[Responses will be colored with Red for the opponent, Blue for me, and separated by a line. Separate discussions will be marked as such.]
Jumping right into the middle of a discussion… (I’ve extracted the parts relevant to the apostasy issue)
The law’s [in the modern day in certain Muslim countries today] mostly for show. It makes no sense in non-theocratic governments, it’s there to appease the segment of the population that is fundamentalist, but uneducated.
Also even within original Shariah law (at least the Hanafi school, which was used in both the Ottoman and Mughal empires) there are “loopholes” (not really loopholes if they’re intentioned to be as such). Anyone who apostates is free to do whatever they want aside from publicly announce their apostasy on the streets. Nothing’s stopping an apostate from leaving the country, and if they do that, they are as good as dead according to the government, and cannot be pursued outside of the state’s jurisdiction. That’s stated in clear terms in Hanafi legal texts.
If you apostate in a theocratic state and want to declare that publicly, and refuse to repent when given multiple chances to do so (all you need to do is just say you’re Muslim to avoid the punishment), then you’re getting exactly what you want. You’re dying to become a martyr for your cause. Most real apostates throughout Islamic history likely never did that. They probably just got up and left or just kept their beliefs to themselves and lived out their lives in the same place.
Also, last I remember, the Ottoman Caliphate rescinded the death penalty, but I don’t remember if it was for apostasy or adultery. [Note: It was for apostasy]
There’s wiggle room in the enforcement of Shariah, or there traditionally has been. The Muslim world’s been without real Shariah since the Ottoman Empire’s days and the demand for it mostly comes from poor areas where secular justice has proven to be a myth. So these people don’t know anything of history or Shariah itself, just the basics they’ve heard from other people (they mostly don’t understand Arabic either so it’s not like they’re getting it from the Qur’an or Hadith).
So basically, “don’t ask don’t tell” for apostates, with a special little “and if you insist on telling anyway, we kill you” clause. And you don’t see that as a major problem.
Quite telling, really.
So basically, “don’t ask don’t tell” for apostates,
Yes, which is a far cry from your narrative of Mullahs hunting down apostates with swords. Don’t try to abandon your position now, we all read your posts and your implications.
Btw, I love this analogy, I’m going to use it from now on to simplify the explanation.
clause. And you don’t see that as a major problem.
I definitely see it as a major problem if it’s instituted in a secular state or even in a theocratic Muslim state today.
But oh wait, we’re just jumping to conclusions and putting words in other people’s mouths here, aren’t we?
See, even most conservative clerics from the Muslim world today would actually not be in favor of enforcing such a punishment. Oh, they all want it on the books to act as a deterrent, but in their own lectures and writings they acknowledge that massive chunks of the population are inadvertently apostating from (and sometimes reverting to) Islam all over the place. If you actually tried to enforce this law today, it would be un-enforceable. It would be tantamount to oppression and tyranny.
And these are the most conservative clerics, including those higher up on the same chains as the clerics followed by most fundamentalists (such as the Taliban who are still Sunnis and follow Sunni scholars although it should be noted they deviate to follow their own opinions on legal/political issues under the excuse that their situation is “special” and requires new rulings).
So like most situations where you actually have to govern people, things become more complicated and not just black and white. The most conservative Muslims still within the scope of Sunni Islam want to institute the law to literally scare people away from apostating, but don’t want to actually enforce it (aside from cases where people do it publicly for political reasons and are pretty much hoping to become martyrs for their political cause).
What’s interesting is how Pakistani clerics (who have a much older and richer tradition of scholarship and have many extremely highly ranked clerics… they probably have thousands of Sunni equivalents to the Shi’ite position of ‘Ayatollah’ which in Sunni Islam is a Mufti… my own aunt is one, actually) differ from their cousins on the Afghan side of the border, yet both don’t question the other. Because in Pakistan, there’s 170 million people and apostasy is common and the country has mostly secular law, and there’s all sorts of stuff. There’s a huge split even within the Sunni Hanafi camp, there’s all manner of different flavors of Muslims and sects. In Afghanistan, like 90% of the population is one sect (Sunni, Hanafi, following the Deobandi interpretation). Like 90% of the population follows one culture. Even the US-backed Afghan government of Karzai is instituting Shariah laws that the US government told us were abhorrent under the Taliban regime.
I’m implying you and many other Westerners don’t think for yourselves. The US government and its unofficial media arms dictated to you what you should be upset about, which you all readily obeyed, but when their behavior changes, you lag behind in getting with the program. So didn’t you get the memo? Even the most harsh interpretation of Shariah is okay by Western government, media, and military principles even if you’re personally at odds with them. Why would you listen to them when they tell you one thing, claim that you were thinking for yourself (when you weren’t, because most Westerners knew jack about Islam before 9/11), then turn around and stop listening to them when it no longer suited your fancy? Curious.
