Writing in US News, Jay Tolson is correct that the apostasy case in Afghanistan should have been allowed to come to a head, in order to clarify Afghanistan's stance on Sharia once and for all. But in fact it is already abundantly clear that the new Afghanistan is as much of a Sharia state as the old one; Tolson doesn't seem to have grasped the significance of the fact that the Afghan Constitution says it "respects" the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but nowhere says that no law can be made in contradiction to the Declaration -- while it does stipulate that no law can be passed that contradicts Islamic Sharia.
Still, he is certainly correct that "puritanical jurists within almost every major Islamic legal tradition have at some point argued that" punitive passages of the Qur'an and Hadith "supersede (or 'abrogate') the calls for tolerance." And he is right to note, contrary to the claims of Islamic apologists such as Stephen Schwartz, that the problem within Islam does not lie solely with the Wahhabis. And he is certainly correct that there needs to be a frank and open discussion about Sharia throughout the Islamic world.
But Tolson is misled somewhat by his reliance on the smoke-and-mirrors analysis of Khaled Abou El Fadl. It is true that during and after the colonial period there came "scores of reformers from within the Muslim world—some progressive, some reactionary but all trying to make Islam applicable to modern society and governance." However, they weren't always "suppressed or harassed" only by "secular nationalist leaders." Some of the progressives among those reformers, such as Mahmoud Muhammad Taha in Sudan, were executed for heresy, and their followers made to recant. Tolson speaks about "deeper, richer Islamic legal understanding, one that views sharia, the path of God, as something that mere humans can only approximate in their efforts to apply the few fundamental precepts of the faith to the laws of this world," and certainly there are Islamic thinkers who posit such things. But where is there now or has there ever been an Islamic state that set aside the death penalty for apostasy on Islamic grounds, say, on the basis of Qur'an 2:256 or some other Islamic justification, rather than as a consequence of pressure from non-Muslim sources, whether those pressures came from Western non-Muslim powers or from thinkers influenced by Western secularism within the Muslim countries themselves?
This is a crucial question, for it helps clarify whether or not the Muslim reformers can realistically prevail upon the umma at large to set aside the death penalty for apostasy while maintaining an Islamic framework for society. It will help us assess whether or not they really are likely to succeed within the Islamic community today. I do not know of such an instance; if you do, please email me at director@jihadwatch.org.
Most immediately, the Rahman case would have brought to a head questions about the compatibility of Islamic law, or sharia, with the more universal principles of human rights (namely religious tolerance), both of which the Afghanistan Constitution claims to respect. Dismissing the case on technical grounds means Kabul has only put off its rendezvous with an inevitable constitutional dilemma. (Think, by analogy, of the U.S. Supreme Court sidestepping something so fundamental to the nation's constitutional arrangements as Marbury v. Madison.At the same time, the dismissal robs the larger Muslim world of a golden opportunity for religious moderates to challenge an Islam-wide crisis of authority that allows extreme, literalist interpretations of Islamic law to go unchallenged. That is no small matter. Embraced not only by Wahhabi puritans and militant Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, those extremist interpretations also influence the law of the land in many predominantly Muslim nations. Although only a few states—Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and, possibly, Afghanistan—endorse capital punishment for apostasy, many other Muslim nations, including Jordan and Egypt, have subjected apostates to lesser punishments that include imprisonment and exile, according to Georgetown University historian Yvonne Haddad. Even Muslim nations that officially embrace religious tolerance, like Pakistan, often turn a blind eye to widespread and unofficial persecution of apostates., a crude village justice carried out by supporters of a narrow construction of sharia
Within Muslim intellectual circles, there is considerable disagreement over whether the brunt of the Islamic legal tradition stands behind religious tolerance or for punishment for apostasy. On one hand, many argue, Koranic passages supporting tolerance outnumber those inveighing against apostasy. And even the latter (in addition to sayings called hadith attributed to the Prophet and his earliest followers) are associated with the martial phase of the Prophet's career and are often understood as applying to acts of treason rather than to abandonment of the faith. Nevertheless, precisely because many of the punitive Koranic passages and hadith come later, puritanical jurists within almost every major Islamic legal tradition have at some point argued that they supersede (or "abrogate") the calls for tolerance. As UCLA legal scholar Khaled Abou El Fadl points out in his book The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam From the Extremists, "puritans habitually declare any part of the Qur'an that is inconsistent with their worldview to have been abrogated."
The urgent question is why the puritanical interpretation of sharia, which sees the holy law as a set of literal prescriptions taken selectively from the various sources, has come to prevail in recent decades. Much less is heard about a deeper, richer Islamic legal understanding, one that views sharia, the path of God, as something that mere humans can only approximate in their efforts to apply the few fundamental precepts of the faith to the laws of this world. The latter understanding accepts the fallibility of human interpretations and embraces the rich and varied Islamic juridical traditions. The former rejects most of those traditions, apart from the views of a few strict puritannical jurists.
