More On The Apostasy Hadith
Update 9/10: Straight Up Quranic Attack On Apostasy Death Penalty
Update 12:11: Robert Spencer replies to this post, too. In it he states that Ghamidi wants to subjugate non-Muslims. He does not give any authority for the statement. Interestingly, Ghamidi supports pamphlets like this, by his student, and makes limitations like this on Jihad. Robert also keeps merging me with Aziz and Esmay even though I’ve told him to stop. He apparently won’t because I cross-post at Dean’s, despite the fact that one clear Dean’s World policy is that each frontpager speaks for himself. Why does Robert merge me with them? One will never know. Robert Spencer also states that I face an uphill battle on the issue of apostasy. I agree, partly, but only partly. Scholars of enormous weight, like Shahrour, An-Naim, Moosa, Mernissi, Kamali, Ramadan, all oppose the death penalty for apostasy. Tomorrow there will be one less Muslim who believes in the death penalty for apostates because of their work. Muslims listen to these scholars a lot more than they listen to Ali Eteraz, and a lot more than Robert gives them credit for. Anyway, I do ask Robert, since he wants to see us “unorthodox” and “minority” to succeed, to use all of his well acquired influence with Muslims to propagate my internet Muslim community (which will launch on Nov. 15th).
Original Post:
Robert Spencer replies to my post from yesterday which offered an alternative legal argument for the hadith upon which the death penalty for apostasy is based. I’m glad for the discussion because some of the concerns he raised were also raised by another commentator.
The issue at hand is whether a hadith in Bukhari and Muslim (the two books of hadith Muslims consider most authoritative), which reads, “whoever changes their religion, kill him” is legitimate. And if it is legitimate, then what can be done about it?
I provided a link to an analysis yesterday which I claimed proves that the hadith should not be relied upon. I also claimed that the argument against the hadith was an “airtight legal argument.” Despite Spencer’s reply, I maintain my position.
Spencer’s argument that my position is flawed is encapsulated here:
See anything in there about this hadith, in which Muhammad says “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” (من بدل دينه فاقتلوه), being inauthentic?
Well, I don’t know which document Spencer was reading, but the rejection of the statement “whoever changes his religion, kill him” is right there. I admit the text is vague. It is written by an Islamic Lawyer, a man whose first language is not English and who writes in the arcane language of hadith-analysis. But, so what if it is arcane, isn’t that why there are people like Robert Spencer, best selling author of books on Islam, trained in all the methodologies of Islamic Law at the world’s top institutions, so they he can tell us what these vague things mean? Since he missed it, I will highlight the parts that flatly contradict the hadith:
Thus, according to the Qur’an, as a result of the advent of the Messenger of God in the Banu Ishmael, those who rejected faith from amongst the polytheists were subject to the death penalty, under the provisions of the Divine Law relating to the advent of God’s messengers.
And what does this Divine Law stand for?
It declares to the direct addressees of Muhammad (pbuh) that if they do not accept the message of God’s messenger (Muhammad) their fate shall be no different from those nations that have gone before them (See Surah Al-Qamar, the whole Surah especially verse 43 - 45).
The argument is very simple folks and I’ll dumb it down because that’s really what I do best (being a simpleton not-best-selling anything): In the link I provided, the scholar argues that there is a certain principle in the Quran (for which he gives citations straight from the Quran), which stands for the proposition that when God sent a messenger to Humanity, He (God) expected all polytheists (i.e. pagans) to convert to God’s message, and if they don’t, He authorizes his messenger to kill them. He goes on to tell us that polytheists and pagans who rejected the message of other messengers of God i.e. Noah and Lot, were destroyed by way of natural calamities, but in the case of the polytheists who rejected Muhammad’s version of the message, God wanted Muhammad to fight them and kill them, and this was why:
If any of these polytheists had accepted Islam at the hands of the Messenger and later decides to return to his previous beliefs, then he too should be grouped with those who had rejected the call of the messenger and, thus, also be subjected to the same punishment. If seen in this perspective, the narrative under consideration actually means that those people who were to be punished, according to the law of God, had they not accepted Islam, would face the same punishment, if at any time during their lives they leave the folds of Islam and return to their previous beliefs.
Want me to really dumb it down? This cat is saying that the Prophet had the authority to kill pagans if they rejected his message, as well as those individuals who converted to Islam and then converted back to paganism.
Now, how does this legal argument contradict the hadith at issue? Well, if you’ve been paying attention, I’ve been highlighting the relevant words: “these poltytheists”, “direct addressees of Muhammad”; “from amongst the polytheists (from the Banu Ishmaeel)”. The scholar is saying that the authority to kill polytheists who reject Islam, and to kill those who are Muslim and subsequently Islam, was limited to the Prophet Muhammad. The implication of that assertion is that no Muslim today can kill any rejecters or anyone who leaves Islam, because no Muslim today is a messenger of God. [In fact, Muslims constantly recite to themselves the creed: "...and Muhammad is His [God's] Last Messenger.”
I’m sorry that Robert Spencer did not see all this there, but clearly it was right there.
Since I have the audience, I want to clarify a number of things. First, not only does Robert miss all this, but
a) He tries to leave this discussion altogether — which is not something one expects from a serious scholar of Islam (and NYT best selling author) — by bringing issues not up for discussion when he says: “What’s more, the article affirms the traditional rules of jihad and dhimmitude, which I have pointed out many times.” I’m curious. If we’re talking about the legal rules surrounding apostasy, why are you trying to bring up the legal rules for jihad and dhimmitude? If we were talking about securities litigation, would you talk about antitrust law? Apostasy and Jihad are very distinct within Islamic Law. Robert knows that because he is a best selling author on Islam. [If he wants me get into a discussion about the legal rules surrounding dhimmis and jihad, we can do that. I've actually dealt with offensive jihad already 1, 2, and I'm sure I'll get around to dhimmis some other time].
b) He tries to change the argument when he says, “If only they knew that Ali Eteraz has declared this a weak hadith on the grounds that in some versions Muhammad says to break the apostates’ necks.” I hope it is quite clear that it is not Ali Eteraz saying that the hadith is weak, but the “hadith cell of Javed Ahmed Ghamidi” (see the bottom of the link). Javed Ahmed Ghamidi is a traditionalist-reformist in Pakistan whom Musharraf has been begging to stay on Pakistan’s Council of Islamic Ideology. Ghamidi is the soul and mouth behind the Women’s Protection Bill.
Nevermind the fact that at no point in the link does the Muslim scholar argue that we simply change the translation of the hadith by calling it “break the apostate’s neck.” Maybe Robert Spencer knows of other people who are so intellectually lazy. I’m sure he does. He is a best selling author on Islam.
c) Then there is the matter of doing due legal diligence. Maybe if I was talking to another version of myself — a know nothing reformist wannabe type (my words) — it wouldn’t be a big deal if that wannabe didn’t do any cross-referencing. But I think when a best selling author of Islam writes, it is reasonable to expect him to have done his due diligence. Robert could have done that by simply typing “apostasy” in the search box right there and he would have found a number of links where this view on apostasy is a lot clearer.