[…]
When they [the conservative/fundamentalist clerics] discuss Shariah they seem to acknowledge that sanctioned killing implies sanction only when it’s protecting other human life. The death penalty is an extreme way to keep social order in extreme cases (basically, “once we have a homogeneous Muslim society that is ideal then we institute this law and enforce it to preserve said society and limit any actual executions”). They understand this. This is the modern interpretation of apostasy laws by the most conservative Sunnis in the world.
[…]
As for how those conservative clerics see the apostasy law in light of its original historical context. In a theocratic state, when you undermine the state religion, you undermine everything from the basis of citizenship to the mode of government, to, well… everything. Doing so promotes chaos and anarchy and must be harshly dealt with in a preventative manner. I mean, aren’t these the reasons that Westerners call for the head of Julian Assange? Yet Islamic law still goes with a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy even under the most ideal situations (i.e, medieval heyday… theocratic empire, where apostasy really was a big deal… because people often didn’t become atheists, they switched to religions which had their own states… Christianity meant allegiance to the Papacy which was waging a very real war against the Islamic states… in this context, if you apostated and became a Christian, it very well could be considered treason even by modern modes of thought… yet Islamic law still persists with the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, even in this critical situation). Looks like some turbaned Mullahs make more sense than some Western leaders (by some, I mean all). Can you imagine if someone was allowed in America to say “I side with the Taliban”? They’d probably be immediately placed on a watchlist. If they actually were in Afghanistan (out of the view of your media’s eyes) they would be lynched, tortured, possibly killed by the US army or their Afghan allies. That is the recipe for your culture. A big helping of hypocrisy with a pinch of sleight of hand.
Yes, which is a far cry from your narrative of Mullahs hunting down apostates with swords. Don’t try to abandon your position now, we all read your posts and your implications.
My original position was what it still is, and what has been corroborated by what you wrote: a complete lack of religious freedom, under threat of death, in over half a dozen Muslim countries.
I definitely see it as a major problem if it’s instituted in a secular state or even in a theocratic Muslim state today. But oh wait, we’re just jumping to conclusions and putting words in other people’s mouths here, aren’t we? See, even most conservative clerics from the Muslim world today would actually not be in favor of enforcing such a punishment. Oh, they all want it on the books to act as a deterrent, but in their own lectures and writings they acknowledge that massive chunks of the population are inadvertently apostating from (and sometimes reverting to) Islam all over the place. If you actually tried to enforce this law today, it would be un-enforceable. It would be tantamount to oppression and tyranny. And these are the most conservative clerics, including those higher up on the same chains as the clerics followed by the Taliban (I’m referring specifically to Pakistan, where I am now, and where I have lots of family). So like most situations where you actually have to govern people, things become more complicated and not just black and white. The most conservative Muslims still within the scope of Sunni Islam want to institute the law to literally scare people away from apostating, but don’t want to actually enforce it (aside from cases where people do it publicly for political reasons and are pretty much hoping to become martyrs for their political cause).
Right. So they don’t want to enforce the law unless people actually break it (including the chance to repent and all, which is an integral part of the Shariah version). And because of that, you have no problem with it.
That leaves us with… you having no problem with having the death penalty for apostasy. Gotcha.
When they discuss Shariah they seem to acknowledge that sanctioned killing implies sanction only when it’s protecting other human life. The death penalty is an extreme way to keep social order in extreme cases (basically, “once we have a homogeneous Muslim society that is ideal then we institute this law and enforce it to preserve said society and limit any actual executions“). They understand this. This is the modern interpretation of apostasy laws by the most conservative Sunnis in the world. You apparently don’t (because you’re avoiding the issue when I say that Sudan and Afghanistan have more pressing concerns than apostasy laws). Now, since I don’t want to be sticking words in your mouth (I don’t want to descend to your level), how about you clarify the issue here? Is that really your position? That apostasy laws are more important than the fact there are ongoing wars (even genocides in Sudan’s case) in these countries?
Bolded for emphasis.
Their goal, as interpreted by you: create a homogeneous Muslim society, and execute those who disturb the order by voicing opinions that are deemed incompatible with Islam.
And, again, you apparently support this.
