Dhimmi Watch: Egypt's Mufti affirms religious freedom, sort of

July 26, 2007

Egypt's Mufti affirms religious freedom, sort of

First he said it -- or at least seemed to say it: Muslims could leave Islam without fear of incurring a death sentence. Then he didn't say it.

Actually, Ali Gomaa's position has been consistent throughout this mini-imbroglio. He says the apostate should be killed not because he has left Islam, but because he is a threat to society. In his original statement that many understood as calling for an end to the death penalty for apostasy, he says: "If the case in question is one of merely rejecting faith, then there is no worldly punishment. If, however, the crime of undermining the foundations of the society is added to the sin of apostasy, then the case must be referred to a judicial system whose role is to protect the integrity of the society...." Now he says, "I discussed the fact that throughout history, the worldly punishment for apostasy in Islam has been applied only to those who, in addition to their apostasy, actively engaged in the subversion of society."

In an Islamic society, of course, any apostate could be seen as "actively engaged in the subversion of society," since he would no longer be following Sharia which is that society's highest law, so this is no guarantee of religious freedom at all. But one could argue -- although the Mufti himself is not necessarily arguing -- that this should mean that apostates from Islam who live in non-Muslim countries should be left alone. When we see the Mufti issuing proclamations to the effect that Islamic apostates in Virginia need not hire armed guards for their convention, we may be getting somewhere.

"Egypt mufti reaffirms Muslim freedom of faith choice," from Middle East Times (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):

CAIRO -- Egypt's top religious advisor, Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa, reaffirmed his belief Thursday that Muslims could choose their own religion after the local press carried apparently conflicting statements.
Gomaa maintained that while it would be a "grave sin" for Muslims to commit apostasy and convert to another religion, worldly punishment should only be meted out if their actions endangered society.

In many Muslim societies, there is a long-held view - not necessarily supported by scripture - that the punishment for apostasy is death.

"Not necessarily supported by scripture" is good. Some see Qur'an 4:89 as mandating death for apostasy: "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks." But not all Muslim theologians accept this as calling for death for the apostates, so it is "not necessarily supported by scripture." Then there is Muhammad's famous statement: "If anyone discards his religion, kill him."

"Choice means freedom, and freedom includes the freedom to commit grave sins as long as their harm does not extend to others," he said in a statement, echoing remarks that he made earlier in a Washington Post-Newsweek forum on Islam.
His original remarks were picked up by the press who interpreted them to mean that the second-highest religious authority in Egypt did not mind Muslims converting to another faith, necessitating a statement from the mufti Tuesday condemning apostasy that appeared to contradict his Washington Post remarks.

"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," he said. "I discussed the fact that throughout history, the worldly punishment for apostasy in Islam has been applied only to those who, in addition to their apostasy, actively engaged in the subversion of society," he said.

The distinction is important as many clerics in the Muslim world have claimed that death is the automatic punishment for apostasy regardless of whether the individual is a threat to society or not....

Attempts by Muslims in Egypt to convert to other religions have been hindered by the state's refusal to recognize the change in official documents and in some cases have led to arrests and imprisonment.

"Even though it is not a criminal offense in Egypt, they get detained under emergency laws or are put on trial for contempt of religion if they wish to convert," Hossam Bahgat of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights said....

Posted by Robert at July 26, 2007 3:09 PM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(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.)

"He says the apostate should be killed not because he has left Islam, but because he is a threat to society."

I suppose that means that if one looks too happy, or peaceful, or whatever they deem is not correct that they might die anyway because others might follow and leave islam.

I wonder if they are running out of dhimmi to harrass and murder so they are letting some out so they have some new 'playmates'? And considering that the dhimmi do the work that muslims don't want to do - are they in need of some more workers.

Posted by: R_not

at July 26, 2007 3:48 PM

I need to add that a good book to read about muslims in Egypt is 'Now They Call Me Infidel'. It gives not only a good insight into life as a muslim woman, but also Egypt's muslim/dhimmi issues and a little recent history of the area.

Posted by: R_not

at July 26, 2007 3:56 PM

"Gomaa maintained that while it would be a "grave sin" for Muslims to commit apostasy and convert to another religion, worldly punishment should only be meted out if their actions endangered society.
"

...and just who would declare the responsibility for metting out such punishment (typically death)...certainly not the dhimmicrats (heck, they will not support the death sentence for rapists, mass murders or child perverts), why...it must be the Muslim religious police, who certainly enjoy carrying out the death sentence,...and so what if it includes torture, rape, and other sadistic behaviour before death is obtained....they like it...

ban muslim immigration

Posted by: exsgtbrown

at July 26, 2007 4:03 PM

Someone ask this mufti:

1. What exactly constitutes "engaging in the subversion of society"? (Let's refer to this as "SOS")

2. In particular, could he describe a situation in which a NON-apostate commits this crime?

3. Does SOS, by itself, constitute a crime (he regards as) punishable by death?

4. Apparently, as he claims, Apostacy does not. If SOS is not a capital crime, and Apostacy is not a capital crime, and the two are separate crimes, how does the combination suddenly become a capital crime? Is this like armed robbery -- there's robbery without a weapon and robbery with a weapon and having the weapon makes the robbery much worse? What is the connection between the Apostacy and the SOS? Is the mufti saying that, as part and parcel of apostacy there is a tendency for some apostates not just to become christians (or whatever) but also to go around destroying municipal parks, flashing kids in the playground and saying bad things about the government? How about just coming out and saying what monsters all non-muslims are?

