Another fire to put out. This time an Afghani (formerly a Muslim) speaks of his religious makeover and, for a while, faced the penalty of death because of apostasy rulings found in Islamic sacred law - this according to an Afghani "judge." The story and its permutations have led the network and cable news and print behemoths, received comments from the White House and just about every Rev and collar in America and Europe, and provoked more rabid slurs trained on Islam. In a way, I understand the indignation: if a man wants to change his religion, so let him. This controversy raises some issues that outstrip one person.

As for apostasy laws, they do exist. But Islam is not the only religion in this regard, nor are they alien to secular systems. And you ask: So what? What kind of argument is that? Is this McApologetics? Good questions. I mention this because regrettably analogies of this kind are now a requirement, given the puerile handling of Muslim affairs, the pompous bloviations of media "experts," and a public seemingly sedated by its own sense of perfection. But it also adds perspective in the light of the monster-making process of all things "Islamic." When you believe that the patent to "issues," like violence and extremism, belongs to one folk, then the mind is doomed to delve into fear-fictions that permit legislatures to make all kinds of damned "laws" and wars. So, I make the analogy between apostasy in the early Islamic historical context with the American law of treason or sedition that is punishable by death.

The apostasy laws in Islamic legal tradition vary greatly and are often said to pertain more to "treason" and "sedition" than a spiritual choice. Back in the day, when Islam was young and enemies abound, those who didn't want to see their idols dethroned in the city of Abraham (Mecca) and those who felt intimidated that God would send a prophet from Ishmael's pedigree (especially in the post-Jesus world) tried to do anything to damage or destroy the small community of believers. They made alliances, attempted to assassinate the Prophet Muhammad (numerous times), waged battle, slandered galore, and other tricks to do the deed. There were hypocrites among "the believers"; they would be Muslim by day and plotting maniacs by night, allying themselves with those who, on their own accord, chose enmity as their reception to Islam and its folk. They would change their "faith" for political expedience and promises in order to do some impolite things to a budding religious community. Their aim was not subtle.

In the aftermath of the passing of the Prophet, some Arab tribes (especially in the eastern half of the Arabian Peninsula) decided to edit out a core tenet of the faith and withhold their charitable requirement, and thus impale the very economic basis of a contiguous people and nation. The battle against them was called the "War of Apostasy." Much has been made of this. It's comparable to a movement to refuse to pay taxes to the Feds while still claiming the right to live in America. Imagine that on a large basis, such that the very economic legs of the nation would not only wobble, but collapse and put an end to the American entity. Do we remember the Civil War and its economic rationale?

It's important to note that apostasy rulings have rarely been used in the heyday of Islamic civilization, a ranging world conglomerate stretching from the western frontiers of China, the Indian subcontinent, to North and Sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Europe, and the western shores of Spain. There's absolutely nothing in the Ȭan or sacred paradigms of Islam that makes a religious choice an anathema to Muslims. Not one reference in the Quran that refers to people leaving the realm of faith suggests the penalty of death. The scripture does, however, state that in the Hereafter these scoffers will not find an easy remedy. The statements of the Prophet with regard to apostasy have been profoundly examined by scholars, most of whom have placed a high premium on context when adjudicating.

I mean, listen: read history by real historians. And if you have the money, fly out to North Africa and the Middle East and look at some of the oldest Christian and Jewish communities on the face of the earth. The relatively few episodes of animosity were a matter of human frailty (pandemic always) and not rooted in the deep soil of the Islamic way of thinking. The recent tensions of the last century in the Muslim world were inspired more by the "political" strains of the Palestinian issue or secular juntas of the Arab east, patterned after European fascist or socialist political systems (the Baath Party of Iraq is an example) than by Islam and its laws. Then compare that with Spanish extermination and expulsion of Muslims and Jews, sanctioned and approved of by Rome. There's more to cite, like the Catholic "response" to the early followers of Martin Luther; the conquerors in the New World, who were given the right to "subdue" the natives in the "name of Christ," which was permissible because the natives were unclean "infidels"; the slaughter of Mormons (heretics according to mainstream Protestant churches) in early American history; and others.

