A Jihad Watch exclusive from Andrew Bostom, editor of The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, on the Rifqa Bary case:
Last evening I read a particularly illuminating anecdote from Wafa Sultan’s forthcoming book (due out October 13th), A God Who Hates, which provides an irrefragable counterpoint to the taqiya-mongering drivel on Rifqa Bary’s apostasy case recently spewed forth by the cultural jihadist Salam Al-Marayati.Let me first digress and dispense with Al-Marayati’s crudely unsophisticated taqiya. Yes, despite Al-Maryati’s denial, apostasy is mentioned in the Koran—Koran 4:89 most prominently—and the punishment is death, as noted for example by two of the most important classical Koranic exegetes, Baydawi and Ibn Kathir, in their commentaries on this verse. Al-Maryati’s crude taqiya fully ignores the fact that punishment by death for apostasy from Islam is firmly rooted in all the most holy Muslim texts—both the Koran, and the hadith—as well as the sacred Islamic Law (the Shari’a). Koran 4:89 states, “They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.”
One of the most authoritative Koranic commentators, Baydawi (d. 1315/16) interprets this passage thus: “Whosoever turns back from belief (irtada), openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard.” (cited in Zwemer, The Law of Apostasy in Islam, 1924, pp. 33-34).” Ibn Kathir's (d. 1373) venerated commentary on Koran 4:89 concurs, maintaining that as apostates have manifested their unbelief, they should be punished by death.
These draconian judgments are reiterated in a number of hadith (i.e., collections of the putative words and deeds of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, as compiled by pious transmitters). For example, Muhammad is reported to have said “Kill him who changes his religion” in hadith collections of both Bukhari and Abu Dawud. There is also a consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi’i), as well as Shi’ite jurists, that apostates from Islam must be put to death. Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy (vol. 2, p. 552): “An apostate...is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, 'Slay those who change their din [religion]'.... Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition...prior to his execution…”
Even the contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy-endorsed Shafi’i manual of Islamic Law, 'Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96) states plainly: “Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst.... When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory...to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.”
Back to Wafa Sultan’s book which records her exchange with a Muslim woman interlocutor who was an Oxford University graduate. Wafa and her interlocutor engaged in a discussion about the legitimacy and morality of the offensive attributes of Allah encapsulated by some of the “99 names” conferred upon the Muslim deity, uniquely, during Islam’s advent, including notably, “The Imperious,” “The Humiliator,” “The Bringer of Death,” and “The Harmer.” It is this latter appellation that Wafa finds particularly troubling, and she questions why Muslims refuse to confront the negativism implicit in sanctioning the commission of harm by Islam’s God. She understands the typical stated rationale, “They say: ‘When a person believes in God’s ability to harm he will take care not to disobey him, so as to avoid being harmed by him.’” But Wafa believes this kind of broadly internalized rationalization has extracted a terrible toll on Islamic societies, in conjunction with other flawed ethical conceptions, and debased, rather than elevated their moral standards. She makes very cogent arguments in support of her thesis at some length throughout the book, which I will leave to a subsequent discussion, but her attempt to find common ground with a highly educated Muslim woman on the appellation “The Harmer,” captures a very dangerous conundrum Westerners till now appear almost incapable of appreciating.
The exchange and Wafa’s concluding lament bring us back to the question of “apostasy,” and the unacceptable plight of Muslim apostates in our own Western societies, let alone their native Islamic societies.
“…a Muslim reader from London, an Oxford University graduate with whom I conducted an extensive e-mail correspondence…wrote to me on one occasion: ‘Can you deny that God is capable of causing harm? Could he not destroy the universe if he wanted to?’ She continued” ‘What’s wrong with proclaiming his destructive powers? Isn’t this necessary in order to prevent people from crossing the line and disobeying his commands?’I replied: ‘A father has the ability to harm his child when he disobeys him, but does he do so? Is that the proper way to educate our children not to overstep the boundaries we set for them?’