Robert then concludes with something both he and I agree on:
It is that no Muslim who can read and check Eteraz’s links will be convinced. No one who believes in the death penalty for apostasy will be convinced. And they are the ones who need to be convinced.
Which is why I concluded my post yesterday (I posted on my blog before I posted on Dean’s) the following rejoinder:
Now, the issue is to spread these opinions so more people i.e. Muslims can get out of their ignorance.
Well Ghamidi is already out spreading these ideas. Understanding Islam is one of the most active Islamic websites in the world, and available in multiple languages. The Renaissance Journal of Islamic Thought is one of the longest standing print journals in Pakistan.
I therefore maintain that my position is an airtight legal argument. The next step is to diffuse these ideas in the Muslim world.
But Spencer’s point — “and they are the ones who need to be convinced” — really does raise another issue: if I think that we need to spread these opinions to Muslims, and Robert thinks I need to spread them to Muslims, then doesn’t that mean that Robert is totally irrelevant since no Muslims really care for his opinion?
(Yes).
Actually, I don’t really think that he, and others interested in Islam, are irrelevant. I have spoken very favorably of non-Muslims who wish to help.
ps - Robert, I am not Dean Esmay. I don’t speak for Dean Esmay. I had my own blog long before I heard of Dean Esmay. I am not Dean Esmay’s lackey. I am much better looking than Dean Esmay. So please, whatever you have between you and Esmay (which you list in your post), keep it between yourselves. I only post on his site because a) he has more traffic and b) because it is clear that the frontpagers on Dean’s World do not speak for another.
pps - Robert, why do I get the feeling that at some point you’re going to bust out with some thoughts on Naskh (abrogation). Feel free to do so, I’m expecting it. I probably won’t be able to reply promptly b/c I am trying to get some other projects off the ground. I just wanted you to know, I’d welcome it.
It should also be noted that Dean Esmay apologized formally and handsomely to Robert Spencer.
that’s great aziz, but this comments section is not about dean esmay. damn dean why are you everywhere.
jerk.
=P
aziz, why stick up for spencer? he is a grievous waste of spacetime.
al-Islam is a consensus religion. If enough muslims come to agree with Ali and Dr. Ghamidi’s position on the hadith, it will become the valid interpretation, like the Asherite position on predetermination for example.
essentially, spencer is arguing the “puritan” position, stupidly saying that al-Islam is not a vibrant living religion.
Qur’anic exegesis and interpretation require many years of study in formal university environments.
Spencer is profoundly unqualified for this task. He is not an Islamic scholar. He is a middle aged xian graduate of a second string religious college in the states and a homestudy course in arabic.
A question…can’t the hadith,
“whoever changes their religion, kill him” mean that whoever changes any aspect of their religion, i.e. changes a word in the Qu’ran to fit his own ideas, or adds something that is not there. That is also changing their religion.
Won’t there be read faces all around when the original hadith is found in some cave in Saudi Arabia, and it says “whosoever changes their religion, kill him with kindness, that he may see the beauty and love and peace of Islam.”
Ya Haqq!
A friend of mine once noted that if indeed, the Dawaa ‘did not take,’ as he put it, the fault must lie with he who preached, not he who rejected the teachings. Thus, my friend concluded, can Islam coexist with other religions.
It was in this context he also saw a form of that ‘inner Jihad,’ to perfect his faith, so that he might be a better example.
Sadly, he also noted that dawaa at the ‘end of the sword’ has been given a more prominent place in the culture. He attributes this to the frustration and hopelessness, brought about by the predicament most Muslims find themselves in. The selective violence and sense of outrage serve as an outlet.
As they say, the band played on.
Ali: I have posted your piece here in the Conservative Chat Room I inhabit, where Robert Spencer is considered more of an Islamic prophet than Mohammad. I will await and see if there are any intelligent or insightful responses. Regards:
The anonymous blogger — Isis.
Hmm… you never addressed Spencers key points.
1) Your first link was only about women and is not a new development.
2) Your second link only has to do with chances to repent not the ultimate penalty for apostacy.
Both these points throughly defeat your original claim that you have an airtight case against a death penalty for apostacy.
3) Your third link in the update actually reaffirms a Hadith which supports the death penalty for apostates. The exact opposite of your claim.
So he addressed you full on on your strongest points.
He makes an addition point as an aside.
4) The link you proved in you update is extremely disturbing in that it reaffirms apostacy death penalties, forced conversion and the Jizyah.
You chose to bring this point 4) up but it’s not one of his main points. You don’t address it but only use it in an attempt to falsely claim that Spencer has not fully addressed your original post. You use it as a distraction.
In your article go into a long convoluted interpretation of a section of text but fail to mention that it appears in a mere footnote. A footnote! A footnote which purpose is clearly to clarify the words “punishment of death” and not to hand down any ruling or new interpretation. Furthermore it is not at all clear given the purpose of a footnote that the author was trying to communicate anything like what you claim he is trying to claim. This is after all a discussion of Bayhaqiy’s narrative no. 16610 and not of apostacy in general. In fact he mentions this specifically by saying “the narrative under consideration”.
If “this cat” meant to say all you claim that he meant to say then why didn’t he just come out and say it? Your argument is very weak as it rests on what is merely a natural way of talking about a particular incident. After all he is talking about about the veracity of a particular narrative that took place and involved particular people.
This is also in a section labeled “general notes” and not “Comments on the Narrative” as in the other one. Doesn’t seem to be addressing the truth or falsity of the Narrative at all. It’s only pointing out that there is something similar in the Quran. This comment is alsot in the section titled “Notes on the Text of the Narrative”
If it was the intention of the author to discredit the narrative then why didn’t he provide a summary claiming the narrative was invalid? He did so in the other case.
Seems like you are reading way more into this than he intended. Why don’t you ask him what he meant and get back to us.
I would also suggest that this link would be more supportive of your claims:
So get back to Spencer with that instead.
In particular this section:
This seems to protect a muslim who was born into Islam (not a polytheist convert) from the death penalty.
brian,
i’m more than happy to indulge all these points with you, but i have to ask: what training in islamic law do you have? classical or modern? can you tell me straight up: the four sources of usul al fiqh? the first two are quran, sunnah, what are the next two?
who was the guy that reconciled the ahl al ray and ahl al hadith? why is he even important?
if you knew some thing of islamic law you’d be aware that bayhaqi’s hadith are generally considered on a level far below those of the hadith in bukhari and muslim, and therefore, under classical islamic law, the first two links mean far little comapred to the third link.
again, just as i wouldn’t try to engage catholic theology without first learning a bit of aquinas and st. anselm, i recommend you start with principles of islamic jurisprudence. i dont care by who. anyone. even the pick the orientalists. im not saying you’re ‘wrong.’ i’m saying you don’t know this stuff and it really doesn’t make for a fun conversation until you do. spencer actually knows it. that’s why i’ve started to enjoy talking to him.