But that was history, and these minority communities in the Muslim east were originally of the Christian and Jewish milieu, although it's well known that there were converts among them (very few) from Muslim ranks. (Personally, I know of Christian Arabs who were once Muslim, who made the choice for their own reasons. And they live well in the Arab world.)

Now back to Afghanistan, a nation smitten in recent history by invasions, revolutions, extremists, and entrenched tribal logic. Anyone who has any awareness of the country will know that, like the so-called "honor killings" of India and Pakistan, this episode of apostasy "ruling" is informed not by Islamic sacred law or paradigms, but by a people poorly confronting their own ignorance and psychological traumas. Just like the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan, which existed for centuries unmolested by the Muslim authorities that ruled the region (which once contained many centers of high learning, if one can imagine that), this Afghani fellow, a Muslim turned Christian, may be another victim of the contemporary Muslim "funk" and may add to the misunderstanding of Islam and lend further credence to questionable theories of civilizations and their inevitable clashes. (The devil wonders how many in the vocal bleachers were hoping to see this man become a martyr who would then inspire many a troubadour to sing elegies by which the missionaries can do their work.)

Now to preach: I'm not sure how these things happen, but they are damned when they do. There's hardly anything more dangerous than the mixture of religion with simplemindedness, or any people-moving philosophies mixed with the loss of intellectualism and critical thinking. Somehow the spiritual equation has been inversed. Too many folk interpret rigidity and strictness as signs of religious commitment and piety. Spiritual security, however, always leads to flexibility, lenience, and mercy, the qualities that ushered so many into Islam in the first place. A show of religiosity by way of gesture, a stage play of piety, is obnoxious and, on a larger scale, a disaster. One wonders where's the Muslim world clerisy on this underlying issue. Or is there one to speak of, an authentic intelligentsia cleansed of the automatic verbiage of expired "movements"?

Note: There are many academic treatises on the topic of apostasy rulings in Islamic law, and clearly there are ranging opinions among scholars of the classical age and modern. The intransigence of the Afghani "judge" of this controversy is out of step with the very legal tradition he believes he's upholding㡠radition that has survived because of important degrees of plasticity.

You seem to suggest that the Afghan context of the matter has more to do with the judge's ruling than anything else. I am not sure if I agree with this. Afghanistan maybe backward and smitten with all ills, yet you can be sure that in any country where similar conservative attitudes towards interpreting and upholding the Shariah prevail, similar rulings would have been handed down. To this extent, Afghanistan's history or culture does not matter. It would have been the same in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and many a Middle Eastern country. Now to whether the criminality of apostasy is anymore applicable (especially now that the Islamic community has not remained a single polity and apostasy does not imply sedition or treason), I agree with your view that the death sentence is obsolete. Read on Chaplain Yee's views on this matter: http://safrang.blogspot.com

The problem is that such viewpoints need to be relentlessly promoted both in mainstream Western Media as well as the independent media outlets in Muslim societies as well. It could be one reason why Joe Sixpack has hardly heard all the pleading Muslim denials of terrorism and everything else under the sun. Surely, if CAIR, MPAC and thier kin are such effective activist groups as they paint themselves to be, surely they can get the NY Times or the LA Times to publish something like this as an Op-Ed (and yes, only a national newspaper would suffice)... or are such pleadings really for plausable deniability and not to really represent thier viewpoints which would reveal thier Political Islamist and Muslim Nationalist agendas (not that Ibrahim is among them)?

Alas, although you talk sensibly, you are Still an apologist.

I thought I might really get alt.muslim but you are std.muslim

You make arguments that apostasy is old fashioned and .. something to be excused away.