The Oxford graduate responded: ‘There’s no comparison! The difference between God’s power and that of a human being is much greater than the difference between a father and a son’s.’
I replied: ‘But shouldn’t God’s wisdom, mercy, and love far surpass the wisdom, mercy, and love of a father?’
The exchange turned into a fruitless quarrel at the end of which I heard only the e-mailed shouts of the Oxford graduate as she described me as a misguided unbeliever and apostate deserving only of being put to death.”
"at the end of which I heard only the e-mailed shouts of the Oxford graduate as she described me as a misguided unbeliever and apostate deserving only of being put to death.”
So predictable. Their true colors always show in the end.
Islam = enough hate for everybody.
I am not sure that 4:89 justifies the death penalty for apostasy. After 4:89 speaks of slaying them wherever you find them the next verse basically says not to fight them if they aren't going to fight you. 4:90 says, "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 or fighting their own People. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah hath opend no way for you (to war against them)."
Am I wrong in saying that those two verses together don't justify the death penalty for apostasy? I understand from reading this article that these authoritative commentators of the Quran say that this verse justifies the death penalty for apostasy, but just reading these two verses myself I don't understand how you can come to that conclusion. It does seem clear from Muhammad's own words that the death penalty is the penalty for apostasy but I'm not sure if you can determine this from reading the Quran.
I am not sure that 4:89 justifies the death penalty for apostasy. After 4:89 speaks of slaying them wherever you find them the next verse basically says not to fight them if they aren't going to fight you. 4:90 says, "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 or fighting their own People. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah hath opend no way for you (to war against them)."
Am I wrong in saying that those two verses together don't justify the death penalty for apostasy? I understand from reading this article that these authoritative commentators of the Quran say that this verse justifies the death penalty for apostasy, but just reading these two verses myself I don't understand how you can come to that conclusion. It does seem clear from Muhammad's own words that the death penalty is the penalty for apostasy but I'm not sure if you can determine this from reading the Quran.
death is always the Muslim answer to everything.
It seems only natural that the 'Religion of Harm', should have at it's head the 'god of harm'...
From article: ‘Can you deny that God is capable of causing harm?
Yes...fake gods like Allah can harm nothing but the minds of mental midgets...
From article: Could he not destroy the universe if he wanted to?’
No...Allah is only in charge of Islam...Not the universe...
Since it is well recognized that Muhammad called for willful apostates to be executed this is enough, for the Koran says that
Muhammad is, after all, uswa hasana, an Excellent Model Of Conduct (Qur'an 33:21). The Qur'an also says: "He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah" (4:80).
So the Koran at least implicitly calls for the execution of apostates. There is thus sufficient reason for Sharia to mandate this totalitarian atrocity. Sharia has all the charm of Stalin's NKVD.
"I heard only the e-mailed shouts of the Oxford graduate as she described me as a misguided unbeliever and apostate deserving only of being put to death.”
Why is that whenever I hear a Muslim, in appearance much like a regular human being, talk like this I think of the horror flick Invasion of the Body Snatchers ?
Their minds are gone.
This is all to the good -- more and more Islam reveals itself -- it can't help it. In every way, and every day we learn more and more about our deadly enemy. Soon, we'll find the exact way to stop it in its tracks. The Muslims will eventually thank us, their enlightened brothers and sisters, for delivering them from a hate-filled, enforced-by-terror paganism.
Islam: Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. Rewarded in the next life with what you would be damned for doing in this present life, and even if you didn't do it, you are damned 7 ways from Sunday, if your family thinks you did.
Matt sez:
"Am I wrong in saying that those two verses together don't justify the death penalty for apostasy? "
Muslims say the same thing when they talk to Infidels to soothe the naive Infidel ears....But when believers are talking to other believers..they know that when "Koran 4:89 states, “They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.”,
They know this includes apostates...and kill them they do...wherever they find them..