I sense another book opportunity for you and Aisha:
Islamic Jurisprudence for Dhimmis
can you tell me straight up: the four SHIA sources of usul al fiqh? the first two are quran, sunnah, what are the next two?
Ha! Trick question.
as-salamu’alaikum,
I got to wonder, why do you enterain these discussions?
I mean we both know none of us are truly qualified to engage in any form of anaylsis of hadith.
Why don’t we start as square one: the people.
Who are the actual people, name names, who think specific apostates deserve to die.
I want to see one traditionalist scholar in that midst, not a Wahabi or the Iranian equivilant of Wahabi.
The ones who are teaching this stuff now, like Imam’s Hamza Yusuf, Zaid Shakir, Shaykh Nuh Keller, Habib Ali Jafri, etc.
Whatever we may think of them as individuals or scholars… one of those that actually speak at Muslim conferences please?
Also, no hypotheticals, no analysis, but real judgement onan individual.
the point is, no one understands apostasy laws except the ones who are supposed to be trained in its judgement. And -none- of them, even the more abrupt GF Haddad are calling for anyone to die. Wonder why that is?
Finally, like pretty much everything that comes to the Shariah and, well, life… the end all is that the Muslim ruler of the land trumps all. If we can have one that is compassionate, then we’ll be compassionate. If we have one thats a maniac, we’ll bomb countries, wipe out children through embargo’s, and wiretap phones.
It’s that simple, I wonder why people like Spencer (and Ali sometimes) waste time talking like the terrorists themselves (according to my Sahih bukhari chapter 3 part iv subsection 2 and add this dash of matn analysis here and there and don’t forget some advanced isnad tricks at chain 3)
I mean, come on.
after reading the drivel posted here i have to say you peaple have to be the biggest bunch of apoligist is the world
islam is out to take over the world]
Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful
if you are not muslim and dont want to convert bepreapered to live as a ghimmi and pay jizha or die and as for leaving islam just look at the last person to try and leave he got geath threats galore
Just as an aside Ali, there was an interesting article coming out of Nigeria on this issue here, with the follow up post here. This scholar in particular got a lot of flack for his opinion, but it also includes some of the points you mentioned.
lol @ BuzzKill - that would be a top title for a book!
Keep up the good work!
Great exchange of points you guys have going… I must say I’m impressed with Robert Spencer. I thought the guy is retarded but clearly he’s been doing a lot of reading. I obviously vehemently disagree with his points and methodology (same methodology terrorists use to support their actions) but I must say he’s intellectual and can have a very smart debate.
Ali, I’m really really looking forward to your website… 6 more days to go… Wohooo…
PS: by An-Naim you meant the Sudanese student of Taha now in US right? I love the guy’s work… Remember when I used to ask about Islam and secularism last time? Well, that is all finally settled now… After months of reading and thinking, I’ve come to the conlcusion that secularism isn’t against Islam… the secularism Prof. An-Naim defines and discusses in his latest work about the future of Sharia that is… If you haven’t read it, you really should.
Salam
Yursil, half of the time I agree with you, and the other half of the time I am so blown away by the irresponsibility, agenda-driven-ness and intellectual vacuousness of so many ulema that I almost wonder whether taking matters into our own hands isn’t the only option left.
Having said that, Irving said: A question…can’t the hadith, “whoever changes their religion, kill him” mean that whoever changes any aspect of their religion, i.e. changes a word in the Qu’ran to fit his own ideas, or adds something that is not there. That is also changing their religion.
You know, I mentioned a similar concern to Ali just after he posted this—the verb ‘yibadal’ seemed an interestingly broad choice to me as well. But I thought about it for a minute and changed my mind; it can’t really mean ‘change’ as in ‘alter’ (which is ‘yitghiyyar’), it’s more like ‘exchange’. Fraid the hadith says what it says.
Another important thing that has not yet been highlighted: the hadith speaks about polytheists *from the Banu Ishmael*–the Arab descendents of Abraham through Hagar. If we’re talking in terms of the Abrahamic prophetic tradition, these are the people who should ‘know better’; the inheritors of the Kaaba, part of the original monotheistic dynasty. (I feel comfortable calling it that since all of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim prophets are culled from the families of Isaac and Ishmael.) (Including John the Baptist if he was indeed Jesus’ cousin through Mary’s family.) (For those of you just joining us, John the Baptist is considered a prophet in Islam.)
Anyway, I find the fact that the hadith addresses this particular group very interesting. It seems like Muhammad (pbuh) is essentially saying that the family of Abraham must be held to a higher standard than your run of the mill pagan tribe.
It’s that simple, I wonder why people like Spencer (and Ali sometimes)…
Yes, this is a good point.
But Ali was citing Ghamidi who went into the “according to my Sahih bukhari chapter 3 part iv subsection 2 and add this dash of matn analysis here and there and don’t forget some advanced isnad tricks at chain 3″ train of thought.
And Buzz it should be:
“Islam for Dhummies”
Also I’d like to ask Yursil:
Whilst I agree with you that people steeped in traditional learning (like the aforementioned GF Haddad) do not go around marching and demanding the killing of apostates (and so on), why then do they not speak out when people *do* go marching for such blood lust, as was evinced in the case of Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan? Instead, some of them appear more animated when self-confessed “progressives” (i.e. those who clearly distinguish themselves from “traditional Islam”) engage in a little innovation of their own, rather than turning their sharp tounges (and fingers) to peolpe who claim to be traditionalists defending the tradition, yet seem to have none of the appreciation or nuanced understanding of the law that you’re demanding we have.
…no one understands apostasy laws except the ones who are supposed to be trained in its judgement
Is the law really that mystical? I mean, I know lawyers engage in verbosity for its own sake and create rules for rules for finding rules (which have their own subset of rules), but really: you’re creating wall when there isn’t one. The deficiency me and you and Ali and Aisha have is a lack of formal training and approval from our would-be peers, and perhaps, some might say, wisdom (which tend to come with age).
Hmm, Ali Eteraz believes Tariq Ramadan is a peace advocate. I would say this makes one question the true extent of his peacefulness:
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=ia&ID=IA26606
as-salamu’alaikum thabet,
But saying apostasy laws are not to be interpreted in this way is exactly what they do!