But let's be honest; there is NO "secular Islam".
Unlike say Judaism. there are no 'Reform Muslims'.

'Secular/'moderate' Islam is Apostasy, to the degree it is so not fundamental.
The Hardliners have it right.

Manji: "...The trouble with Islam today is that literalism is mainstream.

Even moderate Muslims take the Koran as the final word of God: unfiltered, unchanged and unchangeable. This supremacy complex inhibits us from asking hard questions about what happens when faith becomes dogma. Such a path can lead only to a dead end of more violence...
http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/news/theaustralian-05-08-22.html


Muslim need a Reformation (it's also apostasy to say)

http://memri.org/bin/media.cgi?ID=61403

Until then there will be no 'Alt.muslims', just probably 1/3 Fundamentalists, 1/3 condoners who agree, and 1/3 who Might like change.

Abufak, I'm not sure what article you read that lead to this confusing response, but nowhere in this article does the author epsouse or even refer to a secular Islam. Moreover, it's about time someone, an actual Muslim, stood up and addressed some of our own mishandlings, some of our own faults, wrongs done in the name of right. Just maybe then we can be again to address and redress our needs.

But denial, brother, serves no one. And if that's your proposal for altmuslim, then rename it backwardsmuslim.

I didn't say he referred to Secular Islam.
I used it for his apologism and implication there is some other sort of Islam possible.
Again .. there are no 'reform muslims'
WHAT SAY YOU?

What do YOU or her have to say about Literalism being mainstream and that...
these is no "Moderate Islam" and that ...
those who make Literalist interpretations to this oft contradictory Holy Book, have No one to tell them they are wrong.

Is the koran True or not?
A muslim is a literalist inerpreter of that book... or he is not a Muslim..

or of anything else I posted including Islam needing a reformation.

So, abuafak, you want to kill this Afghan man then? That's the point of the article.

Certainly I don't want to kill the Afghan man.

Does the Koran forbid killing an apostate? Or....

The Qur'an forbids killing civilians. How is this man not a civilian, might I ask?

Then have patience (O Muhammad) even as the stout of heart among the messengers (of old) had patience, and seek not to hasten on (the doom) for them. On the day when they see that which they are promised (it will seem to them) as though they had tarried but an hour of daylight. A clear message. Shall any be destroyed save evil-living folk?

Leave Me to deal with the deniers, lords of ease and comfort (in this life); and do thou respite them awhile.


He who disbelieves in Allah after his having believed, not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith, but he who opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement. This is because they love this world's life more than the hereafter, and because Allah does not guide the unbelieving people. These are they on whose hearts and their hearing and their eyes Allah has set a seal, and these are the heedless ones. No doubt that in the hereafter they will be the losers.

Does this say the wrath of man will be upon these people? I'm relatively certain it says Allah. Does it say the wrath will be upon them here on Earth? I believe not.

Tell me, how many men did Muhammad kill simply for becoming an apostate? You cannot count those who attacked the Ummah, for all who attack the Ummah are sentenced to death, believers or not.

http://www.al-islam.org/short/apostacy.htm

"...4. Apostacy is Equal to Treason

Why does Islam not allow apostacy? Apostacy or irtid„d in Islam is equal to Treason.

[...]

"In Islam, the concept of treason is not limited to political and military affairs, it also has a spiritual and cultural dimension to it. In the Islamic order of sacredness, All„h, then the Prophet and then the Qur'„n occupy the highest positions. Tawhid, nubuwwa, and qiy„ma form the constitution of Islam. Just as upholding and protecting the constitution of a country is sign of patriotism, and undermining it is a form of treason-in the same way open rejection of the fundamental beliefs of Islam by a Muslim is an act of treason. Apostacy, i.e., the public declaration of rejecting the fundamentals of Islam, has also negative influence on the Muslim society; it is indeed a major fitna.

