The right-wing blogs are flogging the story of Abdul Rahman for all its worth. This time, they have a point.
Abdul Rahman, 41, has been charged with rejecting Islam, a crime under this country’s Islamic laws. His trial started last week and he confessed to becoming a Christian 16 years ago. If convicted, he could be executed.
…Afghanistan’s constitution is based on Shariah law, which is interpreted by many Muslims to require that any Muslim who rejects Islam be sentenced to death. The state-sponsored Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has called for Rahman to be punished, arguing he clearly violated Islamic law.
The case has received widespread attention in Afghanistan where many people are demanding Rahman be severely punished.
“For 30 years, we have fought religious wars in this country and there is no way we are going to allow an Afghan to insult us by becoming Christian,” said Mohammed Jan, 38, who lives opposite Rahman’s father, Abdul Manan, in Kabul. “This has brought so much shame.”
Rahman is believed to have converted from Islam to Christianity while working as a medical aid worker for an international Christian group helping Afghan refugees in the Pakistani city of Peshawar.
He then moved to Germany for nine years before returning to Kabul in 2002, after the ouster of the hard-line Taliban regime.
Police arrested him last month after discovering him in possession of a Bible during questioning over a dispute for custody of his two daughters. Prosecutors have offered to drop the charges if Rahman converts back to Islam, but he has refused.
At a minimum Rahman should be offered exile and a comfortable life anywhere it is still legal for him to be alive. No government should take away freedom of conscience for its citizens. I don’t care what the Koran says. The Old Testament has a lot of rules and regulations that we consider barbaric today. We do not enforce those laws. Afghanistan should come out of the Dark Ages and stop pretending it is 900 AD.
There can be no justicification for killing (or even punishing) a man because he lost his belief in Islam and gained a belief in another religion. Fortunately, it looks like the Afghan government has taken so much heat over this that it is going to save this man’s life by calling him insane.
Moayuddin Baluch, a religious adviser to President Hamid Karzai, said Rahman would undergo a psychological examination.
“Doctors must examine him,” he said. “If he is mentally unfit, definitely Islam has no claim to punish him. He must be forgiven. The case must be dropped.”
I hope Abdul Rahman’s life is spared and that he is given his freedom. I don’t think he will be getting custody of his daughters, though.
It’s the ultimate custody battle. Representatives fighting for sole custody of a soul and neither one willing to grant visitation.
it’s good that the right wing blogs are flogging this. It demonstrates the lie that is George Bush’s war for Democracy.
In fairness, they might also contribute in some small way in saving the man’s life, if not preventing him from being ‘severely punished’.
They seize on these cases to demonize all Muslims, but in this case international pressure and outrage are fully warranted.
And yes, it is disappointing to see that the post-Taliban government in Afghanistan is still so intolerant.
The constitution and laws under which Rahman are being prosecuted (persecuted?) were enacted or given a pass during our watch. That something like this could happen while we still have so many thousands of troops in Afghanistan is a testament to the fiction that our actions are bringing freedom to peoples around the world. We’re not acting out of any heartfelt belief in our ideals, nor out of any theory that says that democracies do not attack other democracies, but rather a purely old-fashioned realpolitik weltanshauung. (Boy, it’s nice to be able to throw out those German-based PoliSci terms every now and then.) We don’t really care how a country’s government is structured, so long as they owe a duty of loyalty to us, as the Afghans certainly do these days.
Similarly, if one wants to be fair to the right wing for those rare occasions when they do properly seek to highlight issues of genuine concern, they’ve actually been doing a pretty good job of trying to bring about greater US/Western involvement to stop the horrors in Darfur.
but would the right-wingers be fighting at all if it were a Christian country executing a man for rejecting Christianity and embracing Islam?
This supposed Christian country does far more than its share of executions and the right wing never lifts a finger to stop any of them.
they probably wouldn’t be fighting if it didn’t serve to maintain hate for Muslims. But that doesn’t mean that Rahman shouldn’t have all decent people sticking up for him.
Just to be clear, we are also sticking up for his right to give his life as a testament to his faith-Christianity, right?
That’s a rather nice twist. The death sentence is the fault of the victim, ah. This is not about intolerance to other religious beliefs…..Ok; I guess we could use the same analogy on the US prisoners on death row.
Wait a minute. This idea of accepting physical death as a testimony to eternal life in Christianity is a core concept of that religion. This doesn’t relieve the executioner of his crimes but it’s a sign of bearing witness=martyr to Christianity by refusing to denounce the religion’s way to salvation.
So, you mean that this guy have the freedom to choose? Convert or Die. Well in my opinion that is no choice. This guy should be free to choose what ever religion he wants to belong to without running the risk of getting killed. It is that simple.
If he had been given the choice of to live as a Christian and to die for his faith he would of course have chosen life, but it is a courageous stance to choose to fight fro freedom and tolerance even if that means his own demise. After all that is what people did when they choose to fight the Nazis during WWII. They could of course choose to leave under the Nazi yoke, but then they had also sacrificed their own freedom and some things are worth standing up for even if this means that your life is in danger.
We have several seperate issues being addressed in this discussion but with all of them combined, I agree with you.
Nobody should be forced to accept or deny any religion
A free society is however allowed to live by flawed laws if the people allow it.
Sincere Christians following their doctrine would choose death rather than deny their faith.
The concept of martyrdom is an archaic and rather outdated concept in modern Christianity today and very few people actually choose to die if they can avoid it, but if this means you have to yield in to force then many people choose to fight. This is not only a Christian concept, but also a reality non-religious people imprisoned in other authoritarian systems around the world experience. If you don’t believe me ask Amnesty International.