For example, all during that very short ‘crisis’ it was made clear in the Khutbas that Abdul Rahman should just be let go, not killed. Speaking against such bloodlust, is exactly what they did. Now I used to have a great video of that, but let me just give a few more general examples.
Let us see how Hamza Yusuf answered this question:
======
Frank Gardner:
Koshy, Sultanate of Oman: Why does Islam maintain its apostasy law? Does this not run counter to personal freedom? How can democracy work in Islam?
Let’s boil this down - is democracy compatible with Islam?
======
Hamza Yusuf’s Answer:
“I think Noah Feldmann whose book “After Jihad” clearly indicates - he’s a very brilliant legal scholar - that he feels that in some ways the Islamic legal tradition is one of the most of the most flexible legal traditions that we have and I think there’s a lot of truth to that. I think that there are certain things that obviously are not completely compatible with modernity. But the vast majority of things - if we say that Islam is not compatible with democracy then we cannot call Israel a democratic state because Israel has laws taken from the traditional Jewish law that in many ways make the Islamic laws look enlightened for western people.
GF Haddad has said elsewhere the goal of the apostasy laws was to remove apostates from the polity, not to create martyrs.
The only ones calling for apostasy laws are a few of the more extreme Salafi/Wahabi’s, who have gotten about 20x more in volume from the sharp tongues of those like GF Haddad than the progressives.
These extremist folks are the same ones that allow free interpretation by individuals of Hadith outside of traditional schools of learning. The utter majority have already interpreted them with flexibility and a nuanced understanding which comes from being trained in the spiritual and legal sciences.
The point is, the Ulema brings humanity into the equation for Islam. This allows for flexibility in interpretation. We don’t need to box ourselves into Hadith this or chain subsection that.
Especially not when dealing with Spencer.
Furthermore the Shariat gives that ultimate authority of flexibility to the leader of Muslims. Since we don’t have one, a real leader that is, the flexibility falls into the laps of those who, through their study of spirituality and legal texts, attract people who want to learn from them through their knowledge and God-given charisma.
Of course, flexibility works both ways. Some of us can have our own independent opinion as well, live how we like. It’s great, we live in free societies. But it will impact Islam very little when the only one listening to you is your kids (and when they hit teenage years forget-about-it).
Struggling to stream our version of Islam on blogs and books is a waste of time, frankly. Everyone reading has far too big of an ego.
Using complicated legal analysis to attempt to treat Shariat like a math problem that you have the solution for, is a tiring attempt. The only thing that you will do is get yourself more disillusioned with Islam as you run out of air in your newly shaped box. Yeah, its not a square but its still a box.
All of this simply ignores the fact that these are dedicated individuals who dont work 8-5 in any other profession except with Islam. Their opinions do carry weight with Muslims, which -should define- the Islam that Spencer is critcising.
I think, like Spencer, most Muslims want that authority of saying -this is Islam- without giving up whats required.. That is probably why they are so inflexibile and confused in the first place.
Anyway… back to the point…
For God’s sake we got rid of apostasy laws in the Ottoman state in 1834!
Let us see how FAR this lack of apostasy law application goes, in fact, let us take the example here of Islamist Sudan’s major religious leader, yes the one who -protected Osama bin Laden-:
“I personally have views that run against all of the orthodox schools of law on the status of women, on the court testimony of non-Muslims, on the law of apostasy….I don’t accept the condemnation of Salman Rushdie. There are moral injunctions of how women and men should dress, but that is not part of the law.”
What the hell are we talking about here! :)
I hope you all are enjoying my stream of consciousness approach now-a-days. wassalam
yursil, i enjoy very much your stream of consciousness.
also your humanity and your piety, which are great models for n00bs like me.
=)
now shams don’t fatten me up too much.. =) we all are doing what we can to help.. wassalam
Actually, I am very, very glad you are having a discussion/debate with my friend Bob Spencer.
I think the nub of the disagreement is this. Is your hadith explanation unorthodox? Is it an unusual, modern one even if correct? How open are Muslims in general to such a reading of the hadith?
I think the essence of the conflict is the question of what Muslims have traditionally believed, what the vast majority believe now, and how possible it is that opinions in the Muslim world will change.
I think these are legitimate questions, not just anti-Islamic howls.
Jeff,
I think Ali’s analysis, while intelligent and thought provoking, is an unorthodox explanation of ‘why’.
The orthodox explanation is simply put, the Islamic spiritual elite are not calling for apostacy laws. Even many fundo’s are not calling for it..
That is how Islam defined itself. The Ottoman empire, as the definitive last form of Islam orthodox leadership stopped Apostacy ‘crimes’ definitively in 1834.
Even prior to that is was simply ‘in the books’ as one might find anti-adultery laws ‘in the books’ in certain parts of America.
The Ottomans are about as orthodox as it gets for traditional Muslims
As to why that was, it could involve the fact that the world evolved to the point where an apostate was no longer a political threat. There could be a number of justifications why Islamic scholars might consider apostacy much less than a crime. What matters is that they do and did, a long time ago.
What is funny is when Muslims show progress we are now being told, to go back to undo it.. its very odd.
[[I think Ali’s analysis, while intelligent and thought provoking, is an unorthodox explanation of ‘why’.]]
Yursil,
I’m not going to let you paint me out as ‘unorthodox.’ Largely, because I am not. I look to all the orthodox teachings for a vast majority of my relationship with Islam.
Not to mention the fact that the opinions I am citing aren’t MINE — so even assuming I am ‘unorthodox’ the fact remains that the scholars thinking them up are hardcore traditionalists. I entreat you to watch Ghamidi’s lectures on Ramadan on GEO TV. If that’s not traditional, my name is Mr. T.
Robert is not interested in debate, he is only interested in proving Islam wrong.
He offers no constructive means in approaching or dealing with the issues in Muslim communities.
Muslims are not going give up their religion, it isnt going to happen. So trying to sit and convince everyone of the “evils” of Islam is only, in the end, going to be preaching to the choir. It is not going to be constructive and is only going to fuel the extremists.
He is a Christian, and I guess we could sit here and try to “disprove” Christianity with the legion errors and contradictions in The Bible, yet what would that do except drive a further wedge inbetween people.
This is exactly why he does what he does. He doesnt want construction change, he doesnt want dialogue, he wants Muslims to admit their faith is defective and drop it.
But that is a false premise, it isnt going to happen. So from the begining, as long as he goes the path he is, he will be nothing more than fuel for the extremists on both sides.
But, I am not saying anything he doesnt know already.
as-salamu’alaikum Ali,
Alhamdulillah, Ali is orthodox :)
We will see…
As far as Ghamidi.. I don’t have access to GEO TV .. I wonder if there is some google video.
Regardless, we didn’t have Ghamidi in 1834, we still managed to repeal such laws. Ghamidi has fallen into the same trap as his teacher, Mawdudi.. who is not a traditionalist.
