| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In FrontPage this morning I discuss the prevailing unreality regarding the Islamic death penalty for apostates in reference to one particularly egregious case:
The Abdul Rahman case in Afghanistan has given rise to a spate of articles in the Western press, assuring Westerners that Muslims do not actually kill or want to kill apostates. While these may be reassuring to non-Muslims, many of them have been downright misleading about the real status of the death penalty for apostasy in the Islamic world. One of the most egregious of these came this week from M. Cherif Bassiouni, a professor of Law at DePaul University and President of the International Human Rights Law Institute. He has served at the UN in various capacities, including as Chairman of the Security Council’s Commission to Investigate War Crimes in the Former Yugoslavia; Vice-Chairman of the General Assembly's Ad Hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court; and as Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in Afghanistan.Yet all these credentials don’t amount to accuracy. In "Leaving Islam is not a capital crime" in the Chicago Tribune, Bassiouni purveys a series of half-truths and distortions about apostasy in Islam that are -- at best -- misleading. He begins by asserting: “A Muslim's conversion to Christianity is not a crime punishable by death under Islamic law, contrary to the claims in the case of Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan.”
This is a sweeping characterization that goes much farther than most statements that have been made by Islamic moderates in the last week or so. While others have asserted that apostasy should not be a capital crime in Islamic law, they have at least acknowledged that many Islamic authorities believe that it should. Bassiouni, on the other hand, states flatly -- in defiance of the clear teaching of every school of Islamic jurisprudence -- that apostasy is not a capital crime under Islamic law.
It is hard even to take seriously an analysis that begins with such an obvious falsehood. It gets even worse when Bassiouni continues: “While there is long-established doctrine that apostasy is punishable by death, that has also long been questioned by Islamic criminal justice scholars, including this writer.” Now we are already entangled in a contradiction. I'm glad that Islamic criminal justice scholars are questioning this doctrine. But that does not mean that the doctrine doesn't exist, as Bassiouni asserted in his first sentence.Bassiouni then invokes the ostensibly liberal laws of Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, and Turkey as evidence for his contention that Islamic law doesn’t prescribe death for apostates. But in none of those states is Shari'a the sole basis of law. Certainly it is more or less of an influence in all of them, but since they all also have other sources for legislation, none of them can be invoked as telling us anything about Islamic law. Bassiouni knows full well that there are schools of Islamic jurisprudence that he should be talking about if he wants to say anything about Islamic law. Why doesn't he mention them? Perhaps because he knows they will contradict what he is asserting?
Also, he makes no mention of the fact that because of the influence of the Sharia, in all those states apostates from Islam live under a cloud. For example, when the Egyptian secularist Faraj Foda was murdered in 1992, Sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazali, whom some have hailed as a "reformer," declared: “The killing of Faraj Foda was in fact the implementation of the punishment against an apostate which the imam (the state) has failed to implement (undertake).” So Al-Ghazali was asserting that individual Muslims had the responsibility to implement Sharia when the state did not do so -- and he was asserting this with specific reference to the killing of an apostate.
Also, Paul Marshall notes: "Other countries, like Egypt, that have no laws against apostasy, instead use laws against 'insulting Islam' or 'creating sectarian strife.' In 2003, Egyptian security forces arrested 22 converts and people who had helped them. Some were tortured, and one, Isam Abdul Fathr, died in custody. Last year, Gaseer Mohamed Mahmoud was whipped and had his toenails pulled out by police, and was told he would be imprisoned until he gave up Christianity."
Bassiouni continues: “States that recognize it as a crime punishable by death include Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. However, there are no known cases in recent times in which someone charged with apostasy in these countries has been put to death.”
However, Marshall asserts that "in the last ten years Saudi Arabia has executed people for the crimes of apostasy, heresy, and blasphemy" and "in the 1990s, the Islamic Republic of Iran used death squads against converts, including major Protestant leaders, and the situation is worsening under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The regime is currently engaged in a systematic campaign to track down and reconvert or kill those who have changed their religion from Islam."
But perhaps even more important than the simple inaccuracy of Bassiouni's statements here is the fact that if such laws are on the books, that is enough. They can then be reasserted at any time, even if they are ignored for long periods.