As for how those conservative clerics see the apostasy law in light of its original historical context. In a theocratic state, when you undermine the state religion, you undermine everything from the basis of citizenship to the mode of government, to, well… everything. Doing so promotes chaos and anarchy and must be harshly dealt with in a preventative manner. I mean, aren’t these the reasons that Westerners call for the head of Julian Assange? Yet Islamic law still goes with a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy even under the most ideal situations (i.e, medieval heyday… theocratic empire, where apostasy really was a big deal… because people often didn’t become atheists, they switched to religions which had their own states… Christianity meant allegiance to the Papacy which was waging a very real war against the Islamic states… in this context, if you apostated and became a Christian, it very well could be considered treason even by modern modes of thought… yet Islamic law still persists with the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, even in this critical situation). Looks like some turbaned Mullahs make more sense than some Western leaders (by some, I mean all). Can you imagine if someone was allowed in America to say “I side with the Taliban”? They’d probably be immediately placed on a watchlist. If they actually were in Afghanistan (out of the view of your media’s eyes) they would be lynched, tortured, possibly killed by the US army or their Afghan allies. That is the recipe for your culture. A big helping of hypocrisy with a pinch of sleight of hand.
So you’re saying that current laws forbidding apostasy under penalty of death are okay because Christianity during the Crusades was really quite awful, Americans don’t like Julian Assange and saying that you side with the Taliban in America will get you placed on a watchlist?
What?
And you equate this garbled nonsense with the whole of western culture?
My original position was what it still is, and what has been corroborated by what you wrote: a complete lack of religious freedom, under threat of death, in over half a dozen Muslim countries.
And my original response still stands. That at least two (was it three?) of them are Wahhabis who tend to be all for the lack of religious freedom and against the interpretation of Shariah in modern constraints. Two others are warzones.
Right. So they don’t want to enforce the law unless people actually break it (including the chance to repent and all, which is an integral part of the Shariah version). And because of that, you have no problem with it.
No, they don’t want to enforce it precisely because people are breaking it. The law is to scare people. Muslim clerics have traditionally used it as a bluff, but now they’re being called on it.
Most of the conservative clerics themselves say about Pakistan that this is a country not fit for Shariah.
How do you execute people for apostasy if that could mean tens of millions of individuals? Something’s wrong there.
It’s akin to the situation where ‘Umar, the second Caliph, rescinded the amputation punishment for theft during a period of drought/famine.
At this point you can go ahead and mock/ridicule Muhammad’s best friend and father-in-law (which is akin to insulting Muhammad himself) for not sticking to your preconceived notions of what Islam should be (you’re constructing an Islam to dislike solely for the purpose of disliking it), but that’s kind of silly.
Maybe Islam isn’t what you want it to be? In this case, for the better.
Their goal, as interpreted by you: create a homogeneous Muslim society, and execute those who disturb the order by voicing opinions that are deemed incompatible with Islam.
Voicing an opinion? Changing your religion in a theocratic state is more than voicing an opinion. It’s revoking your own citizenship and depending on the religion to which you switch, announcing an allegience to a foreign state (as was the case back then).
What is a theocracy? What is its relationship to religion?
These have very clear cut answers.
You might shun theocracy but it’s in the West’s own history and leading Western countries to this day acknowledge it is a system of government that can function just fine (owing to the fact that they seek close alliances and relationships with theocratic countries like Saudi-Arabia).
Again, you seem to take issue with the death for apostasy on principle. I don’t. To me, it made sense… in the 7th century. Even the 8th. The 9th, the 10th, and so on. Until the Ottomans (the Sunni Caliphate) stopped making an issue of it in the 19th century.
I’m trying to show you how it made sense in its time and in its place. I’ve already stated that neither I, nor the vast majority of the most senior conservative Sunni clerics in places like Pakistan where I have direct experience, do not think this is either the time or the place for re-enforcing it.
However their goal is to turn Pakistan into a true “Islamic Republic” (a government by Muslims for Muslims) which is a new and experimental take on the whole democracy thing (Iran kind of set the standard for this with its semi-democratic theocracy). They’ve even formed political alliances with Shi’ites, Sunnis, Wahhabis (who have their own distinct political organization here), and other sects joining to form one big religious political coalition seeking to implement more Shariah laws through democratic vote. It overlaps with their idea that Shariah is only for people who want it. If the people want it, they vote us in and we push it through.
If you can’t recognize that the world was different just 200 or 300 years ago than it is now, you have some serious, serious issues. The apostasy law has not been seriously implemented by a Muslim state in over a hundred years (more like at least a hundred and fifty) anywhere except during the 1996-2001 rule of the Taliban, during which they must have executed something like a couple of apostates, in a country of tens of millions of people (owing to what I described earlier as the cultural, religious, even theological homogeneity of Afghanistan’s population… in strong contrast to Pakistan, the best comparison for Afghanistan).