And that is why Islam has prescribed harsh punishment for irtid„d.
It must be emphasized that irtid„d which we are discussing here involves open rejection, without any force and with the realization of what one's statements or actions imply. The punishment prescribed by the shari'a for apostacy is death.

Even the terms used by the shari'a for apostates give the idea of treason to this whole phenomenon. "Murtad" means apostate. Murtad can be of two types: fitri and milli. (1) Murtad Fitri means a person born of a Muslim parent and then he rejects Islam. Fitri means nature or natural. The term "murtad fitri" implies that the person has apostated from his nature, the nature of believing in God. (2) "Murtad Milli" means a person who converted to Islam and then later on he rejects Islam. Milli is from millat which means a community. The term "murtad milli" implies that the person has apostated from his community.

In the first case, the apostacy is like treason against God; whereas in the second case, the apostacy is like treason against the Muslim community. Probably, that is why there is also a difference in dealing with these two kinds of murtads:

A former k„fir who became a Muslim and then apostates (Murtad Milli) is given a second chance; if he repents, then he is not to be killed.

But one who is born as a Muslim and then apostates (Murtad Fitri) he is to be killed even if he repents. His repentance might be accepted by All„h but he still has to go through the punishment prescribed for his treason in this world. ..."

Djibouti travel advisory: beware of Abuafak. The good thing is: where in the Hell is Djibouti?

Its a nice little place between Eritrea and Somalia. Its a mix of people from both of the above countries. There's, like, one road and some tents and buildings near the bay... and a humoungous French military base. But that's about it.

Well abuafak, for there to be a crime of treason, there has to be a state / government which represents *all* Muslims in order for conversion to be treasonous, but no such thing has existed since the four khalifas. One cannot be treasonous against an idea. This is exactly the point argued by the US political Muslims as they try to find a way out of this uncomfortable reality by reinterpreting it without denying it. I, categorically deny any belief in killing someone for apostacy; I prefer to let Allah sort out people, not me.

Your point places the Prophet over the word of God... Any fool should see through your attempts to put anything of mankind above God, and know better. Muhammad, the hadiths, and your precious Shari'ah are none perfect. Accept the Qur'an as your guide, and this man lives. Do not compulse, do not kill civilians.

Not to mention, your last point makes no sense. How can a person even be "born" Muslim? if you are suggesting their parents are Muslims, then that does not make a child Muslim. Islam may be a way of life, but it is still a religion and it still requires a person to consciously submit to God to be Muslim. Also, how does it make sense the undecided and without knowledge get slain indefinately while those with all the knowledge required can apostocize and apologize? Cling to logic as Allah intended my friend, and you will see the errs in this argument.

The author's analogy to the United States' sedition and treason law is inaccurate. The U.S. Constitution reads, "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Apostasy can only be equivalent to treason if different faiths are seen as the enemy.

The author indicates very clearly that, historically, this was the case. But, this argument crumbles the way all historical context arguments crumble: given that the context has changed, shouldn't the rule change?

Also, the author's analogy between the War of Apostasy and U.S. non-payment of taxes is weak. Non-payment of taxes, even if supported by a movement, would not be punishable by execution. As for the Civil War, the deaths involved were from an actual war for separation/unity, perhaps based on economic factors, but not for the non-payment of taxes.

Couched deeply amidst standard apologist arguments, the author declares, "Not one reference in the Quran that refers to people leaving the realm of faith suggests the penalty of death." Why was this so difficult to say? Why wasn't this the main point of the article?

I think the author, like most modern Muslims, fears the consequences of a highly visible call for reform.

