PS: I would like you to explicitly mention your sources while writing (you have
some quotes from the Qurân), but your links related to the life of Mohammad
(Sira and hadits) are not available, and this makes the discussion with you
difficult as I dont know what you are referring to. Thanks

I have to admit that I really hesitated before writing this post but I felt like
venting or ranting about this topic and I guess I’ll take my chances with what
comments may follow. Keep in mind that I am not a scholar [dont bother I'm
no scholar either ] but you don’t need a certificate to learn and educate
yourself in your own religion. If you are thinking of replying or commenting I
implore you to abide by the commenting policy on this blog and discuss this
issue with an open mind and open heart rather than with sinister intent. The
latter brings about nothing good. At the end of the day this is more or less a
rant.

In truth, I was really disgusted by the reactions over this apparent crisis of
an Afghan man who converted to Christianity. Suddenly Non-Muslims were coming
out of the woodworks [this are allegations ad personam, without
detailing, I'm sorry but this is not a big sign of respect, isn't it?]
quoting random texts about some apostasy law in Islam that I personally was not
fully aware of [not fully means? is it possible you didn't know about that?].
Some Muslims were doing the same thing as well. So I figured for a moment that
hey, maybe these people know more about Islam than I do [it would be enough to
see what the main schools of jurisprudence say about apostasy: THIS IS THE
POINT, not what I or you think about (although our opinions have some worth),
but what is deemed to be orthodox]. So I searched through the Quran [why not go
to the sharia manual as well?] one more time just to be sure. Thankfully my
faith was restored [by talking like that you let the people thnk that
your faith is quite superficial] in the fact that no such law actually exists in
the Quran [but you know that Islam is not just the Quâran, that's common
knowledge].

Interpretations of Islam have always varied [actually the one related to the
killing of apostates has been aroound (time of Mohammad included) since the
second Caliph and has not changed since] from the liberal to the moderate to the
extreme; I would like to take the intellectual, rational and logical approach
here [ok, the Mutazilites approach. I would like that to be the mainstream
Islam, but reality is that it has been banned as eretic thanks to al-Ghazali
(1058-1111) ].

There is no law in the Quran which states apostates must be killed [ok, tt must
be conceded that death for apostasy is not as prominent a theme in the Quran as
one would expect. For instance, these verses condemn apostasy, but its
punishment is reserved for divine judgment in the Last Day, or its punishment is
not clearly stated as taking place down here on earth: Suras 2:217; 3:72, 86-87,
90; 4:137; 5:54; 16:106; 33:14; 73:11; and 74:11], and even the extremists do
not derive their interpretations from the divine texts [that's half right, bcs
for their actions they often cite 9.29, 5.33, 9.50 and various hadiths. But you
are right related to apostasy: However: there is no disagreement between all
Islamic schools of jurisprudence, and moreover, as there is no clear advise in
the Qurân, muslims should turn to the life experience of Muhammad (Sunna, as
the Quran alone doesn't seem sufficient]. In other words God never says in
the Quran that apostates must be killed, instead
He promotes freedom of religion no compulsion in religion [do you mean
2.256?...it is the earliest medinan Sura, and it has been abrogated by later
ones, did you hear about that? Btw: you talk about random texting by people,
but especially if you take the circumstances that lead to 2.256, that means
putting it into context, you will see that just in case of weak positioning by
the Umma you can come out with this statement. This has been quite reversed with
later much more aggressive ones. It seems that you are advocating some rules for
extremists and non-muslims that yourself don't follow], and as for apostates,
it cannot be more clear that their punishment is up to Him and will dealt out in
the hereafter. Not by man [this is a very sensible point].

