In The Name of God by Anwaar Hussain

http://malakandsky.blogspot.com/ In a screaming instance of a heart rending paradox in the Muslim world, an Afghan convert to Christianity http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignB...is to be tried in a Kabul court for apostasy, a ’crime’ that is punishable by death in that country. Despite clear injunctions in the Quran that "there is no compulsion in religion" and "to you your own religion and to me, mine", an innocent man may be executed while we stand by and watch this gruesome charade in the name of God. The Muslim moderates, of course, continue to remain submerged in their deafening silence.

Let us examine the issue from both religious and supra-religious points of view. First, from the religious angle.

We keep lamenting that the Talibaan-type are not the true face of Islam, nor are the fundamentalists the true representatives of this religion and that Islam is a religion of peace and love yet we cannot explain the total absence of our outrage when the same Talibaan were beating and executing women. While we can work up a rich lather at the mouths over the Danish cartoons, we cannot explain our silence when some mad radicals demolished the Bamiyan statues or when a humanitarian worker, Margaret Hassan was slaughtered in Iraq or when Theo van Gogh, a columnist/filmmaker was shot, almost decapitated and stabbed in the heart because of his criticism of Islam?

We have cried ourselves hoarse that the West is suspicious of the Muslim Ummah and that there is a wave of Islamophobia in the West against Islam, yet when it comes to taking a collective stand against the illogicalities of our clerics, we instantly lapse into a submissive silence. Should then one surmise that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim?

Some half baked Islamic scholars of the Talibaan kind interpret the Divine for us based on centuries old research and we refuse to see the simple fact that those earlier scholars did sometimes interpret texts in a way as if theirs was the only valid explanation and that the prevailing situation of their time was the final situation.

Why do we forget that newer conditions do arise that need to be addressed by interpreting the revealed text of the Quran and sayings and practices of the Prophet (PBUH) for the prevalent conditions? Why do we forget that the inherent beauty of Islam was supposed to be that its followers must submit if new truth is established through ijtihad (research and investigation) and that Islam was not supposed to be a religion frozen in time and that the Muslims, therefore, always need to change their position if more appropriate and correct conclusions are arrived after careful and meticulous use of reasoning?

Now let us talk of Apostasy. Fortunately, some highly distinguished contemporary Islamic scholars based on renewed ijtihad, hold absolutely differing views on the subject of apostasy.

The historic fact remains that the Prophet (PBUH) never put anyone to death for apostasy alone. No one was sentenced to death solely for repudiation of faith unless accompanied by certain other crimes. Those other crimes would have been punishable by death in any contemporary state of the time. As a matter of fact the Quran is completely silent on the question of death as a punishment for apostasy. Apostasy simply does not qualify for temporal punishment.

Consider the following.

The most oft quoted Hadith (saying of The Prophet (PBUH)) for justifying the death penalty for apostasy is “The blood of a Muslim who professes that there is no god but Allah and that I am His Messenger, is sacrosanct except in three cases: a married adulterer; a person who has killed another human being; and a person who has abandoned his religion, while splitting himself off from the community”

Mohammad Hashim Kamali, an eminent Muslim scholar, points out that this Hadith of the Prophet (PBUH) “makes it clear that the apostate must also boycott the community and challenge its legitimate leadership, in order to be subjected to death penalty”. Also, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, another illustrious Muslim scholar, explained that “the crime referred in the Hadith under discussion is that of high treason and not apostasy as such”. Now ‘high treason’ would be punishable by death in most of contemporary laws of different lands.

In fact in a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of Malaysia ruled that conversion to Christianity by a Muslim is not a punishable offence. [Mohammad Hashim Kamali. ‘Freedom of Expression in Islam’. Ilmiah Publishers. Kuala Lumpur. 1998. pp 87-107. Chapter IX. Freedom of Religion].

Likewise, S. A. Rahman, former Chief Justice of Pakistan while discussing in his monograph ‘The Punishment of Apostasy in Islam’ looked “into the evidence in the Quran and the Sunnah in detail, and drew attention to the fact that the Quran is silent on the question of death as the punishment for apostasy, despite this subject occurring no less then twenty times in the Holy Book”. Justice Rahman examined the Hadith “kill whoever changes his religion” and found “some weakness in the transmission”.