In the end, it always comes down to a tirade. Sultan's dialogue partner revealed herself to be just another primitive. This should be a warning to Westerners that a dozen years or so of education cannot be depended upon to counteract deeply ingrained Islamic socialization. Also, with attempts to impact Muslim feelings as little as possible, whatever socialization that occurs will become even more marginal.
Matt, read Ibn Kathir's tafsir on those verses and I think you'll see that the loophole you're referring to is a contextual exception, not a general principle -- it's rather the argument by "context" that Islam apologists are always trying to adduce, this time working against them, so it seems.
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=4&tid=11861
[then click on the "Next" at the bottom of the page for the rest]
Matt,
I think you've made a reasonable observation about the passage involving 4:89.
You note: "It does seem clear from Muhammad's own words that the death penalty is the penalty for apostasy but I'm not sure if you can determine this from reading the Quran."
Despite what you and I might find in the way of the Quran's lack of clarity, pious Muslims are deeply invested in a worldview where they must make sense of the Quran because they believe it is the words of Allah. Of course, most Muslims aren't Islamic scholars, so they often rely on what the Muslims scholars and the imams say about the verses, and ultimately they must obey to some extent what the Muslim jurists have ruled about these propositions (to the extent that a Muslim country or community adheres to the elements of sharia). Muslims scholars and jurists were (and are) stuck with the task of having to make sense out of a badly-written, poorly composed book that is often ambiguous in its instructions and contains very little context. Given this, Muslim scholars turn to methods of Quranic interpretation in which--in order to make sense out of any passage in the Quran--they interpret the passage in light of what other parts of the Quran say on the subject (not just the immediately-surrounding passage but the entire Quran), as well as what the Hadith, Sira, and (if necessary) other relevant Scriptures may say on the subject. This is particularly important for passages containing rulings. So the passage containing 4:89 is interpreted in light of the relevant hadiths and parts of the Sira pertaining to this verse in terms of (1) context (Asbab al-Nuzul), and in light of (2) tafsir to assemble and interpret what other verses and hadiths and parts of the Sira say about the punishments for various kinds of disbelief including apostasy. Even prior Scriptures, such as the Torah, may be consulted in this process. Any one of these sources provide ample support (from the pious Muslim perspective) for the death penalty for apostasy or for encouraging apostasy, though of these the Quran is perhaps the most ambiguous and controversial.
Some of the verses that I have seen Muslim scholars and jurists cite as either directly or indirectly relevant to the apostasy penalty:
5:33 (see Qaradawi), 5:54, 2:217, 9:11-12 (Maududi), 33:60-62, 9:73-74, 9:123.
It seems to me that the 4:89 passage needs to be seen in light of 9:5, which many commentators believe abrogates 4:90.
Also, the death penalty for apostasy can be seen in light of, or by way analogy to, the blasphemy penalty (which in the hadith is clearly the death penalty, but which is again would be ambiguous based on the Quran alone). Blasphemy involves public expression of disbelief, and public apostasy involves expression of disbelief. Note that public expression of disbelief in Islam and insulting Muhammad violates the terms of peace under the dhimma. Hence, the apparent protections and exceptions provided in 4:90 do not apply, because public expressions of disbelief nullify any such protections. Moreover, public expressions of disbelief are considered fasad, or "corruption"/"mischief", for which the death penalty may be administered (5:32-5:33)--the latter is the Iranian regime's interpretation.
From the article:
"The Oxford graduate responded: ‘There’s no comparison! The difference between God’s power and that of a human being is much greater than the difference between a father and a son’s.’"
The fallacy of the appeal to force, committed by an alleged Oxford graduate, who believes that those who leave Islam should be put to death. Sadly, this doesn't surprise me.
"The exchange turned into a fruitless quarrel at the end of which I heard only the e-mailed shouts of the Oxford graduate as she described me as a misguided unbeliever and apostate deserving only of being put to death.”
How on earth did I know that was coming. So predictable and neurotic they are.
A better start point would be the discussion of the existence of god in the first place.