The main idea is that the only change for Islam is through various advanced textual machinations. This is a sign of Mawdudi’s love of Western methodologies in the first place.
Ghamidi broke with Mawdudi.
Can I get some citation for the Ottomans repealing apostasy in 1834?
I think introducing the Ottomans adds a whole new dimension here because they aren’t around anymore. Are you in favor of bringing them back?
Also, the Ottoman decrees, in the 19th century, didn’t apply to India, which is where Ghamidi’s ancestors are from. The Moghuls had their own legal codex, compiled in the Futuwat al Hindiya.
Aisha,
Christians are considered polytheists in Islam. We believe Jesus is the incarnate Son of God, and that he is God come in the flesh to accomplish. We don’t believe the same things you do about Jesus. Moreover, we believe he died on the cross for our sins and was raised for our justification. From what I’ve read, Muslims find this idea repulsive. Didn’t Mohammed say that Jesus wasn’t crucified? We don’t pray to the same God, and we don’t believe the same thing about the Old Testament prophets and Jesus.
Ali,
I just listened to an apostate from Islam who was supposedly trained as a jurist. http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/The_White_Horse_Inn/archives.asp?bcd=10/1/2006 , http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/The_White_Horse_Inn/archives.asp?bcd=10/8/2006 . The guy’s name is Sam Solomon, and he was forced to leave his home country or face execution for apostasy. He said all the same things Robert Spencer has been saying. We Christians haven’t been trained in Islamic jurisprudence, but why was Abdul Rahman jailed and sentenced to death in Afghanistan for apostasy?
Abu,
If Christianity contains so many errors, why does Mohammed validate our Christ as a prophet? Why does he validate Moses, Elijah, etc. as prophets as well? Doesn’t Islam believe that the Quran validates what’s in the Bible?
I think you’re going down the wrong path, Yursil, my brother.
I never denied the validity or the applicablity of Islamic law, nor that the Islamic legal tradition isn’t a vast corpus which has produced and is the product of, some brilliant minds. Nor that it has no validity today. I believe the opposite; that it is very relevant, that the kernal of the Islamic legal tradition is what can save Muslim societies from self-implosion (and redeem them on The Day). Ask Ali, he knows my views.
My point is that whilst we Western Muslims fight battles with extremism in our communities (but all too conveniently blame Salafis and Wahhabis), in our “ancestral” homelands what me, you, Ali, Aisha et al. broadly speaking oppose passes for ‘traditionalism’. People marching for apostasy laws and the right to impose adultry laws on women who are raped has metamorphsised into ‘traditional Islam’. These people include even learned men, ulama to their people. I kid you not: if you can watch the GEO TV debate between Ghamidi and these ‘traditionalists’. These people would call themselves defenders of the Sunnah; the army of Muhammad [upon whom be peace]; the lovers of truth; doers of good. But they’re pretty far from that. Even you, a Sufi and a lover of the Lovers of God would be called (shock! horror!) a ‘Wahhabi’ if you questioned their deeds and the pain they inflict upon people.
That was my point.
wasalam
as-salamu’alaikum thabet,
I think this goes down to the fundamental issue of contention between me and Ali some time ago. The definition of a traditionalist.
Let us just say this, those that are inflicting pain on their people, who are ready to call me a Wahabi are quite confused. Wahabism as a corpus of law is itself clearly defined. The Sufi Tariqa’s and their corpus of sciences is clearly defined. The Law that was the output of Sufi and Legal sciences -together- is also defined (aka Ottoman), and it is clear the harm-inflicting ones have no claim of ownership over it.
Regardless of the debates in paki-land, I’m not willing to let them wrench the title of traditionalist from those who are carrying that inheritance today.
as-salaaamu’alaikum Ali,
I’ve been mistyping it, 1834 -> 1843 woops lost a decade, glad to see its still over a century old.
Reference:
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(iu43zn45c4ikmh45ymjfmkav)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,2,12;journal,25,30;linkingpublicationresults,1:108537,1
Am I in favour of bringing them back?
Not by any worldly means or machinations of Islamists parties, but my beliefs revolving around Imam Mehdi (AS) imply that, eventually, Heavenly support will be given in the rebuilding of an Islamic State from where it has left off.
short link:
http://tinyurl.com/yf5blr
Salams Yursil, both url’s don’t work, they only open up at the default page for the site.
Is the paper - I will try making a url tag for it here . If so, here is the citation for everyone else incase they want to check:
Subaşi, T (2002) The Apostasy Question in the Context of Anglo-Ottoman Relations, 1843-44, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 38, No. 2
I would love to check this out if possible, as I know the main shaykh I study from here (who is Turkish) finds the apostasy thing abhorrent also, and I am wondering where this development can be traced back to. :)
Jazaks
Aisha: I just wanted to link for you another article which discusses the basis of the verb in question. I am interested in if these variants are synonyms or if there is variance in meaning.
Jeff and Yursil: but what is “orthodoxy” in Islamic thought? Is it orthodox to say we can no longer innovate in fiqh?? Does orthodoxy mean we can only rely on people who “do Islam” full time and make it into a profession? My professor today made a good point when he asked me why people kept writing fiqh books throughout our history but few new ahadith books?? The implied answer is that past Muslims did NOT see fiqh as a static animal. Hadith studies did not produce too many new books because it was static and what had to be said had mostly been said. If the same was true for fiqh and it is something which does not change, then why were numerous new books written about it each year? But, it seems nowadays that people are afraid to make new fiqh because it would be “contaminated” with modernity, and people have abused fiqh into an instrument of preserving (actually, constructing!) an unrealalisticly “authentic” Muslim identity. Instead, we must see fiqh as a process specific to times and places that can, will and SHOULD produce new conclusions as we require them.
Also, regarding the Ottoman repeal of that law in 1834: was it the Ottoman ulama who pressed for change or did the Sultan say something like this: “Hey guys, the Greeks just bailed out of the Empire, and the rest of the Balkans is going that way, too, not to mention those pesky Armenians and the European consuls really hate that Apostacy Law, especially the missionary ones. See what you can do to get rid of it.”
And the reply could only be, “Sure thing, Sulty dude, you’re the one with the army and the one who pays us!”
…and thirdly, Yursil:
>>and it is clear the harm-inflicting ones have no claim of ownership over it.
We very much believe this, but when they have rocket-grenade toting militias, we have no power to prevent them from claiming ownership over *anything*!
peace to all!
I think there’s lots more dialogue to be had than you guys sound like you are willing to consider.
First of all, I’ve debated these issues directly with Bob in my own living room and found him quite open to opposition.
Secondly, it’s no intellectual crime to be against Islam. I’m a Catholic. I’ve met lots of people–fundamentalist Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Jews, Atheists, and Muslims, too–who take a very dim view of my Church and are openly hostile to it!