@IbnRushd - given the historical context of early Islam, when there was a very small community of the faithful amidst largely hostile non-Muslim groups, a reversion of faith undertaken with the purpose of weakening the Muslim community and out of malice for them would seem comparable to most modern treason and sedition laws. Let's not forget that in that historical context, the community of Muslims also constituted a polity. Medina was a city as well as a polity like Athens. Abandoning Islam was therefore also tentamount to denouncing the citizenship of Medina and subjection to its rules and laws. I agree that an analogy with modern day US laws would be stretched, but it should be taken as an illustration and not a perfect comparison. Now on to whether Muslims -in view of the changing times- should indeed call for an abandoning of the apostasy clause -and like it that of many other obsolete injuctions-, I agree. It is long overdue.
(On apostasy and its analogy to US laws, here is another view: http://safrang.blogspot.com/2006/03/another-view-on-apostasy-in-islam.html )

Hamesha,

The problem with abandoning obsolete injunctions is that Muslims pride themselves on Islam's consistency over time. And, indeed, why not?

What really is the point of a religion whose interpretations can change depending on the values of its followers? Muslims would be creating Islam, instead of vice versa.

Islam would be reduced to mere spirituality, and could not fulfill its stated goal as framework for society. I say it could not, because if Islam were subordinate to our rational thoughts, then we may as well use only our rational thoughts in building our society.

I agree IbnRushd, consistency is valuable. But then so is dynamism and the ability to evolve with time and place. This should not necessarily mean that Muslims are abandoning Islam as a religion or value system. The reconstruction of religious thought, and reappraisal of how human beings understand and conceptualize religion is not only necessary, it is inevitable. To go against this inevitably is to land in the awkward position -the alienation from our brave new world today- that many of our brethren find themselves in. It is said of Islam that is is a religion for all time and place, for eternity and for the universe. Do you really think it would be so if all its temporal and spacial limitations are adhered to dogmatically? Evolution with time is in the spirit of Islam, for without it, Islam would become an obsolete religion of outdated dogmas. Yes, of course there are central themes and beliefs that remain the same over time anywhere, and that we identify Islam with those centrallities, but if we are talking about such peripheral injunctions as the apostasy clause, while so many of the factors that made it necessary have clearly changed, then to say that the clause is not anymore relevant to our circumstances would not be to blaspheme Islam. Apropos, this is not my argument, but that of many respected religious authorities and learned men of faith.

On the question of whether Islam is subordinate to rational thought or vice versa, it seems to me that the premise here is flawed. Neither has to be subordinate to the other. Both faith and reason perform important functions in human life, and both are indispensible. Islam is spirituality, but as you say, it is also a value system. This is not counter to its parallel function with reason. It is offensive to suggest that Muslims should have to make a choice between being Muslims and being rational. Of course this is what has been suggested for a long time, including by Muslims. Since the decline of the Mu'tazilites, reason and faith have been on a collision course in the Islamic discourse. This is not inevitable, and a reconstruction of religious thought would pave the way for coexistence of the two.

Ibn Rushd, you speak of rationality as if it is not part of God's creation or proper part of epistemology. The problem is, we have no idea how the Muslims of the great past applied rationality and other methodologies to such things as shareea. In fact, analogy (qiyaas) would have been impossible without logic, which was pushed along by greek titans and their works. The Muslim mind used to be clear. You're the one talking in a vacuum encircled by the fear of something (rationality) that is the human being's most universal and essential asset. Ghazali praises it like crazy, saying it is the top of human gifts, since it is the gateway to understanding God's will.

>>Muslims would be creating Islam, instead of vice versa.

A close examination of the work of Malik (especially), Abu Yusuf, ash-Shayban, Abu Hanifah and many others *did* create much of what we accept as Islam today. Schholars have always made new judgements and called them part of Islam because the laws, in thier opinion, were derived from the divine texts and sunnah. As for a freamwork for society, much of what we think is the Islamic framework is simply common sense: be ncie to your neighbors, don't cheat etc. which mostly seem to have been social ideals since the beginning of covilization. The real point of Islam *is* spirituality since if belief in One God, prayer, fasting and so on arent't spiritual, I don't know what is. If we reduce Islam to a social framework, are we honoring what Islam was meant to be? Or, does Allah intend that Islam means something different to different people??