The flattening and narrowing of Islamic law in the modern period, Abou El Fadl and others say, date from the colonial period, when the learned scholars (the ulema) began to see the authority of their judgments and teachings diminish. Then came scores of reformers from within the Muslim world—some progressive, some reactionary but all trying to make Islam applicable to modern society and governance. Often suppressed or harassed by secular nationalist leaders, Islamist reformers were driven underground or into exile. But some of the most reactionary Islamists also began to receive support from the wealthiest Islamic establishment in the world: the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia. The sad irony of this outcome is that the most rigid views of Islamic law, views often rooted in tribal customs and practice, have come to dominate what began as a broad attempt to reform and modernize Islam.
Since September 11, the West and many moderate Muslims have been waiting for a forceful corrective to the Wahhabi-sponsored puritanical interpretations of the Muslim creed. And, to be sure, in the wake of the short-lived Rahman case, a few Muslim organizations and activists have registered their abhorrence of the apostasy charge. Yet few, if any, have clearly called for a long-overdue discussion of the meaning of sharia within the Islamic world. In Abou El Fadl's view, that discussion should have come even earlier, when the Afghanistan Constitution was being put together. But in their haste and sometimes their arrogance, Abou El Fadl says, western advisers feared "opening up the Pandora's box of Islamic arguments." More's the pity, he adds, "because what was needed in the writing of the constitution was a fuller discussion of what sharia means, not just paying lip service to Islam. All that was done was to postpone the issues."
Another good article on Islamic persecutions throughout the world of those who are accused of apostacy crimes against
Islam.http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/059fpgrn.asp?pg=1
There doesn't appear to be unanimous agreement among Muslims on apostasy. I've recently read that several Muslim scholars/leaders speaking up against the prosecution of apostates.
Here is a crucial passage, one that deserves some consideration as an "escape clause", but sadly one that will likely not be very useful:
"the latter (in addition to sayings called hadith attributed to the Prophet and his earliest followers) are associated with the martial phase of the Prophet's career and are often understood as applying to acts of treason rather than to abandonment of the faith..."
The problem I see is that the Umma has a consistently victim-centric worldview. Failure to adhere to this worldview can easily be attributed to treason on the part of the Muslim, or Islamochristian, that is a part of that Islamic world community. It is telling that every single Muslim apostate that has "come out" and written about their experiences abandons that cluster of irrational "we are the victims, our violence is just" mentality that is the core of the Islamic political discourse. Today's apostate is still "deserving" of violent retribution, now for treachery against their erstwhile fellow victims in arms, rather than for disbelief itself. In fact this was always the case; Islam has always been a political system. The death penalty for apostasy is an intellectual Berlin wall that has stood for 1350 years.
I have a feeling Jay Tolson is not a Muslim. When will we see the end of infidels digging up warm, cozy explanations for the barbarity of Muhammad and the absurdity of Sharia? Muslims need to answer these questions themselves, their own leaders to their own adherents. Our job as infidels should be to help them question, not help them maintain the status quo. Formulating liberal interpretations that hold sway nowhere does not help the cause of undoing Islam's sway over 1.2 billions souls, and imperial designs upon billions more.
Rod Liddle in The Spectator (subscription required) tells it like it is:
There is a good fresh study about the topic at large, by Rudolph Peters, professor of Islamic law in Amsterdam. It is called Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law. I just went through it, and I can say that the author did not find any trace of a body of Islamic law that sets aside the death penalty for apostasy on Islamic grounds.
What we find is some sorts of promises to that effect, such as the so called Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights (but only the Arabic version is supposed to be valid and that one says “within the limits of the Sharia”), other commitments to human rights resulting from the signature of international conventions and covenants (to no effect to date) and national codified laws that don’t touch the matter but anywhere state that the Sharia must be respected or that the courts are “[allowed] to inflict punishment for acts that are not mentioned in the penal codes, but are nevertheless punishable under the Sharia” (as in Nigeria).
Let’s face it: it’s just impossible to ground anything tolerant on Islamic scriptures. And the worst is, as Rudolph Peters writes, that “Once the Sharia has been put into force in a certain domain of the law, the way back is nearly impossible, because repealing parts of the Sharia would be regarded as tantamount to apostasy. … The responsible ministers might well become easy targets for assassination by radical Muslims on the grounds of their alleged apostasy. For the same reasons, a campaign launched by Western human rights organizations and directed against the Sharia would not be successful.”
In order to reform Islam, Muslims will have to question the very base of it.