Justice S. A. Rahman’s conclusion is also supported by other evidence, such as the fact that neither Prophet (PBUH) himself, nor any of his Companions ever compelled anyone to embrace Islam, nor did they sentence anyone to death solely for renunciation of faith

Justice Rahman’s view is also supported by such well-known earlier scholars as Ibrahim al Nakhai and Sufyan al Thawri (both held the view that “apostate should be re-invited to Islam but should never be condemned to death”), the renowned Hanafi jurist Shams al Din al Sarakhsi (“apostasy does not qualify for temporal punishment”), Malaki jurist al Baji (“apostasy is a sin which carries no prescribed penalty”) and modern scholars as Abd al Hakim al Ili and Ismail al Badawi (apostasy to be punishable by death has to be “political in character and aimed at the inveterate enemies of Islam”), Mahmud Shaltut (“apostasy carries no temporal penalty”), Mahmassani (“death penalty was meant to apply, not to simple act of apostasy from Islam, but when apostasy was linked to an act of political betrayal of the community”).

Similarly, Selim el Awa, another noted Muslim scholar, raised a very rational argument that if the Hadith “whoever renounces his religion shall be killed” is literally applied to all subjects of a Muslim state, it would also be applicable “to Christians, who convert to Judaism and vice versa” which “manifestly falls outside the intention” of the Hadith.

The great Iranian scholar Ayatollah Mutahhari highlighted the incongruity of the compulsion with the sprit of Islam, and the basic redundancy of punitive measures in the propagation of its message. He wrote that it is impossible to force anyone to acquire the kind of faith that is required by Islam, just as “it is not possible to spank a child into solving an arithmetical problem. His mind and thought must be left free in order that he may solve it. The Islamic faith is something of this kind”

Dr. Hassan Turabi, the ideologue of the Sudanese Islamic movement, raised an equally pertinent argument on the validity of the opinion of those scholars who hold the view that apostasy in Islam is punishable by death. He pointed out: “How can it be imagined by a rational person that Allah, Who has compelled none to believe, allows us the right to compel others and force them to believe?”

“If Almighty Allah has granted us the merit of freedom, he who wants to believe is allowed that right and so too the one who wants to disbelieve. If He has chosen to distinguish us from other creatures through His gift of freedom, instead of creating us believers by necessity like stones, mountains, and the earth, which all fear the responsibility of freedom shouldered by Man, the ignorant, the unjust; if that is so, then the exercise of that freedom will become a matter of course - a self-evident truth confirmed by the Quran as in, ‘No one is to be compelled to believe’ ”.

“The Prophet’s saying about apostasy is a short statement pronounced within the context of war conditions....The saying is related to the case of the Muslim who deserts his fellows and joins the enemies of Islam. Such a person will either be killed or kill someone else”

It is, therefore, amply clear that the Prophet’s saying about the apostate is restricted to times of war, when a Muslim deserter joins the ranks of the enemies to wage war against Islam, rather than seeing this Hadith as a measure for controlling the faith of those who do not bear arms.

From the supra-relious point of view, I have a few questions that I need to ask of my fellow Muslims. What if the Christian countries too reply with a tit for tat and apply similar laws to Christian converts to Islam? What would then happen to this "fastest spreading religion" on planet earth? And if Islam indeed is the one true religion of God, why are we Muslims scared witless every time a Muslim changes his faith to some other?

Give me some answers please, in the name of God.

Author’s Note: For the want of accuracy and not for limited writing skills, I have drawn heavily upon the work of Shah Abdul Halim, Chairman of Islamic Information Bureau Bangladesh, in his article “Islam & Pluralism”. Despite my best efforts, I have not been able to contact him for permission to quote from his work. I hope he will be kind enough forgive this liberty in view of the spirit of my article. That I am profoundly thankful to him, of course, remains an understatement.

Absolute must-reads with this article: ’The Silence of the Lambs’http://malakandsky.blogspot.com/200..., ’Shariah Laws in Modern Times’ http://malakandsky.blogspot.com/200...and ’The Naked Truth of Pakistani Mullahs’ http://malakandsky.blogspot.com/200...also by Anwaar hussain.