So what? The Catholic Church makes certain claims and it has a long history. Those things are open to criticism. And they’re open to stark opposition as well as criticism. It’s not an intellectual crime to think the Catholic Church is a perverse institution and for me to have to defend it politely against strong attacks is par for the course. Thinking poorly of this or that religion doesn’t place you outside the pale.
I think, for example, that a person who thinks the Catholic Church is against the freedom of the mind and wants to enslave the intellects of her members is wrong. But no matter how wrong they may be, even intelligent, intellectual people think such things. And though I am convinced they are wrong and usually are being “unfair”, such an opinion isn’t outrageous. It’s a mistake, but I think that people have some excuse for it, though it is incorrect. There’s no “bigotry” about it.
I would say that the least you ought to admit is that an intelligent Westerner has some excuse–though he may be wrong–for thinking Islam in its history and its fundamental texts is traditionally and perhaps inherently violent and oppressive. That may be mistaken, but why not simply attempt patiently to persuade, point-by-point and with charity, rather than to dismiss and accuse? That’s what I do when Muslims tell me–as they certainly have on many occasions–that celibacy in priests results in child abuse or that believing in the Trinity is “shirk” and merits Hellfire or that the Bible is full of pornography. I don’t rage on about them being unpersuadable and anti-Catholic.
Religions like other systems of belief cannot be above criticism, even vehement criticism.
I find the intelligence and the tone of this debate in many ways refreshing and even if you don’t believe Bob Spencer to be open to your arguments (I do say you are wrong about that), you will find that many who read him and Muslims like yourselves as well WILL be open to argument. That doesn’t mean they have to promise to be convinced one way or the other.
Bob knows me very well and knows that I question his conclusions and we disagree openly about some of them often without rancor. I’d keep giving it a try and with as little teasing or dismissive and belittling language as possible. I don’t use that approach with “anti-Catholics”–not being defensive and hostile and granting that their arguments are understandable and have some weight where they do works wonders sometimes.
I’d love to continue the discussion about apostasy. I find the point about the Ottomans intriguing. But it raises further questions in my mind. How many of the “Great Schools” of Islam (like al-Azhar) include scholars who are open to such teaching? What does it mean that states like Iran and Saudi Arabia seem to regard such laws as more than “by the book”? How much significance does it have that many Western Muslims just a few years defended Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie?
Of course, I think of points in the other direction, too: the fact that for all the talk, the death penalty was not carried out in recent cases in Kuwait and Afghanistan, for example.
It seems to me that a probing discussion can take place on these points and I don’t see why I should make any assumptions about where it might lead!
Jeff,
AlAzhar is a university which, like most of the community has modernized itself. Their alumni are varied in approach as the colors of a rainbow. Some are quite liberal, others are indoctrinated with backwards strict textual adherance. No one that I know of has called for an apostate to die that has come out of al-Azhar, however.
States like Iran and Saudi are using such laws to impose a false sense of religiosity.
It is well known that the Saudi’s are of the Wahabi form of Islam which does indepth textual regurgitation just like the one some have engaged here.
In Iran, the situation is the same. As there is little political or economic progress, the only thing they have is this big stick of representing ‘Islam’.
Of course, most Muslims are completely unaware of their history and how malleable the Shariat was and is to the times and needs of the people.
A perfect example is the encounter of the Moghuls who didn’t seek to eliminate an idol worshipping people (although there were breakouts of fighting, it was poltiically oriented, not mass genocide). As you are quite aware, Hindu’s are quite similar to the idol worshippers addressed so clearly in the Quran. Yet, Muslims integrated with them.
So yes, those laws existed, they have a time and place, nearly all of which is under the rulers discretion. That is Islam in practice.
Now we happen to have horrible inefficient tyrants as rulers, so they are digging for the only legitimacy they have left. Big spectacular shows of how religious they are with the threat of death and destruction. This is hardly the example of Islam that traditional Muslims living in villages across the third world know.
They are spending their time with farming, children, loving the Prophet(S), singing songs on holidays. They know of these laws but they also know how they were applied and understood for centuries by tolerant rulers.
It is a known fact to at least the Saudi’s (maybe not the Iranians!) that Umar (R), the second Caliph of Islam suspended the Hadd punishment on thievery (cutting the hand) during a time of famine, where many were stealing bread to live. This is a punishment clearly written in the Quran.
What is remarkable is that Umar (R) was not one known for his ease, but rather famous for his strict approach.
If Umar (R) was ready to adapt to changing conditions, then it is not so hard to see that the Ulema and the leaders of Islam are the ones in charge of ensuring that Islam remains relevant and humane.
Now, we don’t have ‘one’ leader who can be so tolerant and demand it of all countries. So where are people getting their religion from? There are three sources:
1) Their parents - the scope of this approach remains entirely in the personal realm. Fundamentals of belief, how to pray, fast, etc. These one’s won’t be talking about cutting someone’s hands off, they are content with what they know and how to apply it privately.
2) Their own ego’s. Supported with Quran search engines and Bukhari Indexes - The scope of a direct approach towards the text is really supposed to be for personal betterment. Unfortunately we have people who believe they can pick up a book and start declaring political statements, spiritual statements, and judge others. In fact they go as far as to consider other Muslims to be non-believers, or at least, far gone from the path of their new-found-truth.
3) The ulema - the impact of this approach is quite broad: political, spiritual, family-related, etc. However this approach also opens Islam up to a marketplace of ideas. Don’t like that interpretation? Go to the next shaykh. The ones who don’t have anyone listening to them have no need to be brought out into the forefront. Generally that is trumped with those who speak with the authority of an long established authorized chain, I’ll talk about that a little later.
So without a leader, we are free to follow any of the above, but Muslims generally follow that which they feel carries some authority, even if we mistakenly think that is our own ego’s. TRADITIONALLY, this authority we are seeking does not come from a diploma from al-Azhar, but from being part of a chain of students and teachers which is well established in history, leading back to the very first teachers of Islam. A chain of apprentices, who became teachers, who spent their lives with their teachers until they were given permission to teach themselves.
It is with such a system that we get those who are relatively quiet on the ‘world public scene’, but have large followers nevertheless.
The extremely few ‘ulema’ calling for mass killing are generally bookworms who really belong into category #2. They have no authority or permission (ijazaat) from amoungst such chains, or absolutely broken ones. Either way, they lack the authority or charisma to fill a living room.
One may ask how relevant that makes our source texts. Those texts remain relevant as they are the source of information, while it is righteous interpretation by our spiritual leaders which brings them meaning and life. Such strict ‘laws’ remain present in texts to serve as a reminder to the ulema of the severity of these deeds. To the common people reading them it sends a message: think twice before this deed, maybe you will escape the worldly consequences, but you will not escape the spiritual ones.