Toronto Sun columnist Eric Margolis clears up some of our "misimpressions" about the Taliban:
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2006/04/02/1515979.html
Try and modernize Islam all you want. The reality is Sharia is at a conflie with the First Ammendment, leave aside the constitution.
So much for 'Islam is Peace'.. oh I forgot, it is blasphamous to talk against Islam..... and the dead don't talk either.
So peaceful!!
I had hoped that such a trial would expose to the world the cruel nature of Islam. Clearly, the self-blinded infidels at large still need the example.
Afghanistan's religio-legal clerics side-stepped the apostasy case to deceive the Sucker-ocracy in the West, nothing more.
The syllogism:
War is deceit.
Islam is endless war against infidels.
Therefore- Islam is endless deceit.
They knew they wouldn't be able to lie as effectively to the unbelievers if they had tried, and killed, Rahman.
So they lied about the nature of Islam and let him go.
Calling him 'mentally unstable' -for converting to Christianity- along the way. Which, in effect, calls into question the sanity of ALL Christians (a comprehensive and comtemptuous insult) for being Christian.
But, sadly, I'm sure another Muslim apostate will finally bring this dogmatic Islamic cruelty to light -with their arrest, inquisition, sentencing, and barbaric death.
Tolson speaks about "deeper, richer Islamic legal understanding, one that views sharia, the path of God, as something that mere humans can only approximate in their efforts to apply the few fundamental precepts of the faith to the laws of this world,"
This is often the quote made by relgious zealots who wish to undermine the intellectual advances which have been achieved over the centuries. As the peoples in the West threw off their religious shackles and emraced Science they suddenly became aware of a world that had once been obscured by the teachings of the Church.
Islam is still obscuring its peoples view of the real world, this is a very important if they (Muslims) are to coexist with those of us in the West.
Winning Western rhetoric:
Sharia is treason.
Screw the NY Times.
"Afghanistan's religio-legal clerics side-stepped the apostasy case to deceive the Sucker-ocracy in the West, nothing more."--Profitsbeard
I agree. In light of Islam's larger goal, to go ahead with the trial and execute Rahman would have put Islam under greater scrutiny of the powerful western nations and would have put Islam itself in danger.
___
Folks,
For detailed information and references on apostasy, including fiqh, see http://www.muhammadanism.org/Government/Government_apostasy_1.htm
From _Reliance of the Traveller_, Shafi'i school
o8.1 "When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to he killed."
o8.4 "There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die)."
[Those rulings are consistent with the Koran].
Some notes on Apostasy
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 20:
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet said, "Whoever possesses the following three qualities will taste the sweetness of faith:
1. The one to whom Allah and His Apostle become dearer than anything else.
2. Who loves a person and he loves him only for Allah's sake.
3. Who hates to revert to disbelief (Atheism) after Allah has brought (saved) him out from it, as he hates to be thrown in fire."
Allah's Punishment.
Those who learn about Allah but reject him or make jest of him will be punished severely by Allah (2:211-212). Those who oppose the Messenger, after believing, will be exposed to hell. Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve and increase in disbelief, Allah will never pardon them nor guide them (4:137). Apostates, those who reject their belief in Allah, will receive an awful doom “because they have chosen the life of the world rather than the Hereafter” (16:106-107). On them is the curse of God, angels, and all mankind, and they will never be forgiven (3:86-90). Apostates are condemned, doomed (47:25, 47:32, 47:34).
Allah's punishment through the hands of the believers.
Verses 4:89-91 call directly for the killing of apostates (in this case those who had allegedly abandoned the Muslims in the battle of Uhud) unless they (a) are protected by peace treaty, (b) withhold their hands from fighting and surrender, or (c) return/revert to Islam. Note that 9:5 is regarded by many scholars as having abrogated the restrictions in 4:90, such that the policy is “convert (or revert) or die” (or accept dhimmitude 9:29, or be protected by temporary peace treaty).
In general, Sura 9 says to fight disbelievers, fight “the heads of disbelief” (9:12), those who have broken their oaths (cf 9:111) and assailed Islam with criticism and disapproval (9:11-14), who are to be killed unless there is a treaty still protecting them. Tafsirs of this passage agree that “fight” means “fight to kill.” (Incidentally, this passage has been cited by bin Laden as well as Bouyeri (who assassinated Theo van Gogh). Verse 9:14 exhorts Muslims to fight those disbelievers and Allah will deliver his punishment through the hands (read swords) of those who are guided by his will. (The disbelievers can be saved if they convert or revert to Islam). Verses 9:73-74 state that they (disbelievers; hypocrites, and apostates) will have no protectors on earth, Allah will inflict them with a doom in the world and in hereafter. (And Allah can punish them at the hands of those guided by his will, i.e., slaves of Allah). It is clear in the context of Sura 9 that “fight” in 9:12 means ‘fight to kill.’