Bassiouni then appeals to the Qur'an. In doing so, he ends up acknowledging that his is a minority position among Islamic scholars. “The principal category of crimes in Islam is called hudud. These crimes are referred to in the Koran and thus require prosecution. They are: adultery, theft, transgression (physical aggression), highway robbery, slander and alcohol consumption. Apostasy is included in this list by most scholars, but not by a few others.” He asserts that “turning away from Islam, which is translated as apostasy, would not have been considered a crime, except the Prophet Muhammad (praise be upon him) in the 7th Century applied the death penalty to a Muslim who turned away from Islam. Historians of the Sunnah, the tradition established by the Prophet and deemed binding upon all Muslims, failed to note a significant fact about that case--that person not only had a change of faith, but decided to join the enemies of Islam at a time of war, thus making it a crime of high treason. Such a crime exists in all legal systems, many with the death penalty.”
But it is not true that Muhammad ordered the execution only of apostates who joined the enemies of Islam. His statement baddala deenahu, faqtuhulu -- if anyone changes his religion, kill him -- includes no caveat. He didn't say, "If anyone changes his religion, kill him only if he joins the enemies of Islam." He simply said, "If anyone changes his religion, kill him." This statement is amply attested in the Hadith, and is accepted as authentic by all except the most disingenuous Islamic scholars. It appears in various forms in Bukhari, Ibn Majah, An-Nasai, Tayalisi, Malik, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud, and other authorities.
Nor does Muhammad make any exception when enunciating the principle in this way: "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, 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" (Bukhari, vol. 9, bk. 83, no. 17).
Bassiouni asserts that the Qur’an forbids the death penalty for apostasy. He says that it “contains a fundamental principle stated in unequivocal terms: ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion,’ Surat Al-Baqarah, verse 256. Surely this overarching principle cannot be transgressed by forcing a person under penalty of death to espouse Islam even after such a person professes to have renounced it.”
Many Islamic apologists have invoked this verse recently in order to establish that Islam has no death penalty for apostasy. Yet advocates of such a penalty are well aware of this verse, and have explanations for it. For example, Pakistan's foremost cleric, Mufti Munib ur Rehman, maintains that it applies only to non-Muslims who wish to become Muslims, not to Muslims who want to leave Islam. If Bassiouni thinks this is an erroneous interpretation, he needs to confront it, not simply ignore it. After all, this verse appears in the Qur’ans of all the advocates of the death penalty for apostasy, and it has not deterred them.
Bassiouni then continues to build a case from the Qur'an, after which he says: “Why these issues were not raised in the Rahman trial in Kabul and with the government of Afghanistan is surprising.”
It's only surprising to people who don't know, or don't want others to know, the deep roots that the death penalty for apostasy has within Islamic tradition. But the Abdul Rahman case is not isolated: freedom of conscience is routinely trampled in Muslim countries. Muslim moderates like Bassiouni should stop sweeping this fact under the rug, and instead develop honest ways to deal with it and try to work within the Islamic world to inculcate respect for this basic human right.
Posted by Robert at April 6, 2006 7:51 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
I would have signaled Pipes article on the 2:256: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2110 - most notably the list of interpretations:
In fact, this deceptively simple phrase historically has had a myriad of meanings. Here are some of them, mostly premodern, deriving from two outstanding recent books, Patricia Crone's God's Rule: Government and Islam (Columbia University Press) and Yohanan Friedman's Tolerance and Coercion in Islam (Cambridge University Press), augmented by my own research. Proceeding from least liberal to most liberal, the no-compulsion phrase is considered variously to have been:- Abrogated: The passage was overridden by subsequent Koranic verses (such as 9:73: "O Prophet! Struggle against the unbelievers and hypocrites and be harsh with them").
- Purely symbolic: The phrase is a description, not an imperative. Islam's truth is so obvious that to coerce someone to become a Muslim does not amount to "compulsion"; or else being made to embrace Islam after defeat in war is not viewed as "compulsion."
- Spiritual, not practical: Governments may indeed compel external obedience, though they of course cannot compel how Muslims think.
- Limited in time and place: It applied uniquely to Jews in Medina in the seventh century.
- Limited to non-Muslims who live under and accept Muslim rule: Some jurists say it applies only to "Peoples of the Book" (Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians); others say it applies to all infidels.
- Excludes some non-Muslims: Apostates, women, children, prisoners of war, and others can indeed be compelled. (This is the standard interpretation that has applied in most times and places).
- Limited to all non-Muslims: Muslims must abide by the tenets of Islam and may not apostatize.
- Limited to Muslims: Muslims may shift from one interpretation of their faith to another (such as from Sunni to Shia), but may not leave Islam.
Applied to all persons: Reaching the true faith must be achieved through trial and testing, and compulsion undercuts this process. Massive disagreement over a short phrase is typical, for believers argue over the contents of all sacred books, not just the Koran. The debate over the no-compulsion verse has several important implications.