5. More specific than 4: Let us say that the punishment for SOS is A, and that for Apostacy is B. What are A and B? Is A = slap on the wrist? Is B = 5 years in prison? How in the name of Murgatroyd does A+B = death?

6. If this is "Sharia" then please explain why the Islamic cultures claimed to be such hot stuff in Mathematics -- when apparently they have trouble with simple arithmetic!

The good mufti's dissembling is so transparent it's beyond idiocy. This fellow is associated with the most prestigious university, no less, in the Islamic world?

-------

I believe that SOS, as the mufti has described it, probably boils down to another word for Apostacy, or refusal to revert to Islam after Apostacizing; it is "we kill you if you don't convert back..."

I'm not saying that this is the islamically correct ruling (I'm pretty convinced that there is no such thing these days -- they say what they want). My judgement comes from watching a couple of Canadian Islamic apologists try to gloss over the case last year of the convert to Christianity to Islam who had been sentenced to death (by the U.S. - installed government!). What they said, in general, was that there is no death penalty for apostacy, unless the person commits "mischief in the land".

I wondered about this "mischief" phrase, until it was pointed out to me that in Qur'an and Hadith literature, the word most often translated "mischief" literally means "resistance". In context, it means "resistance to Islam". Since Islam means "submission", the two words are antonyms of a sort.

Thus the phrase "mischief in the land" or "subversion of society" is a disguised manner of speaking in English about resistance to islam by an Apostate, while giving the semblance of a "tolerant" application of Sharia. As far as I know all major schools of Islamic jurisprudence explicity give death penalty for Apostacy, under support of the "mischief" passages, and recognize no separate category of offense that would coincide with SOS as described here.

Robert: I think it might be helpful if you commented here on the appropriateness of my attempt at etymology here and whether my guess about the absence of any well-defined crime of SOS in classical Islamic jurisprudence holds any water.

Posted by: Archimedes2

at July 26, 2007 4:45 PM

Archi,

as always: You nailed it!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at July 26, 2007 5:25 PM

You're free to leave.

We're free to kill you for it.

An Islamic win-win.

Logic optional.

Posted by: profitsbeard

at July 26, 2007 8:57 PM

Now he says, "I discussed the fact that throughout history, the worldly punishment for apostasy in Islam has been applied only to those who, in addition to their apostasy, actively engaged in the subversion of society." --Robert, quoting Gomaa.

"Throughout history," former Muslims were ordinarily executed simply for making their apostasy public. It is extremely unlikely that Gomaa would not be aware of that. Again, nothing has changed in Gomaa's views. He has affirmed his approval of that policy. The above statement, taken with his other statements, indicates that he puts public apostasy in the category of "subversion of society."

Why, then, does he engage in these carefully placed, carefully crafted ambiguities, when he could simply come out and tell us exactly what he really thinks? Perhaps these kinds of public-relations statements are intended for political audiences in the U.S. (I believe his original statement was written in the Washington Post), which gives so much $$$ to Egypt. Perhaps these statements must also be seen in light of Islam's larger "project" viz colonizing the west. These ambiguous statements, in that light, are tactical, designed to soften Islam's image as much as possible for the eyes of the westerners and, thus, keep the demographic jihad running smoothly. In that sense, Gomaa is engaging in the usual apologetics/propaganda.

As for the subsequent clarifications, these are probably designed to keep him out of hot water (or much worse) with his co-religionists back home.

Posted by: Khaybar Oasis

at July 27, 2007 1:11 AM

This issue is being debated in the UK's Guardian Online "Comment is Free".

Some of these lefty/liberals are too stupid to realise exactly what is at stake here.

"Islam's organic liberalism"

Heres the link:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ali_eteraz/2007/07/islams_organic_liberalism.html

After reading some of the comments you don't know wether to laugh or cry !

Posted by: apostate_islam

at July 27, 2007 5:40 AM

apostate_islam, you might as well cry. Most people are so glued to the liberal belief of multiculturalism that they can't even conceive that what one group believes could be dangerous to other groups.

Of course, the article was written by Ali Eteraz who swallows the camel and strains at a gnat. From what he has said, he was an atheist about two years ago, is very left on the political spectrum, and just recently converted to Islam. His views of Islam are extremely non-traditional. He spends his time declaring that every little movement highlights Islam's great liberalism. Based on his postings on non-Islamic matters over at Dean's World, I don't take him too seriously.

Posted by: Terrahawk

at July 27, 2007 7:07 AM

Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.