So everyone relies on the secondary source, the hadith of the Prophet (pbuh).
The problem here is that like the Quran the hadith often address specific
situations [so as the hadith literature speakS of Punctual situations, does in
entail that the Sunna is not worth any more, as the situation is now very very
different compared to 1400 years ago?] and events which happened to the Prophet
Pbuh and how he dealt with them. Apostasy then was very much different from
apostasy now [apostasy per se is the same, but even implications are the same].
For example the Prophet (pbuh) did order the death punishment after polytheists
who were enemies of Muslims began to convert to Islam and then apostate for the
sake of causing confusion amongst Muslims; psychological warfare [but can you
not see the signs of time even in what is happening today? Lots of Muslims think
that Islam is under attack, is in this situation apostasy no comparable to
psychological warfare? The problem with your
intutition that it is very subjective and not correlated with reality]. Though
in several instances there were people who left Islam and lived down the street
from the Prophet (pbuh) but were untouched and the Prophet advised everyone to
leave them alone [Quotes?]. The key here is that the death punishment wasn�t
because they left the religion; it was mixed or tied in with something else.
High treason, murder, warfare, etc. [Quotes?]. The punishment for these crimes
is a totally different matter but at the time it did often come hand in hand
with apostasy [it seems today is the same]. Leaving Islam and therefore the
Muslims to go join the enemy army that is bent on killing Muslims is different
from converting to Christianity and living peacefully amongst Muslims [you must
be joking? Do you think it is possible in any arab/muslim country to go through
the street and to say: hey, I'm with you, I'm not pro US/UK/Israel etc etc
but I believe now in Jesus/Buddha/etc etc? I would
like you to invite to a demonstration through the street of your hometow with
banners that advocate free religion, would you dare to come with me?].

A verse from An-Nisaa� describes this perfectly [context?]:

{Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God
does not allow you to harm them.} (An-Nisaa 4:90)

[Ok, you are right but you are just quoting early Medinan Suras, that were
peaceful, Mohammad was coming from Mecca, and all muslims were not more that 30,
what should he have said? I'll kill you all? You understant that it would not
be the best tactic] Even the Prophet (pbuh) could not order the death of any
apostate simply because they left Islam and converted to another religion. And
God says so in Al-ImranÃ? [context?]:

{And if they surrender themselves unto Him (i.e. God), they are on the right
path; but if they turn away behold, thy duty (O Muhammad,) is no more than
to deliver the message: for God sees all that is in [the hearts of] His
creatures.} (Aal `Imran 3:20)

[the same for Sura 3, early Medinan, how could he have ordered apostates to be
killed while so weak?] The judgment was left up to God because obviously only He
can know what is truly in the hearts of people and what their intentions are.
There were even times when the Prophet (pbuh) accepted people into Islam even
though they were hypocrites from the start and converted only for some personal
gain [again, where are the sources and the context?]. Hence the Prophet (pbuh)
did not go around home to home looking for apostates and staging public
executions [this is not right; he allowed apostates to be killed. Take for
exemple the case of Abdullah ibn Khatal (Ishaq 819), and see Bukhari 9.84.57 &
9.82.388 & 9.83.17&9.45.46¦in all this cases Muhammad speaks of killing the
apostates (with no caveat), even contemplating the context].

Let us skip ahead to modern times. The problem with today is that many people
don’t bother taking the time to actually finding out what the religion says
about certain things and instead base their conclusions on judging the actions
of Muslims [has not been around someone that has been saying ââ?¬Å?You will
recognize them by their fruits ;-] ]. You can actually do the same with
every religion today [ok, I accept the challenge, give me some examples] but
Islam gets its share of the pie simply because it has become a center stage act
post 9/11 and is probably the most misunderstood religion; or possibly the
religion people least want to understand [could it be related to the fact that
till now the moderates have just produced two fatwas against the
perpetrator of 911 and the London bombings? The one issued by Spanish muslims is
based on no islamic script/elements and is just general bla bla bla,
therefore has no legal valor. The one issued in the UK cites and stops at Q
5.32,
without going on to 5.33, and moreover it does not calculate the context in
which it has been revealed. It seems to me that yes, it is a misunderstood
religion, but not in the way and by the people you are referring to, at the
opposite, interest about Islam in the West has been huge].

If this Afghan man had left Islam and committed treason it would be a different
story, but to even consider death as a punishment after having converted for 16
years and living peacefully is just utterly absurd [yes yes].

