Muslim Leader Argues For Tolerance For Apostates From Islam - Barnabas Fund

Dr Louay Safi ... is the executive director of the Islamic Society of North America’s Leadership Development Centre. His article, “The Politics and Morality of Apostasy”, attacks those scholars who argue that leaving Islam should be punishable by death. Dr Safi argues that “at the heart of the apparent conflict between Islamic traditions is a static and stagnant approach to understanding Islamic law. The conflict stems mainly from a literalist understanding of the revelatory sources, that is the Qur’an and the Sunnah (the Prophet tradition), and the body of Islamic jurispendence derived from them through exercise of juristic reasoning”. Thus, scholars with literalist interpretations continue to argue that the punishment for apostasy and the role of Islamic shari’a law should be the same as it was during the classical period of early Islamic history. It is an essentially static model which cannot be changed to meet the demands of the modern world. ... Safi claims that this interpretation has taken hold across the Islamic world because autocratic rulers often align themselves to literalist scholars to “perpetuate a rigid and anti-reform agenda in Muslim societies... the Qur’an does not support the death penalty for apostasy. Rather, it is based upon two hadiths (statements attributed to Muhammad) and the precedent of Muslims fighting against Arab apostates in early Islamic history. Dr Safi feels that the hadith statements “cannot stand as credible evidence” because he thinks they contradict the Qur’an, which he interprets as arguing for individual religious freedom.

It is fervently to be hoped that this kind of perspective gains more and more active support among Muslims. But we should recall how 'progressive' reform often has proceeded -or not- in Christian-influenced societies. But at least there are probably many many Muslims who would dearly like this interpretive approach to gain ground and that is hopeful.

It's not a matter of indifference either as the recent story of the forced conversion of journalists captured by Islamist militants brings to mind. If they now revert from Islam [and yes, I am using that term ironically] technically for some Muslims they are apostates, even thought their conversion was coerced and probably insincere. Muslim jurisprudence does require that religious activities are sincerely done, but I'm not sure that this is something that would overconcern the kind of people who would do or applaud this kind of action. Similarly, I would expect no announcement of their 'reversion' as that may endanger them to the extremists who may feel that they should execute the proper sentence on apostates.

For those who don't 'get' the reversion thing. Some Muslims argue that since every soul is naturally Muslim at birth and falls away from Islam by socialisation, someone who 'converts' to Islam is actually returning to their original state, so 'reversion' is a more appropriate label. Of course, in a sense, that makes apostates of us all. Isn't that nice?

� 25/08/2006 - Muslim Leader Argues For Tolerance For Apostates From Islam - Barnabas Fund:
Filed in: Islam, apostasy, punishment, sharia, hadith, sunnah, hermeneutics, reform