no coercion in faith.
Sincerely,
Danios.
January 26th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Thanks very much for this very enlightening article. Not being Muslim myself, and not likely to become one, I had never read the Koran or any other Islamic writing. Nevertheless, I admit that I had a predisposition to WANT to believe that the fundamentalist extremists within Islam did not represent Islam as a whole and that their understanding of the Islamic Holy Book was flawed. You have been a great help to me in reaching my desired conclusion that Islam is truly a religion which I can respect - along with the other great world religions. While I was raised a very conservative Protestant Christian, I left that over 20 years ago. My “Christianity” now (such as it is) is of a liberal Unitarian character, so I share with Muslims the denial of the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus. I think I’ll go to the library and see what I can find in the way of a good history of Islam so I can be a bit better informed about you people. Peace to you.
January 27th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
This as of 1 27 10 from Egypt.
Egyptian Maher El-Gowhary and his 15 year old daughter Dina never pray twice at the same church, never stay longer than a month in any one apartment. They are constantly under threat, always on the run because they converted to Christianity in a largely Muslim country.
Maher and Dina nervously agreed to meet us at a Church in Cairo. The priest at the Church said he feared problems from the Egyptian authorities and while he agreed to have us watch his Sunday mass, the Priest declined to speak to us about what is happening in Egypt and to the El-Gowhary’s.
They tell their story out of fear and desperation. Born Muslims they chose to convert to the Christian Church after both claim they had religious visions.
Now Maher says “Muslims try to kill us, and will kill us if they find us.”
Several religious fatwas have been issued for “spilling his blood” after Maher asked an Egyptian Court to legally recognize his conversion, so he can one day be buried as a Christian and so his daughter won’t be forced into a marriage by her Muslim mother….
January 28th, 2010 at 1:17 am
Hey Stephen,
Thanks for your comment. I really appreciate it!
Welcome to the site.
Sincerely,
Danios.
February 28th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Excellent article. Thanks!