The best proof of this is the fact that we’re talking about handfuls of invidiuals when it’s common knowledge that the number of people who convert away from Islam is much, much, larger. There should be at least 20 to 50 million dead people in the last 150 years just from apostasy executions if it were a serious phenomenon.
Instead, the Sunni Caliphate of the Ottoman Empire was inviting “infidel” Westerners in to remodel its government and armed forces! To even serve as commanders, generals, or admirals.
The other Sunni government of the time, the Mughal empire, even had an emperor that apostated.
I’m going to quote the Kirkpatrick Doctrine,
Although most governments in the world are, as they always have been, autocracies of one kind or another, no idea hold greater sway in the mind of educated Americans than the belief that it is possible to democratize governments, anytime, anywhere, under any circumstances…. (But) decades, if not centuries, are normally required for people to acquire the necessary disciplines and habits.
Even the people you now claim to oppose make more sense than you! [The opponent had previously mentioned they were not American and were opposed to American foreign policy but in this case they make even less sense than the staunch conservatives in old American governments like that of Reagan’s]
So you’re saying that current laws forbidding apostasy under penalty of death are okay because Christianity during the Crusades was really quite awful, Americans don’t like Julian Assange and saying that you side with the Taliban in America will get you placed on a watchlist?
I’ve elaborated my position before, several times. It seems in your zeal to reply as quickly as possible, you’re not reading my posts fully. This is, to be frank, lame.
I’ll requote myself,
I’m trying to show you how it made sense in its time and in its place. I’ve already stated that neither I, nor the vast majority of the most senior conservative Sunni clerics in places like Pakistan where I have direct experience, think this is either the time or the place for re-enforcing it.
As for my position on just putting the law on the books, I’m not sure. As a person living in Pakistan, I couldn’t care less. It’s a part of Islam so why should I object? On principle, I don’t disagree with it, it’s a part of the religion. However, there are Islamic grounds to objection. Half-assing Shariah (with parallel court systems, a divided and sectarian populace, general ignorance about Islam, and rampant poverty/illiteracy) has often led to abuses and oppression/tyranny, and on those grounds alone, I actually think I could make for a pretty reasonable argument or case against even the enacting of the law to any religious cleric on the planet and force them to concede my point. At worst they’d just acknowledge that we both agree on a problem but have differing solutions (well they have a solution, I don’t, I’d just object to theirs).
That’s the difference between someone who values learning, knowledge, thinking, and human empathy over blind adherence to one’s own value system (like you’ve been doing).
Which is also why opinions like mine were used when shooting down bills to reinstate the apostasy law that keep coming up before the Pakistani parliament, by a country that is actually overwhelmingly in favor of it (except the populace doesn’t realize that apostasy is not just converting to Christianity… converting inbetween Islamic sects would qualify too… if they knew this, and knew the potential for abuse, they’d shut up, but they are quite uneducated in religion).
Opinions like yours? Useless.
What?
And you equate this garbled nonsense with the whole of western culture?
The ones with the biggest armies that dictate the economic and military policies of the rest of the West have all called for Assange’s arrest, with certain domestic political elements (that are part of the government) calling for his execution.
Yes, it’s the whole of the West as far as its government or army goes, even if there’s a small but vocal minority arguing to the contrary (most polls indicate Americans agreed with their government and there are 300 million Americans, they dominate the demographic of Westerners).
You assume I’m going to do like you and say “well some vocal and influential Westerners do these wrong things but so many are not like them… just like Muslims!” except Westerners live in democracies, most polls show they agree with their governments, they actively elect their governments into power and continue to support them.
ALL OF WHICH are luxuries the Muslim world DOES NOT have (dictators and the like).
I mean, if your governments are that messed up that they totally do not represent the will of the people, shouldn’t fixing that be a full time 24-7 priority? Even before simply working, eating, and supporting your own family? Shouldn’t you all be taking to the streets in violent revolution? Give me liberty or give me death and all that, yeah?
TL;DR To reject the punishment of death for apostasy on principle (meaning, saying that the Prophet (saw) was wrong when he himself used it) would in fact make one an apostate (or close enough), so it’s not something Muslims can do. All we have room (considerable room, in fact) to maneuver in is the enforcement of the law, even leading to a complete moratorium on enforcement (which there has been plenty of historical precedent for). So putting the law on the books… not so much of an issue for a Muslim (because no one is going to cross the Qur’an or the Hadith), except where it relates to how the law would be enforced (because if implemented, it could violate numerous injunctions of the Qur’an and Hadith… and when that happens, you should be questioning the entire situation to begin with, because Shariah is meant for Muslim societies and the society in question might not actually be one).
Opponent stopped responding.
