I'm not qualified to comment on whether this is a reasonable take on sharia, but it is something that raises questions that non-Muslims need to hear answers to. If this understanding of what sharia says is not correct, how is it not correct, and what principles of interpretation are used to arrive at more humane positions. In other words, what evidence is there that the humane approaches are principled and not merely expedient? I've found Muslims very little inclined to explain the hermeneutics of a humane and equal approach on this matter and one or two others. I so want there to be a principled and humane version of Islam when it comes to things like this, but what we tend to find is inconsistent and prone to being re-hijacked by the less humane end of Islamic polity.
I have cut a few bits of this article.
CONVERTS FROM ISLAM - FREE TO CHOOSE?
... a number of Muslims in
the West have denied the existence of the classic Islamic teaching on
apostasy. For example, London-based Mufti Abdul Barkatullah said that the
Shafi’i school of Islamic law eschews the death penalty for apostasy. This
assertion is so easily refuted from the Shafi’i texts that one can only
think the mufti assumes that no non-Muslim would ever bother to check his
words.
The classical Shafi‘i manual of law, "‘Umdat al-Salik" [The Reliance of the
Traveller] by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (died 1368) is unambiguous on this
point. I quote from an English translation by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, published
in the USA in 1997:
"8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily
apostatises from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph to ask him to repent
and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he
refuses, he is immediately killed."
Anwar Ahmad Qadri, a Pakistani lawyer, published "A Sunni Shafi‘i Law Code"
in Pakistan in 1984. This work is a translation of "Mukhtasar fil Risalah"
by the classical Shafi‘i jurist Abu Shuja al-Isfahani (died 1106), and
states, including footnotes:
"Art. 113 Rules for Apostates. It is obligatory to ask the person
apostatising from the religion of Islam, or on irtidad, (1) to offer taubah
three times; then it is good if he did it, otherwise, he shall be killed
(2); then, he will neither be given a bath, nor any funeral prayer, and so
also, he will not be buried in the graveyard of Muslims.
¹ May be a male or a female, as he or she refuses to accept Allah, or
falsifies any of the Prophets or holds as legal the things held haram by
consensus or ijma‘.
² If a free man, the imam will kill him but not by burning; if anyone kills
him except the imam, he will be punished by ta‘zir; if the apostate is a
slave, the master will kill him."
...
Yusuf’s ... repeats the familiar adage that the Qur’an says that
“there is no compulsion in religion” and suggests that everyone is free to
choose their own faith. The quote is accurate (from sura 2, verse 256) but
the interpretation is a special one for Westerners. The normal Muslim
interpretation of this verse is that Muslims will not be forced to fulfil
all their religious duties, it is up to them whether they do so or not.
This verse has nothing to say about freedom of conscience. In any case, it
is a verse that was “revealed” relatively early to Muhammad and therefore
many Muslims would consider that it has been abrogated [cancelled] by less
tolerant-sounding verses which were revealed to Muhammad in later years.
... He states that Islam’s death
sentence for apostasy is actually a death sentence for treason because any
Muslim who left their faith and yet wanted to remain in the Islamic
city-state of early Islam was “effectively committing treason”. But why
should it be considered treasonable to stay in one’s homeland after
changing one’s religion? Yusuf’s argument is nothing but a re-statement of
the classical Islamic position that a convert from Islam is by definition a
traitor. He does not require any evidence of treacherous activity against
the Islamic state; simply to have left Islam without going into
self-imposed exile is treachery enough.
Yusuf attempts to support his case by a further selection of examples. He
says that “it isn’t the practice in the overwhelming majority of Muslim
countries to kill people who leave Islam.” I thank God this is true, with
only five modern states to my knowledge including the death sentence for
apostasy in their legislation (possibly plus Afghanistan whose legal
position remains unknown following Abdul Rahman’s release) and none of them
putting it into practice very often. Even taking into account murders by
family and community, and illegal assassinations by the security forces,
the vast majority of Muslim converts to Christianity today do not lose
their lives. But why should there be a death penalty even in
theory?
Yusuf cites the Swiss Muslim Tarik Ramadan as arguing against capital
punishment in Muslim countries because the corrupt police and judiciaries
“will make sharia an instrument of injustice”. In other words, it is not
that shari‘a is unjust but that bribe-taking officials might not apply it
impartially. This is not an argument against the rightness of the death
sentence for apostasy, but a counsel of despair from one who thinks
corruption can never be rooted out.