These ’shows’ being put on of stoning in a few countries hungry for religious legitimacy (as they don’t seem to have political legitimacy) are just that.. shows. -Everyone- knows it.
And that especially includes traditional Muslims. Frankly the fact that Bob Spencer is not aware/accepting of this malleability within the Shariat, this tradition of explanation and flexibile interpretation is why he’s really only engaged in dialogue with those who fall into category #2 above, and not scholars of Islam. They speak the same language.
The fact of the matter is, no killing for apostasy has been an interpretation accepted for hundreds of years, even the more heretical violent scholars such as Ibn Taymiyya made decrees as such. In 1843 our last Islamic state removed it from the books. Those attempting to revive it are simply missing about 1400 years of context and development.
sorry for the long post.
Babur’s, great leader of the Moghul empire, last will:
“My son take note of the following: Do not harbour religious prejudice in your heart. You should dispense justice while taking note of the people’s religious sensitivities, and rites. Avoid slaughtering cows in order that you could gain a place in the heart of natives. This will take you nearer to the people.
Do not demolish or damage places of worship of any faith and dispense full justice to all to ensure peace in the country. Islam can better be preached by the sword of love and affection, rather than the sword of tyranny and persecution. Avoid the differences between the shias and sunnis. Look at the various characteristics of your people just as characteristics of various seasons.”
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal_Empire
OmarG,
Orthodoxy in Islamic thought is the Islam represented today by the group of ulema who understand that the Shariat / fiqh itself is malleable within the context of the schools of fiqh.
Those who make it a profession, as in earn their cars and tv’s from it, no. Those who do it full-time, yes.
In Islamic tradition it takes a dedication of learning from spiritual and scholarly people to adjust oneself to be able to hand the responsibilities of judging others. And I definately do not just mean book learning.
It is within that tradition that one learns how important it is to err on the side of leniency (as a juristic principle), or how to be compassionate and just.
It’s a moot point anyway as such ulema are not being appointed to judge.
The ones who do, like Imam Abu Hanifa (R), are wise to refuse it (and like him, jailed and tortured for that decision) another sign for those who understand about how serious it is to judge others.
I don’t think we disagree here. But the difference is how that flexibility is brought into play. It may be brought into play by the judge not accepting witness as ’sufficient’.
It may be brought into play by requiring multiple levels of approval (ending in freedom as the Sultan would normally not want the responsibility of a soul).
It may be the law itself may be understood completely differently. There are many possibilities.
As it would have, if the tradition of upholding good people, not books, up high.
In fact, the change seems to have been pressed most aggressively for by the British during an incident with an apostate boy.
Muslims in general were happy with the fact that nobody ever really got killed for apostasy, the law was a formality to have those who do such things think twice.
There was plenty of debate amoung the ulema about it.. But the end result was they removed the law.
In the end it had little to do with being in the pocket of the Sultan, but rather the core fundamental principle in application of our faith when in an Islamic empire… follow the rulers laws, unless he orders -you- to commit a personal sin (i.e. stop praying).
Ali,
Absolutely none. Just like the majority of the Islamic population. Of course that’s a moot point with regards to my comments but you tend to miss such reasoning.
We’re not really interested in the issues you seem to think we are. I, for example, am interested at the ease with which one can deduce ethics from a particular ideology. If an ideology makes egregious ethical mistakes such as killing apostates likely then I think it is fair to classify it as dangerous in that regard. I have scientific concerns about how a religion spreads, retains followers and in general competes with other religious strategies. I must say that I am not particularly impressed by any of the Abrahamic religions in this regard.
I have a firm grasp of reasoning, argumentation, scholarship and the like which is more that sufficient to decide who has valid claims here or not, or to decide that I don’t believe either one of you.
You didn’t make a good argument and I was trying to assist you by giving you that other link. I think it makes your new adjusted claim a tiny bit more credible.
It seems and I would expect that since you are Muslim and I am an atheist who works from scientific principles that we are working from different basic philosophical assumptions on how to justify our claims. It shouldn’t surprise you that I’m not going to knuckle under to your bullying attitude in this comment (and other comments).
You seem to think that because you assert authority that I’m just going to take your word for it and shut up. Not just on things you should know more about than me but on things you don’t know as well as I do.
The mere fact that you use such tactics when arguing is indicative of the fact that you don’t know what proper argumentation entails.
You also practice many other tactics that would leave a bad taste in the mouth of anyone with Western attitudes on searching for the truth. Like mocking Spencer for having several best sellers. Which also is indicative of an attempt to shut down inquiry on this subject and not to shed light. You tend to be more responsible than other bloggers and commenters over at Esmay’s site at introducing such fallacies into your arguments but you still use them.
I suggest you refrain from these kinds of tactics. They don’t further your argument and they will make people think you have something to hide.
I also think you are mistaken if you think it will make Westerners happy to claim that all attempts to rectify the multitude of injustices being perpetrated by the Islamic world must rest on what are essentially word games. Word games that ultimately rest on what from a Western point of view are foundationless claims to authority. We not only don’t believe you have the authority to decide who can and cannot be killed on such grounds as changing their religion but we don’t think Mohammed himself has such authority. We have more reliable means of determining such issues.
In other words what you point out is disturbing to Westerners. It’s like listening to a bunch of cannibals discuss whether I should be on the menu based on how tough the meat would be. It shouldn’t even be an issue.
Whether someone should be killed for deciding to join and then leave cannot have it’s locus within the Islamic religious system. It’s an external question. The reason people decide to switch religions is because they believe them to be false. The problem however is that the internal assumption (and it’s always a mere assumption with no credible process for backing it up) is that the particular religion is true. This rest on the fundamental fact the humans are fallible. We need to be able to change our minds given new facts.
Islam believes it’s spreading and uncorrupted message from an infallible deity. You can’t work from that internal assumption to freedom of conscience. That assumption can however be arrived at via reason. The problem is that reason is not compatible with a system predicated on what a guy from 7th century Arabia says and how he acts. Especially when that person behaved in a way incompatible with reason and said things that were illogical and contradictory. Any arrival at a conclusion of “freedom of conscience” internal to a religion that does not rely on reason will occur merely by happenstance. Christianity was intolerant for many centuries precisely because of it’s rejection of rationality.
One mechanism to address my argument above would be to say that my claims about Islam are false. That in fact the Qur’an is fallible, or Mohammed might have been mistaken about getting his message from an infallible deity, or some other rational. However, I doubt you will.
The reason I doubt it is because you have expressed points, which underscore a position that it is true. The fact that you think that these issues only concern Muslims and not others, that this has to be worked out internally, only exacerbates my concerns with Islam. How can the issue of whether you are going to kill converts to another religion be merely an internal concern? Certainly the members of the convert’s new religion have standing in this. In fact any person has standing merely on the issue that it encroaches on their right to make up their own mind.