Second Discussion
Just a small excerpt
Nobody’s stopping an apostate from leaving, and once the apostate leaves the state, they are as good as dead as far as the law is concerned. Pursuing them beyond the state’s borders is expressly prohibited (at least in the Hanafi school of law followed by over 40% of Sunnis and popular in Turkey/Central Asia/Indian subcontinent). Anytime the apostate says they are Muslim, they’re free to go. If Islamic law is followed to the letter, anyway. If it is, then the only reason an apostate would ever be standing trial would be if they wanted to (to set an example or become a martyr for their anti-Islamic cause).
Keeping in mind that modern notions of blasphemy and apostasy in today’s Muslim countries are usually excuses to settle personal grudges via corrupt government. For instance, the other story about the doctor in Pakistan who had charges filed against him for throwing out a business card with the name “Muhammad” on it. Ridiculous to say the least. I’m actually in Pakistan, and I can assure you, that guy probably made enemies with someone who had connections. If someone is somehow arrested for apostasy (a joke in today’s world considering how many apostates there are who just don’t go around advertising it) in Afghanistan, even if they said “oh, no, wait, I’m a Muslim, you’ve got it all wrong, let me go”, they probably wouldn’t be let go. Which contradicts Islamic law.
Third Discussion
Here are a series of lectures by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf entitled “The Science of Shariah” which discuss the higher objectives (maqasid) of Shariah or what’s often known as “the spirit of the law”.
There isn’t a single government in the world today with a real apostasy law unless you want to count perhaps Somali Islamists or the Taliban, and those are not real recognized governments.
The Hudud laws in Shariah can only be implemented by an Islamic government, and according to many Islamic scholars, only a Caliphate (as opposed to say some sort of Islamic Republic or other hybrid type).
The Ottoman Empire (modern day Turkey) was the seat of the Sunni Caliphate until the 1920s when Turkey abolished it during a program of secularization. That was the Caliphate tracing its way back to Egypt, the Abbasids, the Ummayads, the Khulufa Rashidin, and prophet Muhammad’s Islamic city-state in Medina.
The Ottoman Caliphate abolished the apostasy punishment in 1839.
From Newsweek:
“The Ottoman Caliphate, the supreme representative of Sunni Islam, formally abolished this penalty in the aftermath of the so-called Tanzimat reforms launched in 1839. The Sheykh al-Islam, the supreme head of the religious courts and colleges, ratified this major shift in traditional legal doctrine. It was pointed out that there is no verse in the Qur’an that lays down a punishment for apostasy (although chapter 5 verse 54 and chapter 2 verse 217 predict a punishment in the next world). It was also pointed out that the ambiguities in the hadith (the sayings of the Prophet) suggest that apostasy is only an offense when combined with the crime of treason. These ambiguities led some medieval Muslims, long before the advent of modernisation, to reject the majority view. Prominent among them one may name al-Nakha’i (d.713), al-Thawri (d.772), al-Sarakhsi (d. 1090), al-Baji (d. 1081), and al-Sha’rani (d.1565). The debate triggered by the Ottoman reform was continued when al-Azhar University in Cairo, the supreme religious authority in the Arab world, delivered a formal fatwa (religious edict) in 1958, which confirmed the abolition of the classical law in this area. Among radical Salafis and Wahhabis who do not accept the verdicts of the Ottoman or the Azhar scholars, it is generally believed that the majority medieval view should still be enforced.”
However, due to the decentralized nature of Islam and the lack of a “clergy” class, even the Caliph is more of an “Executive Branch”, and any number of scholars are free to reinstitute or revive old rulings (in a theoretical Caliphate in the case of apostasy).
The “apostasy only as treason” view is pretty much the effective majority view of all Muslims today, because as I mention in a reply below this, instituting any kind of punishment for apostasy at this point, with all the sects of Islam that exist, is pretty much impossible and cannot occur without massacring a ton of people. Something the original law was never used as a pretext for (the same reason the Ottomans reverted to the other old ruling). Even all the Salafis, Wahhabis, terrorists, everyone, will say that while death for apostasy is a part of Shariah and wasinstituted, it can no longer be used (it is literally impossible to implement outside of a very small scale such as Somalia or Afghanistan, even Pakistan couldn’t enforce it). What happened? Islam fractured into a ton of small sects. A situation that did not exist during its early years to the same extent that it does now. The only way to actually really bring it back is via some new ruling that is invented to make it possible (meaning, “modern” Islam would have to make it possible by inventing a new, more specific law, as “traditional” Islam has made it impossible… some Wahhabis/Salafis might attempt to do this however Sunnis and Shi’ites stick to “traditional” and Sunnis no longer engage in ijtihad, making inventing new rulings extremely difficult). The other option is to actually start committing genocide (that’s sarcasm).
so do you agree that, should there be a caliphate, it would follow Islamic law, which would take seriously the decree of the Prophet as transmitted in the following hadith:
Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
Narrated ‘Abdullah:
Allah’s Apostle said, “The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshiped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims.”