And we have to see that this verse, shortly after Nakhla, sure had as only goal to permit the conversion TO Islam.
Posted by: ajm![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 6, 2006 7:59 AM
What I get out of all of this is that it does not matter whether the "crime of apostasy" (a bogus charge to be sure, since islam is itself apostasy of everything honest and true) is charged by a "court of law," since muslims are charged by their "prophet" to kill those who leave their religion of origin. It does not tell them to allow such persons their "day in court," but rather to simply kill them where they are.
Islam redefines so many words such as "martyrdom" and "apostasy" to make them mean the exact opposite of their original meaning. Martyrdom, prior to Mohammad contaminating it, meant a person who suffered persecution, and often death by those who demanded said person to turn away from their faith, and deny the God that they trusted their faith in. Mohammad made martyrdom to mean for one who is "faithful" to HIS words and HIS god to force this "faith" upon those who choose not to take Mohammad's religion, and dying in the process of forcing others (upon the pain of death) to submit to this tyrannical "faith."
The same applies to Mohammad's contaminated version of "apostasy." The original meaning of apostasy meant turning the true meaning of something into a lie, and the apostate is one who means to turn others away from the truth in favor of the lie. The islamic, lying version of "apostate" is one who turns towards that which is true, regardless of whether such "apostate" means to convert others to his truth or not. In the original, the danger involves the spreading of false or incorrect doctrine amongst the faithful. In the contaminated version, it does not matter if anything "false" or "incorrect" is involved. It only matters that someone isn't worshipping God the way EVERYBODY ELSE is worshipping Him according to Mohammad's contaminated teaching.
Words mean things, and there is a proper, correct definition of terms and what they really mean. Islam takes that which is proper and true in their meaning and contaminates it with blasphemeous lies and corruption. They say that which is true is a lie, and that which is a lie is true. Their world is figuratively and literally upside-down.
Posted by: yohannbiimu at April 6, 2006 8:41 AM
Bassiouni's quote from the Chicago Tribune "Leaving Islam is not a capital crime" may purvey a series of half-truths. Mr. Bassiouni's thoughts can be completed easily enough:
"Leaving Islam is not a capital crime. In the West. Yet."
Posted by: Chatillon at April 6, 2006 8:59 AM
Yohannblimu: Originginally, the word _martyr_ meant a witness. Perhaps we could explain it that for Christians, a martyr is someone who maintained his witness regardless of the persecution he received, even to death; in Islam, a martyr is a persecutor whose victim fights back!
The chief thing I notice about the people who say that Islam does not mandate the killing of apostates is that they are all in the West or writing for Western audiences. I'll believe it when I hear it preached in Sa'udi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Posted by: Kepha at April 6, 2006 10:20 AM
The Pipes article quoted above seems to me to rather undo what Robert and Hugh are saying. "Islam is what Muslims make of it." In other words, just forget the past. A 'new and improved' Islam can be manufactured anytime one wishes. (Or one can go back to the old, bad Islam anytime one wishes.) Hey, same is true of any religion or ideology! Shall we call Pipes on this moral relativism? Fortunately, I've seen a photo here showing that Pipes and Spencer are good friends. That's what democracy is all about. Frankly, I think Pipes knows very well what the historical tendency of Islam has been, but he wishes to bamboozle some Muslims into joining modernity. I would bet my money on the Ataturk approach, but maybe I'm too cynical.
Posted by: Benjamin at April 6, 2006 10:23 AM
Not too cynical, too fast. It is just true that Islam (an idea, or two) can be changed by Muslims (people). Whether they want or will do it or not is not the issue. They must. Period.
Now how do we get them to do it? For example by showing the excruciating necessity to do it. And Pipes is offering the record: in 1400 years, Muslims interpreted 2:256 rather bad, that it, intolerantly. They have a whole lot to catch up.
But my point was to show that 2:256 is not a tolerant verse for Muslims. It was not so at its origin and it has not been so to date. As a matter of facts.
at April 6, 2006 10:52 AM
Bonjour Alain,
Ca me fait plaisir d'encontrer un nom Francais et non-Juif qui parle intelligeament de l'Islam. J'ai 'bookmarke' ton blog. (Non, je ne veux pas continuer en Francais. Ca fait deja une trentaine d'annees que je l'ai parle. Ton blog va peut etre rafraichir ma memoire...)
Posted by: Benjamin at April 6, 2006 11:54 AM
Sois le bienvenu! Meanwhile I visited your site, too, and I thought it was quite a nice way to spend time. Cordialement.