In part society is largely to blame. In many Islamic societies there is little
formal or flexible education when it comes to religion. It is put into their
mindset that death is the automatic punishment for an apostate when this is a
far cry from the truth. Death is not part of the Hudud punishment [partly right
bcs apostasy in included in this list by most scholars] i.e. crimes in Islam
whose punishments are mandatory. This mindset is usually influenced by members
of society who further this false belief [but if this is true why doesn't
al-Azhar or the grand Mufti of Mecca come out and explaining that? Who dares to
go out demonstrating in the streets that this is a false belief?]. Ironically
many of these people, like Non-Muslims, never take the time to learn about it on
their own [it sounds strange to me that you depict non-muslims always as not
able to understand. At the opposite there are a lots of as-well-stupids like the
terrorists, that every time they go around
killing either come out with a statement or a video citing directly the
Qurân/hadiths. Have you seen people of Hamas demonstrating with a little book
called ââ?¬Å?the universal declaration of human rights or with the Qurân in
their hands?]. Forget about the media [I agree, but I suppose not for the same
reason ], it is always looking for what is sensational. No member of the
media is going to bother actually researching this information they’d rather
say the words convert to Christianity who is facing an Islamic death
sentence.

Extremists and Muslim bashers are often in agreement with each other, they quote
the same texts, in the same out-of-context way [as far as I have seen you
don't put into context either. But even trying to put it into context, it
doesn't change a lot, try it!], in the same apathetic-to-history manner. So
they do find common ground in the hate [it's not always hate, sometimes is
just following prescriptions¦have you taken into consideration that fact that
possibly, might be, there is a remote possibility that this is what actually the
text is telling?].

Though Islam is about the middle ground. [sources? Exemples? I think, very very
sorry for that, but you are loosing some credibility here (I know you are
well-intentioned). Where do you find this middle ground? I don't want to go
into teological issues or items like same rights vs other
religions/unbelievers/homosexuals/women/slaves, just keep it on the ground of
democracy (Aristoteles was already talking about that and this brought (well
it's a little more complicated) democracy, the art of compromise]. Granted
things can be interpreted in many ways, but so can the Mona Lisa and so can
every single thing for that matter. Between the black and the white there is
always the truth and it’s often as simple as that.

{Let there be no compulsion in Religion: truth stands out clear from error:
whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah (one God) has grasped the most
trustworthy hand hold that never breaks. And Allah hears, and knows all things.}
(Qurân, Al-Baqarah 2:256)

[This is the great mistification: muslim leaders are always talking of the
religion of peace, by citing this verse! But actually as you said, it is taken
out of context, and anyway abrogated, and this on solid islamic orthodoxy!!]
Regards
e

so please do not tell me that i am blind, deaf and dumb, simply because you choose to listen to the more extreme views. that is your decision but do not enforce it on me; do not say the opinion of the extreme must be the true opinion and therefore no one can disagree with that. because whether you are a Muslim or not, you are doing their work for them.

i do not believe my statements to be any more or less fallicious than those who subscribe to the other view.

at the end of the day there is always more than one view, and their 1.5 billion of us who share them.

if you would like to describe this issue than please do so with respect to my commenting policy and i will have no problem. also if you feel the need, feel free to email me.

thanks

A quosque tandem abutere patientia mea?
I’ll come back, if you allow, detailing
ea

thanks

I agree with your comment about distinguishing between simply leaving the community and attacking it. Interpreting apostacy of itself as an attack is an extreme view, but I can see how the chain of thought might lead to that view. I am not arguing in favor of that view, just trying to understand.

i’ll keep it in mind for a future post God willing.

What differences do you see between Islamic communities and Christian and Jewish communities for example?

Could you tell me of some of the ways that Islam attempts to balance community needs and individual responsibilites. What is the role of the individual in relation to the community? How are predominantly Muslim states doing implementing (or not implementing as the case may be) this balance? What do you think needs to be changed?

This is one of the main reasons the western world has difficulty understanding our side of the world and vice versa.

Thank you for hosting this interesting discussion. The comments about community led me to think about how difficult it is for an WASP variety American in Los Angeles like myself to understand much of what goes on in the world. I understand, intellectually, what you say about community. However, I have lived, and still live, in a culture which is so diverse, transient, and ignorant of even recent history that any sense of community in the way I think you mean is difficult to imagine.