Or, in other words, doesn’t the prophet clearly state that apostates may according to the law be killed? If so, I assume that this would be incorporated into Islamic law.
Would it take it seriously? Absolutely. Who’s to say what ruling it would actually enforce though? Especially in light of the abolishment of the penalty by the last Caliphate.
There are other factors which could be used to predict the behavior of a possible Caliphate depending on environmental factors (since even if the law is one thing, the Caliph is free in his enforcement of the law to actually not enforce the law).
The most sound observation seems to be that, the larger and more “legitimate” the Islamic government, the more likely it will liberally enforce laws. But when it’s imposed by a group like the Taliban or Al-Shabab in environments like wartorn Afghanistan or Somalia, they’ll more likely stick to conservative rulings.
Even that can be further qualified by more observations. For instance, the Muslims over the border in Pakistan, are doctrinally identical to Afghanistan’s. Sunni sect, Hanafi legal school, and of those, about half are of the same Deobandi movement. That’s Afghanistan’s flavor of Islam. This same strain is very well represented amongst Pakistan’s populace and the vast majority of clerics/scholars from this movement are in Pakistan. Yet an apostasy law has been repeatedly shut down whenever it’s come up in Parliament. In Pakistan, it’s a case of religious parties trying to appeal to their conservative bases, which are similar to the Afghans, but only making a show out of it. In actuality, such a law would be unimplementable in a country like Pakistan.
Unlike Afghanistan, which has a cohesive Islamic identity (an overwhelming majority of Sunni-Hanafi-Deobandis) Pakistan has a billion different sects. Even the Sunni-Hanafis are split down the middle between Barelwi and Deobandi and they’ve been at each other’s throats before. Already some Barelwis have used the existing blasphemy law in Pakistan against some Deobandis, despite both being Sunni-Hanafis (and despite I think Deobandis writing the law!). Were an apostasy law ever to be instituted, half the country would literally be calling for the other half’s execution, because they don’t consider each other Muslim, but apostates. Sunnis, Shi’ites, Ismailis, etc would all claim the other should be executed in general on top of that. There’s just too many different versions of Islam. This is reflected in the Pakistani government’s implementation of Shariah, called the “Nizam-e-Adl” regulations which state that each sect technically gets their own Shariah courts and judges. How could you possibly implement a punishment for apostasy in such an environment? Even the religious scholars recognize it would be impossible. The common people do not, however, because as they see it, there’s only one version of Islam. Their version. Which is why you see such high numbers of people in Muslim countries who say they would not be opposed to an apostasy law. Those people are simply refusing to deny what they feel is a part of the religion, made easier by the fact that the possibility of that law ever being seriously implemented on a large scale basis is very remote.
So, were a Caliphate that is larger than say, a few Pashtun or Somali tribes to re-emerge, it would likely uphold the ruling of the Ottomans out of necessity. This is likely the main reason that the Ottomans even made such a ruling in the first place. That ruling is not new, it’s as old as the other more popular ruling in favor of punishing all apostasy cases. But a time came (around the 19th century) when apostasy became so common that punishing it was no longer feasible, even as a deterrent. There existed a ruling for the Ottomans to fall back on.
As for the Caliph suspending enforcement of laws as he sees fit, this has the highest precedent in Islamic history.
The second Caliph, ‘Umar, temporarily imposed a moratorium on the penalty of amputation for theft during a period of drought (because people might steal just to feed themselves or their families and with theft becoming more common you’d suddenly be lopping off the hands of a large number of people which means something has gone horribly awry, as that is tyranny and oppression something which itself must be fought by Shariah).
The practice of falling back on minority rulings or even switching legal schools also has quite a bit of precedence, even right in Sunni-Hanafi-Deobandi history (of which the Taliban are a purist offshoot).
The hadith you’ve quoted is addressed by the quote about the ruling of the Ottomans.