...
Yusuf’s crowning argument concerns the high rate of illiteracy in
Afghanistan, which he says accounts for their ignorance of Islamic law.
Again he is determined to disbelieve in the existence of the abundance of
Islamic texts which endorse the death sentence for apostasy.
In fact it is Irfan Yusuf’s readers who are likely to be ignorant of
Islamic law, not the Afghan people. If he were not so certain of the
ignorance of most New Zealanders, indeed of most Westerners, he surely
would not have dared to write such an article.
It is better for Muslims to be completely honest about their faith. The
late Dr Zaki Badawi, who was president of the Muslim College in London,
wrote a paper on “Freedom of Religion in Islam” tracing the history of the
development of the apostasy law. He stated that “earlier jurists, with a
few exceptions, supported the death penalty for the apostate and this
remains the case to the present day”. Muslims can claim that the death
sentence for apostasy was never intended by their founder (and this may
well be true), but to claim that it was not taught by his followers as a
basic doctrine for the next fourteen centuries is ludicrous.
It is only when Muslims have admitted the true situation that there is the
possibility of change. A number of scholars of Sunni Islam’s leading
Al-Azhar University in Cairo have in recent decades suggested that the
apostasy law should be abandoned and genuine religious freedom allowed. We
non-Muslims must do all we can to encourage this move within Islam. It was
at Al-Azhar on 21st March that the Prince of Wales gave an outstanding
speech urging mutual respect between the faiths, indicating in particular
the need for reciprocity of treatment of each other’s minorities.
Muslims are rightly permitted to share their faith freely in the West and
to win converts who rightly suffer no penalty. But this religious freedom
must be reciprocated. Afghanistan is far from being the only Muslim
country which has signed up to international agreements guaranteeing
freedom of religion (such as Article 18 of the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights) and has also asserted the supremacy of shari‘a
(complete with apostasy law), thus creating a serious ambiguity over issues
such as freedom of conscience.
Al-Azhar has begun to grapple with the subject of religious freedom in
Islam. What can be done to help them with this ground-breaking task, which
is sure to face tremendous opposition from certain sections of the Muslim
community? Could the Prince of Wales, Jack Straw and the Archbishop of
Canterbury jointly urge Al-Azhar to issue a fatwa condemning the execution
of apostates? Could the Lambeth-Al-Azhar initiative issue a joint
statement ? Now is the time to act, while the example of Abdul Rahman, who
was willing to die for his faith, is fresh in our minds. For although he
may now be safe in exile, the plight of other converts is, if anything,
even more acute as Muslim governments may decide it is better to let them
be quietly murdered than for them to become an international cause.
Dr Patrick Sookhdeo
International Director of Barnabas Fund
A shortened version of this article was published in the Church of England
Newspaper, UK (April 7, 2006)
Barnabas Fund - hope and aid for the persecuted church
Filed in: Islam, conversion, religion, Christian, justice, law, sharia
1 comment:
Thanks for this; it is always good to get concise and reasonably clear links to help understanding. However, in this case, I'm not sure that it really helps as you appear to be saying that the death penalty is potentially still in force, and implicitly likening the Umma to a military ruled society. It still seems pretty barbaric and not at all reciprocal at that level.
I'm concerned that even with this kind of approach which attempts to be more humane [implicitly recognising that there is a problem in 'common humanity' and 'natural justice' terms], we are left with something that has the effect of legitimising violence or severe treatment against those who become persuaded that Islam is not sufficiently right for them to continue in it.
"[an apostate] in the midst of a close-knit Muslim society is rightly considered an overt threat to that body and the body has a right to defend itself"
There's a host of issues in that, isn't there? Why should an apostate be automatically considered a threat to society? You are, in effect saying, that someone who converts, say, to Christianity is likely to become a violent drunken child-molester with serial killer tendencies? Or that they are likely to go against their faith which encourages them to seek the welfare of the society in which they find themselves? What are you saying, by implication to dhimmis in Muslim societies? No wonder they feel threatened.
In any case the argument relies on the myth of a close knit Muslim society [with its clan feuds, vitriolic disputes between different traditions of Islam etc] for a legitimacy which seems therefore spurious.
'A right to defend itsely' should, surely, be proportionate? I can't see that this is proportionate or just.
Post a Comment