Certainly, there is a sense of community among the various groups I belong to: church, my boating club, the folks at work. But the membership of these groups change with some frequency, none of these groups overlap, and none of the members of these groups are neighbors, or people I see shopping, or at the movies, or the voting booth, etc. I live in an apartment block with 12 units and I would be hard pressed to name three people from the other apartments. What I say, or believe, or even how I act within reason and legality are of no concern to the average person I meet on the street and not of much concern to members of these “communities” to which I belong. I know this is NOT the way most of the world lives. I KNOW it but, because it is unfamiliar, I find it hard to empathise with those for whom community defines much of who they are.

I am a Christian, an American, of European ancestry, a Democrat (among other things) and would not willingly choose to be other. However, concerns about religious, national, ethnic, or political identity are not at the forefront of how I identify myself or the other people I meet. Nor do I expect others to have these concerns about themselves or me. When they do, they seem odd and out of the mainstream but I can see that to them I might seem rootless, uncommitted, and lacking in social responsibility.

One thing I do know, with increased communications, the world becomes smaller all the time. We are ALL members of one community: humankind. The sooner we all develop that identity and a sense of common membership and responsibity to that group the better off we all will be.

With respect to the main thrust of this discussion, I collected the following quote by Thomas Macaulay (from Macintoshâ??s History of the Revolution) for my “sayings” file some time ago. I was struck by how right he is:

“The doctrine which, from the very first origin of religious dissensions, has been held by bigots of all sects, when condensed into a few words and stripped of rhetorical disguise, is simply this: I am in the right, and you are in the wrong. When you are the stronger, you ought to tolerate me; for it is your duty to tolerate truth. But when I am the stronger I shall persecute you; for it is my duty to persecute error.”

It can’t be to soon to consign this doctrine to the trashcan of history.

“I belong to a tribe myself but most Muslims and most Arabs do not. So I know the difference between tribalism and community.”

OK. I don’t mean the use of the term ‘tribalism’ at its most literal or anthropological. I mean it in a broader and more abstract way. I’m describing a dangerous quality that can affect not only literal tribes but entire nations or even institutions beyond the bounds of nations. The tribalism I’m describing is all the worst (and none of the best) features you might find in a literal tribe and possibly extending to entire societies and even beyond individual societies.

Nas said:

“Community has a much larger context and Islam does in fact operate in such a manner.”

I’m certain you are correct about this Nas, but the term ‘communal religion’ could describe practically any religion. Christianity and Judaism both make lay out many rules that may not benefit the individual but benefit society as a whole. Hinduism (as it has been traditionally interpreted) lays out an entire caste system that governs, for better or worse, relations within communities. All religions make laws that specify what rights the individual possesses versus what responsibilities individuals have to their communities and what individual rights may not supercede community interests. There may be things that make Islamic communities unique and exceptional, but the term ‘communal religion’ hardly specifies what they are.

With regards to apostasy it is as mas said seen as one abandoning the community, however as i’ve stressed upon here in my post, to abandon Islam and to declare war on it are two different matters. One is seen as a change of faith and therefore a large part of the greater community, and the other is seen as an actual attack on the community. Which begs the question: which person is seen as a danger to his community?

“But I do think Islam to a large extent a communal faith.”

and

“I believe the open practice of other religions has historically been seen, and still is seen by many, as a threat to that community. In apostacy an individual is choosing to remove himself from the community.”

Communal faith? Oh, yes that must be the new, more politically correct term for something people used to call ‘tribalism’.

We are talking about people losing their lives over a disagreement of conscience here and the best teminology you can come up with is that dissenting individuals are perceived as removing themselves from the ‘community’ and threatening ‘communal faith’?

I think I’ll stick to the term ‘tribalism’ – I think that describes this situation in more appropriate language and doesn’t whitewash the seriousness of this issue. Sorry if that sounds judgemental, but c’mon!

mas, yes you’re right, although I meant it in a different way I’ve changed it now.

I might also note that one might a similar question to Prup’s for why God chose to reveal any text or send any prophet at one time as opposed to a different.

Someone commented on the relationship between apostacy and fitna. As an observer and from a socio-historical perspective that has been my impression as well, though I had not made the final step to fitna. But I do think Islam to a large extent a communal faith. I believe the open practice of other religions has historically been seen, and still is seen by many, as a threat to that community. In apostacy an individual is choosing to remove himself from the community. Further apostacy, especially if public, raises a challenge to that community if only implicitly, so I can see how the relationship to fitna could be a factor.