I should add, there’s also the precedent of the Apostasy Wars immediately after the Prophet’s (saw) death when various tribes who had only been Muslim for a short and had converted out of political expedience immediately apostated. The first Caliph, Abu Bakr, went to war with them. The apostasy law was not instituted as a personal execution, but rather the rules of war were enforced in which case the apostates were treated as prisoners of war and not executed, and the apostates who died did so as members of their tribes on the battlefield.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridda_wars
In fact, it is on the basis of Abu Bakr’s actions that the current apostasy law (as written several centuries ago) says that a person who does not know the basic theological doctrines of Islam cannot be held accountable for apostasy (because these tribes basically gave allegiance to Muhammad as a political ruler, knew little about Islam, then went to war with the Islamic city-state of Medina after his death by rebelling against its control, then re-pledged allegiance to Muhammad’s successor, Abu Bakr, who had shown that Islam was going to stick around without Muhammad by putting down the rebellions). This is also the basis for the ruling that apostasy should be enforced as treason.
I think the main contention is that, according to the prophet of Islam, it is lawful to kill an apostate. It is a further matter as to whether Muslims follow him or not and to what degree.
You can raise that contention, but Muslims just wouldn’t care. They don’t question their prophet.
You didn’t mention anything about how apostasy in a theocratic government amounts to a renunciation of citizenship at the very least, and at the very worst (in conjunction with other acts), can be treason which is still punished by death in most (if not all) Western countries today. Thus the popular interpretation of apostasy as treason.
Also you didn’t point out that how they follow the Prophet is really the essence of the religion. All the various flavors of Islam, what are they all about? They are all basically different viewpoints or methodologies in how to follow the Prophet.
Some (actually most) will say, “but the Prophet (saw) was compassionate, fair, and opposed to tyranny and oppression, therefore the overriding principle of Shariah law must be to fight that and not become that” and in so doing, will exercise their judgement on “to what degree” (and this is where Shariah, Ijtihad, all that stuff comes in).
That compassionate nature of Prophet Muhammad, which is basically a reflection of what Muslims believe God orders humanity to do in the Qur’an, forms the entire moral basis for the religion.
If you don’t understand every injunction of Islam in that order, in that context, you make the same mistake terrorists do. The only reason Islam ever took off and became popular to begin with is because Muslims codified that process. It’s not that “doing things by the book” was bad because it was devoid of spiritual context. It’s that Muslims made all that context part of the book. Everything I just said is verbally attested to in all the various writings of Islamic legal scholars.
As for the terrorists and extremists, they ignore Islamic scholars and all of their precedent (all those thousands upon thousands of books written before them) and make themselves scholars and write their own books.
That movie, Four Lions, is a fantastic watch because the interplay of the main protagonist/antagonist and his religious brother reflects this reality.
Fourth Discussion
Regarding the incident where ‘Umar (ra) killed an apostate of his own judgment and accord
Why wasn’t Umar punished for killing a Muslim?
Non-Muslim here. Peace be with you all.
Here’s the exact narration of a story of Umar:
“His words, Exalted is He, ‘Then no! By your Lord, they do not believe …’ (Qur’an 4: 65) to the end of the ayah. I say that its story has been narrated by Ibn Abi Hatim and Ibn Mardawayh from Abu’l-Aswad. He said: Two men brought a dispute to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and his family and grant them peace, and he gave judgement between them. The one who had judgement given against him said, ‘Let us go to ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab,’ and so the two of them went to him. The man said, ‘The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave judgement in my favour against this man and he said, “Let us go to ‘Umar.”’ ‘Umar said, ‘Is it like that?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ So ‘Umar said, ‘Stay where you are until I come out to you.’ Then he came out to them wrapping his sword in his garment and struck the one who had said, ‘Let us go to ‘Umar,’ and killed him. The other returned and said, ‘Messenger of Allah, ‘Umar killed – by Allah! – my companion.’ So he said, ‘I wouldn’t have thought that ‘Umar would have ventured to kill a believer.’ Then Allah revealed, ‘Then no! By your Lord they do not believe …’ to the end of the ayah. He declared, there was to be no retaliation or compensation for the blood of the man and declared ‘Umar free from any wrong in his killing. There is another connected text that supports this story which I have related in at-Tafsir al-Musnad.”
But that’s unjust and contradictory. Why wasn’t Umar punished for that? What do you learn from that? Does that mean you should chop someone’s head off if he disagrees with the Prophet?
Even if someone becomes a Murthad (apostate) there’s no direct order for killing him. And if there is then the head of the Islamic state should execute him and Umar wasn’t a khalifa at that time.
P.S: I am here for a friendly discussion 🙂
Even if someone becomes a Murthad (apostate) there’s no direct order for killing him. And if there is then the head of the Islamic state should execute him and Umar wasn’t a khalifa at that time.
It’s not possible for the head of state to personally take part in all criminal procedures or judicial executions.
Part of the apostasy law is that anyone who kills an apostate cannot be prosecuted for that, because the law only protects Muslim and non-Muslim citizens (Dhimmis) and apostates are non-Muslim non-citizens illegally in Muslim lands (Harbis). Sort of like illegal aliens (as opposed to Ambassadors or Diplomats or other visitors from abroad who enter with a visa of sorts).