Verse 2:217 says disbelief or turning (oneself or others) away from Allah is worse than killing (also see 2:191, as well as numerous other verses that cite disbelief/rejection of Allah and Mohammad as the worst crime in Islam). Ibn Kathir comments (2:217): “…(...and Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) means, trying to force the Muslims to revert from their religion and re-embrace Kufr after they had believed, is worse with Allah than killing.'…” Note that the penalty for killing a believer is not only hell-fire but the death penalty; therefore the penalty of apostasy, by simple logical assumption at least, should be death in addition to hell-fire.
Hadith.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 259:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle sent us in a mission (i.e. am army-unit) and said, "If you find so-and-so and so-and-so, burn both of them with fire." When we intended to depart, Allah's Apostle said, "I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them."
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "
Sahih Bukhari:
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) 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 Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84.
(2) CHAPTER. The legal regulation concerning the male and the female who reverts from Islam (apostates). Ibn 'Umar, Az-Zuhri and Ibrahim said, "A female apostate (who reverts from Islam), should be killed. And the obliging of the reverters from Islam (apostates) to repent. Allah said: — 'How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their belief and (after) they bore witness that the Apostle (Muhammad) was true, and that Clear Signs had come unto them? And Allah does not guide the wrong-doing people. As for such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of Allah, the Angels, and of all mankind. They will abide there-in (Hell). Neither will their torment be lightened nor it will be postponed (for a while). Except for those that repent after that and make amends. Verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Surely those who disbelieved after their belief, and go on adding to their defiance of faith, never will their repentance be accepted, and they are those who have gone astray.' (Sura 3:86-90) — Volume 9, Book 84, Chapter 2, p. 42-43.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 632. Narrated Abu Burda: […] Once Muadh paid a visit to Abu Musa and saw a chained man. Muadh asked, "What is this?" Abu Musa said, "(He was) a Jew who embraced Islam and has now turned apostate." Muadh said, "I will surely chop off his neck!"
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271: Narrated Abu Musa: A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58 (also see Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4490):
Narrated Abu Burda:
Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'" The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'"
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 808 (also Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64):
Narrated 'Ali:
I relate the traditions of Allah's Apostle to you for I would rather fall from the sky than attribute something to him falsely. But when I tell you a thing which is between you and me, then no doubt, war is guile. I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "In the last days of this world there will appear some young foolish people who will use (in their claim) the best speech of all people (i.e. the Qur'an) and they will abandon Islam as an arrow going through the game. Their belief will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have practically no belief), so wherever you meet them, kill them, for he who kills them shall get a reward on the Day of Resurrection."
Sahih Muslim, Book 016, Number 4154 (see 4152-4155):
'Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) stood up and said: By Him besides Whom there is no god but He, the blood of a Muslim who bears the testimony that there is no god but Allah, and I am His Messenger, may be lawfully shed only in case of three persons: the one who abandons Islam, and deserts the community [Ahmad, one of the narrators, is doubtful whether the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) used the word li'l-jama'ah or al-jama'ah), and the married adulterer, and life for life.
Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 39, Number 4487:
Narrated Uthman ibn Affan:
AbuUmamah ibn Sahl said: We were with Uthman when he was besieged in the house. There was an entrance to the house. He who entered it heard the speech of those who were in the Bilat. Uthman then entered it. He came out to us, looking pale.
He said: They are threatening to kill me now. We said: Allah will be sufficient for you against them, Commander of the Faithful! He asked: Why kill me? I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say: It is not lawful to kill a man who is a Muslim except for one of the three reasons: Kufr (disbelief) after accepting Islam, fornication after marriage, or wrongfully killing someone, for which he may be killed.
I swear by Allah, I have not committed fornication before or after the coming of Islam, nor did I ever want another religion for me instead of my religion since Allah gave guidance to me, nor have I killed anyone. So for what reason do you want to kill me?
Sunan Ibn-I-Majah, Book 20, Number 2534. 'Abdullah, called Ibn Mas'ud (Allah be pleased with him), reported that Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "The blood [of] a Muslim is not lawful who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am Allah's Messenger, but (it is lawful to shed blood) in one of the three cases: (killing) a person, an aged fornicator or a man who forsakes his religion (Islam) and deserts the body (of the Muslims)."
Sunan Ibn-I-Majah, Book 20, Number 2535. Ign ‘Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Kill him who changes his religion (of Islam).”
Sira.
Ishaq:550 “The reason that Allah’s Messenger ordered Abdullash Bin Sarh slain was because he had become a Muslim and used to write down Qur’an Revelation. Then he apostatized (rejected Islam) after becoming suspicious of some verses which prophet changed after his suggestions.”
Ishaq:551 The Messenger ordered Miqyas’ assassination because he became a renegade by rejecting Islam.”