Now you may not like this analysis but it’s what I believe to be true. I have ample philosophical and scientific background to back it up with argumentation. I can understand you not wanting to participate in such a discussion but what I don’t understand is why many Muslims jump to the conclusion that such a position is based on “hate”. Is it sheer ignorance? Is it an attempt to abort the argument via ad hominem?
I think it would do well for Muslims to remember that others do not share their belief and that we are getting along splendidly without it.
I was aware of that thanks to Spencer and others. If the first two were meant so little then why was your original post based solely on them? Your link to the authoritative hadith only occurs in your ‘UPDATE:’ so I assume the original article was ‘weak’.
BTW, I have a copy of ‘Al-Hadith:An English Translation and commentary of Mishkat-Ul-Masabih with Arabic Text by Maulana Fazlul Karim’. I have a question. Is it considered one of the more or less credible Hadiths according to you?
Fair enough. So perhaps what I wrote above is wrong but it is the attitude that you have been projecting up until now.
Unless I’m mixing you up with someone else this is not your claim. It’s quite clear to any observer that he does know his stuff and one doesn’t need to become an Islamic scholar to recognize the fact. Nor does one need to be a scholar to see that you are not supporting your argument very well. Just because you are not doing a good job doesn’t mean you are ‘wrong’ but if you have some airtight argument then I wish you would share it.
I find it strange that you co-blog with a guy who is claiming the exact opposite of this statement and yet you don’t call him out on it. It doesn’t reflect well on you character. Especially when you are attacking the same person. It leads onlookers to think your coblogger has credibility on this issue. In fact, Esmay, goes to great lengths in using your position as co-blogger to attacking Spencer and others, asking why they don’t have Muslim co-bloggers, as if that is a measure of credibility.
I also think that both you and Esmay should refrain from putting words into other peoples mouths. I have never claimed to be an authoritative interpreter of Islamic text from the point of view of any particular Islamic sect. That’s just silly. I don’t need to be to know that even having the issue of murdering apostates on the table is the sign of a religion gone bad, or of having bad foundations from the start. Have the people who are discussing such things “hijacked” your religion?
Let’s not pretend here. Your religion is not compatible with my rights, or with a proper understanding of where those rights originate. That wouldn’t be a concern if no one were using these kinds of errors to persecute people like me (I am an apostate of my own religion and can relate to apostates of yours). However the facts are otherwise. Muslims are persecuting non-Muslims in a systematic way. It’s not just some terrorists. Get used to the idea that us non-believers have valid concerns and we don’t need a degree in Islamic jurisprudence to raise them.
Ali,
You should be aware that all that work I put into that comment was mostly directed at you. I think very few people are going to wade down through all these comments to see my point of view. I considered that before I posted it.
[...] And therefore I am happy to report that the right wingers and Islamophobes’ favorite anti-Islamic website, JIHADWATCH.ORG, has been proven wrong by a Muslim reformer here. [...]
All this talk about Bukhari and all that. the Quran does not give the prophet authority to “kill” apostates. This is nonsense. The Quran specifically mentions time and time again his duty is nothing of the sort. This Eteraz is bogus.
The verse of Surat Al Qamar(The Mo0n) does not even say anything Spencer or Eteraz says it is. This people are lying about the Quran.
2:256 There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.
16:82 But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message .
6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.
4:79-80 Say:’Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness. Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper.”
11:28 He (Noah) said “O my people! think over it! If I act upon a clear direction from my Lord who has bestowed on me from Himself the Merciful talent of seeing the right way, a way which you cannot see for yourself, does it follow that we can force you to take the right path when you definitely decline to take it?°
17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe …. Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith.
21:107-109 (O Prophet?) ‘We have not sent you except to be a mercy to all mankind:” Declare, “Verily, what is revealed to me is this, your God is the only One God, so is it not up to you to bow down to Him?’ But if they turn away then say, “I have delivered the Truth in a manner clear to one and all, and I know not whether the promised hour is near or far.”
22:67 To every people have We appointed ceremonial rites which they observe; therefore, let them not wrangle over this matter with you, but bid them to turn to your Lord. You indeed are rightly guided. But if they still dispute you in this matter, `God best knows what you do.”
24.54. Say: “Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger. but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger’s duty is only to preach the clear (Message).
88:21 22; And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.
48:28 He it is Who has sent forth His Messenger with the Guidance and the Religion of Truth, to the end that tie make it prevail over every religion, and none can bear witness to the Truth as God does.
36:16 17 (Three Messengers to their people) Said, “Our Sustainer knows that we have indeed been sent unto you, but we are not bound to more than clearly deliver the Message entrusted to us.’
39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.
42:6 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach ….
64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.
67:25 26 And they ask, “When shall the promise be fulfilled if you speak the Truth?” Say, “The knowledge of it is verily with God alone, and verily I am but a plain warner.”
This is the Quran. Keep your Bukhari.
Koranist,
I don’t know about here, but I know that salahudin, did answer your remarks on my blog, but you never wrote anything back…. are you not a Rashadiites?? I gotta say, if you are, how do you expect others to believe what you have to say…I am no scholar of Islam, but it appears to me that the definition or translated version of the Quran, by the Rashadiites, seems to be off the mark.
I mean you can have the whole thing be great, progressive, peaceful and right, but if you have even one verse that makes absolutely no sense, in regards to how everyone else translated the same verse….well it brings into question every other translation the rashadiites make. And what in the world is this age 40 thing, in regards to the age of responsiblity???
You get around the internet, but never answer anyone else’s comments in regards to what you believe. I am curious to know if salahudin is right, are you Rashadiite??
What on earth is a Rashedite? I think he means Dr. Rashad Khalifa. Saluddin thinks that being a koranist is being a Rashad Khalifa follower. He thinks its a cult or something. Saluddin is ignorant, he left Islam only to know he never knew it. He pobably was a Wahhabi who burned out or something. Most people leave Islam are ignorant and only know the Islam the clerics told them. I am quoting the Koran and he is telling me Rashedites? What, we can’t quote the Koran anymore? Its hadiths or nothing?
Is this Islam or Bukharistan!
If you open the “traditionalist” book provision of a traveler by Nuh , It says the scholars agree that the person who leaves the prayer should be executed.
How is it possible the person who leaves prayer is executed and the person who leaves the religion is not?
Athari,
What?? To me, the bottom line is this…
The Quran makes it clear that there is no compulsion in Islam.
And when asked about this, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem agreed. Then when asked if shouldn’t that apply to Muslims who want to leave Islam as well… he got really mad and refused to answer.
Since the Quran is supposed to be directly from God… Shouldn’t that be the prime end all, be all??