The official judicial procedure for apostasy is to offer them a chance to repent during a few days in jail. But if an apostate is killed due to another circumstance, no action is legislated against the person who did it as it’s considered a case of a Muslim defending himself and the people’s common property (the country) from an infiltrator (you can see why quite a few people say the apostasy punishment is really treason).
The Prophet (saw) summoned ‘Umar (ra) and got his explanation. He then waited for revelation from Allah and another of the verses indicating a part of Islam was to accept the judgments of the Prophet (saw) was revealed and ‘Umar’s honesty/sincerity was made known to the Prophet (saw) (though in this case, the facts of the event were known and verifiable). In any case, both the revealed verse, existing verses, and the Prophet’s (saw) behavior serve to illustrate the fact that he did little of his own accord and was divinely inspired in most of his acts and judgment (especially in his capacity of interpreting the Qur’an to pronounce legal judgments… such as the death penalty for apostasy which isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an but is clearly backed up here).
As for the apostasy law, it’s possible for an Imam (as in, head of state) or Caliph to legislate new laws, including one prohibiting extrajudicial punishments, but it would be a discretionary crime and punishment as no such law existed back then (even then, ‘Umar (ra) was considered one of Islam’s biggest authorities and certainly within his capacity to issue rulings in the Prophet’s (saw) absence, something the Prophet (saw) allowed a few Sahaba to do).
Hazrat ‘Umar’s (ra) actions are also reflective of his disposition at that time in his life and are also taken in the historical context of what life was like in 7th century Arabia. It’s certainly possible/allowable to legislate discretionary punishments for extrajudicial or vigilante-esque actions in keeping with the cultural norms of a people and period (greater fitna could result from not doing so depending on the environment). Also because no Muslims are left who are of the caliber of the Sahaba so most of the later jurists no longer allow such a thing.
So were a fully Islamic state to exist today (or for instance, the old Ottoman Empire or older states), the judicial process is incumbent in any cases of apostasy. However, were the extrajudicial killing of an apostate to take place, it would need to be verified first of all that the person was indeed an apostate. If they weren’t or it is not verifiable and the defendant isn’t considered a trustworthy person, then they could be in trouble for murder. But if it is proven that the person killed was an apostate, then he can be subject to a discretionary punishment from a judge for creating disorder and circumventing the judicial process, but cannot be held responsible for killing the apostate as the citizen granted legal recognition and protection from the government gets the benefit of the doubt over any illegal. [Also because the retaliation/compensation laws are not for outlawing killing but for protecting the lives of citizens who are under a contract/trust of citizenship with the government for that right of protection… So what I’m saying is separate laws can be instituted to outlaw killing of non-citizens (and should) but these laws in question here (retaliation/compensation) are for protecting citizens by ensuring retaliation (death penalty) or compensation (blood money) for their lives. So a Shariah government could arrest and jail someone for killing an apostate or harbi (non-Muslim non-citizen, sort of like an “illegal alien”), but the victims’ families are not entitled to blood money and the perpetrator would not get an automatic death penalty under request of the victim’ families (retaliation). If the Caliph or Imam chose to implement a death penalty for some other legal/political purpose as part of an additional law, that’s a separate matter.]
As one can see, there is clearly an aspect of treason involved in the case of capital punishment for apostates, but the line is blurred by our viewpoint as religion and politics/government were one and the same back then. Apostasy becomes an act of forfeiture of citizenship and any legal rights, since Islam is the law of the land and the apostate has just declared their intention to the effect of “no law remains on the table” for them. That’s political. However, not allowing an apostate to become a Dhimmi is more of a religiously natured aspect to the ruling.
The Imam or Caliph of the Muslims is under his right to enforce this as he sees fit (which is also based on the precedence of Hazrat ‘Umar (ra)). Furthermore, taking into consideration the nature of the ruling and the maqasid al-shariah, there is room for additional legislation on this if the original conditions for the upholding of the law no longer exist (for instance, the Ottoman Empire’s 1839 ruling by jurists backed by the Caliph that the apostasy punishment would no longer be in effect and it was judged to no longer be an equivalent crime to apostasy in older periods). The original legislation built on the ijtihad of the four mujtahid Imams (five if you include Shi’ites) cannot be “repealed” or “overruled” but it can be expanded upon as the need arises and this would technically not qualify as ijtihad (ijtihad would be to repeal the ruling altogether or to modify it… in this case, a new scenario was added to cover situations where the previous law was no longer applicable).
Difa'a 
You must be logged in to post a comment.