I persoanlly believe in freedom of faith, but I see the question of how to balance that with Islam as a community as a fundamental question here

——–

Aslan, his situation is a sad one indeed and unnecessary.

——–

Rami, I agree with you but I feel that instead of punishing an entire society for miseducation, it would be better to educate them in these matters.

It was treasonous, as oppossed to being ‘heathen’ of ‘kafir’

sorry have to run

At least in America we are just the most distrusted minority and are generally alowed to live.

Do you punish an individual and not punish the society that forced him to act in this way? A theive that steals because they are hungry, and steal enough to eat for themselves, are not punnishable in Islam. The Amir is for allowing a poor Muslim to exist.

Can’t you say this man’s society failed him and he saw a better alternative elsewhere? Whatever “better” means.

His tribal elders and scholars have no right to condemn him when they are partly responsible for his apostasy by infighting, corruption, intellectual stagnation and general failure at running the society.

Now he has escaped to Italy, and Iâ??m glad for him.

But Iâ??m very, very sad for the world as a whole.

A quote from a news article after he was released:
=====
Muslim clerics condemned Rahmanâ??s release, saying it was a â??betrayal of Islam.â? They threatened to incite violent protests.
=====
So, they are very upset that they didnâ??t get to kill a person that served Afghan refugees in Pakistan.

Thatâ??s what it comes down to. How depressing is that? Just checked my calendar again and it really is 2006.

His point is close to what you argue – that Apostasy was punished when it was associated with something else.

good luck,
Muhammad

Anyways, suffice to say what happened to him or what is happening to him is terrible. I have never been a big fan of law in Jordan because it is all over the place. They send people to Christian courts to Islamic courts to state security courts. There is no unified law, it is like one giant quilt, and Shari3a does not, and was not intended, to work in this manner at all. You can’t apply it when you want, and apply it as you wish.

More importantly though is that converts are left to deal with the wrath of society. Be they convert to Islam or converts from Islam our communities are still very communal and traditional in nature and they do not like abandonment. People have died in Jordan over lesser reasons than just religious conversion. We’re still dealing with honor crimes.

“Since there is no compulsion in religion, arenâ??t the vast majority of muslims having Islam forced upon them? ”

But arnt people born into a religion everyday? hence can we not say that everyone born today in this world has a religion forced on them. Also no compulsion in religion refers to forcing people to convert to Islam, when it comes to forcing people to stay Muslims this involves the freedom of religion outlined in the Quran.

Also I disagree about the very few convert to Islam. It has one of the highest conversion rates in major religion

thank you

The Quran addresses specific situations that are meant to act as guidence to Muslims at the time when they were facing that situation. It, like many historical stories in the quran, serves as an example for the rest of mankind in the future. Though the other side of the Quran is filled with verses which consist of rules and guidelines to worship, and laws. What is made haram (forbidden) and what is made halal (allowed) is revealed in those verses as clear as day. Now the chapters or verses that address specific situation are examples for us to learn from. How to act and how to behave according to what God commanded. This means when we want to base future knowledge and future reference to those verses we are forced to take their context in to consideration. They become part of a learned experience. So for example on a daily basis you encounter situations in your life which you assess according to learned behaviour and learned experience. With learned behaviour it is as simple as knowing this is a law and that is a law and so you live your life around social rules that you dont even question. With learned experience it usually helps you get through a present situation that is new to you, but nevertheless, even that old experience you are applying here cannot be taken out of it’s context. It addressed a specific situation in the past which may not not be 100% the same situation right now, but it’s enough for you to derive some piece of experience from to apply to this situation.

So while the Quran is completely infinite in nature it can be categorised into parts which are dependent on stories that act as examples for future reference, and parts which establish laws and guidelines. The former will always need historical context.

thanks

Any religious issue that had ‘death’ as a punishment is viewed as by ‘yod hashem’which means by the hand of g-d. And no human is allowed to do it.

To mention jewish zealots in todays context makes no sence. Curently the most that would happen to some one who converted out of the Jewish religion would be that they would be shuned. I.e. no one would talk to them. Or have other kinds of dealing with them.

Jews are required to fellow the law of the land in anycase.