Posted by: ajm at April 6, 2006 12:02 PM
Yet another forehead slapper.
A professor of Law at DePaul University?
President of the International Human Rights Law Institute?
Chairman of the Security Council’s
Commission to Investigate War Crimes?
If there is such a thing as an intellectual blacklist, this dhimwit
needs to be added to that list. Seems there are a few academic dhimwits
out there who actually believe they know everything and need not look
it up!
Let's corroborate literal scripture with literal intent of Muslims
under the rule of Sharia law and call it as we see it.
Once Muslim - that's it. If you leave - you die.
Bukhari:Volume-4 Book-52 Number-260 Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
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.' "
at April 6, 2006 1:41 PM
Silly me - the hadith is only secondary to the absolute threats and promises of hellfire from "allah". Two more cruel nails from the Qur'an itself:
Qur’an 3:131 “Fear the Fire, which is prepared for those who reject Faith: and obey Allah and the Messenger.”
Qur’an 4:168 “Those who reject Faith, Allah will not forgive them nor guide them to any path except the way to Hell, to dwell therein forever. And this to Allah is easy.”
Posted by: Quantum Infidel at April 6, 2006 1:56 PM
What explanation can be given for 4:90 from the Quran? Abrogated?
Posted by: jawa at April 6, 2006 1:58 PM
I made a long post about your FrontPage article this afteroon. Keeping an eye on DePaul is almost a full-time job.
From my blog, something you have not have known:
Not sure how Dr. Bassiouni's fellow Muslims will view this information, but the DePaul School of Law was one of the plaintiffs in FAIR vs. Rumsfeld. DePaul was one of the schools that wanted to ban military recruiters from campus because of the Defense Department's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military.
Posted by: Marathon Pundit at April 6, 2006 5:11 PM
De Paul? Didn't they feature in these pages last year for persecuting a lecturer who would not play the dhimmi? Or does memory play me false? One academic outrage is so much like another...
Posted by: Paolo at April 6, 2006 5:53 PM
Thomas Klocek. Here is my March 1 "blog-ography" on Marathon Pundit.
Posted by: Marathon Pundit at April 6, 2006 6:52 PM
I could really care less what an academic claims is Sharia Law now or should be; I would rather rely on the present and past history and behavior of Muslims in that region of the world regarding the Apostate issue.
From what I have read by Ibn Warraq in Robert's The Myth of Islamic Intolerance there should be no doubt that many have been put to death for being an apostate based on both the Quran and Hadith.
It is amazing how these academics set themselves up as their own authorities on their faiths, giving the impression that they are in uniform with Muslims all over the world, when in actuality they are simply uniform in their PROFESSING of their faiths.
Posted by: amana39 at April 6, 2006 7:16 PM
Leaving Islam is not a capital crime
Bassiouni states this as a doctrinal tenet, not as the reality it is in today's Muslim countries. The incongruity between doctrine and reality is massive, yet Bassiouni spins this to make non-Muslims think it means death-penalty-for-apostasy is some kind of aberration (so much for "perfection" in Islam, eh?)
One other thing...leaving Islam may not be a CAPITAL crime in "moderate" Muslim countries like Malaysia, but it sure as heck is still a CRIME (see "Restrictions on Religious Freedom " in the US State Dept's. International Religious Freedom Report 2005 on Malaysia). For that matter, look it up for all the countries Bassiouni claims does not treat apostasy as a crime....it won't be necessarily as he says.
Posted by: yadayada at April 6, 2006 8:23 PM
The point here is the evolution of the situation in the Islamic world. Quoting Rudolph Peters, in the conclusion (p. 189) of his “ Crime and Punishments in Islamic Law – Theory and Practice from the Sixteenth to the Twenty-first Century:”
The re-emergence of Islamic criminal law … is one of the most striking phenomena in the recent history of the Shari’a. Islamic criminal law was regarded by many as a phenomenon of the past. Many Western observers believed that in those few countries where it was still in force Islamic criminal law would eventually be abolished. However, from the 1970s the number of countries applying Islamic criminal law slowly increased.
And it is important to know that those laws don’t need to be specified in modern penal codes for being effective. It is enough to state anywhere that Shari’a should be a source of law for having them applied when the case "fits", as shown by the death sentence, for apostasy, pronounced (and executed) against Mahmud Muhammad Taha in Sudan in 1985, in spite of the fact that apostasy was not mentioned anywhere in the Sudanese Penal Code.
at April 7, 2006 3:43 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)