So then, all he has to do is say he doesn’t believe in Christianity and he can go home?
Most Christian Churches accept the stand of denouncing the faith? What the hell have I been doing eating fish every Friday for 40 years?
The question is not about denouncing his faith or not, but whether to yield to force and death threats. If you begin going down that road you will end up being living your life at the mercy of other, authoritarian, people and systems and thus loosing your dignity as a human being. It is about standing up for you birth rights and not letting anyone take those away from you. It is about living a life as a whole human being.
Most Christian Churches accept the stand of denouncing the faith? What the hell have I been doing eating fish every Friday for 40 years?
Yes, if that means that your life is threatened then most churches would grant you the right to choose life even if that means denouncing some of your human rights because no religion or outside congregation has the right to dictate your individual rights and your right to life, but that doesn’t mean that you are denied the right to fight for those rights even if that means that your life is in danger.
It sounds like you’re describing some of the ‘lukewarm’ Christians who find convenient ways to avoid the Word of the Bible.
In your world they may be “lukewarm”, in others they are as Christian as any other or as Human as anybody else.
I’d call them sensible, not clinging on to dogmas that everyone else have to follow regardless of whether they are applicable to real life. It is harder to try to shape the topography after the map than to draw a map according to the topography.
It’s not ‘my world’ that the Evangelicals reside that’s the concern. It’s their conduct and belief in everyone’s world. The powerfull forces that comprise these folks are 40% of active duty compared to 14% in the general population.
There are powerbrokers that send Christian Soldiers out to convert or kill or die for their cause. It’s a Purpose Driven Life.
I agree with you but the danger is not what we believe but what they believe.
…or maybe it’s different in your world.
Well, in my world and most others, including Christian clerics and most Christians, the concept of martyrdom is not an issue, granted there are a few fundamentalist Christians that might go down that road, but they have no real influence in public life.
Even most of the Evangelical’s in the US or other places doesn’t look upon the invasion of Iraq as a question of martyrdom, a question of money, prestige and projection of national hegemony yes, but not martyrdom.
Martyrdom is not a goal but a consequence for refusing to deny ones faith. It’s a realistic possibility when taking the Word to others in hostile environments. For those who are so strong in their faith that they are willing to risk their lives to convert others, I find it hard to believe they would deny it.
Well, that is disputed. The Shaheed concept in Islam is actively sought amongst the “holy warriors” and suicide bombers. Even in early Christian times and as I have mentioned amongst some fundamentalists this concept of martyrdom is perhaps an acceptable norm. But amongst most Christians this is not a concept that is pursued with vigour.
Just to be clear, we are also sticking up for his right to give his life as a testament to his faith-Christianity, right?
Yes, many people would fight for what they believe in, but they don’t do this with death in mind as you seemed to imply. This case is about him being allowed to keep his faith as is his birth right and the intolerance of these clerics denying him that right and not him actively choosing to die. The alternative of death is forced upon him by people outside him.
I have stated several times that death was/is not an objective of pursuing faith but a consequence for refusing to renounce it. There is honor found in living a life true to the faith which insures life after death for those who believe. Physical death is not the end.
The crimes of oppression by legal authority are another issue and I agree with most of what you’ve said about that. Still, if we are to be consistent in freedom to worship by choice, we have to recognize the individual’s right to choose martyrdom. If not, we are demanding others to live as we choose for them to live.
Well, in my opinion, this has nothing to do with choice, but all to do with intolerance that is why I can not see the relevance of you putting forward the choice of martyrdom in this debate.
We seem to be in partial agreement here and that is in agreement over the crimes of oppression and a further debate seems futile since we seem to be in disagreement over who is responsible for this mans unfortunate situation and possible demise.
Just to add, you seem to imply that martyrdom is actively pursued by stating;
Still, if we are to be consistent in freedom to worship by choice, we have to recognize the individual’s right to choose martyrdom.
Choice is a rational behaviour and is actively pursued. The precondition for choice is freedom and this man is not free to choose. If something is forced upon you are not subjected to the concept of choice, but only to accept your fate. That is a big difference.
This man converted to Christianity 16 years ago. He left Afghanistan because of the Taliban rule. He’s said to have returned in 2002 when the Taliban rule was removed. He had been turned in by his family. He was arrested, in part, because he carried a Bible to a court appointment.
He seemed to be aware of the dangers in his claiming Christianity as his faith. In awareness of these dangers, he still increased his risks of persecution.
He is now in a situation where his life could be spared by renouncing Christianity. He refuses to do that, so he essentially is choosing death(martyrdom) over life.
As I have said before when someone is presented a fait accompli they have not chosen their fate. The fact that this man waited until the Taliban was ousted before returning to Afghanistan shows that he indeed was aware of the danger. Still, he misjudged his family and the new regime by deeming them more tolerant than the Taliban regime and now has to pay the ultimate price for his faulty judgement.
If a society is governed by flawed laws, where is the responsibility placed for that law’s existence? If it’s enacted in a free society by the will or acceptance of the people, is it our place to demand that it be changed if we disagree with it? How should that change be initiated? Isn’t there an inherent respect for the rule of law, even if it’s flawed law?
Well, if you are a cultural relativist that might be the right interpretation, but if you believe in the universality of Human Rights and the right to life for every human being then you will champion those rights where ever and when ever they are violated. There are, in my opinion, certain rights and values that are sacred no matter what and worth defending, even by force if necessary.
If a society is governed by flawed laws, where is the responsibility placed for that law’s existence?
The responsibilities for flawed laws are on the shoulders of those who made them and those who forcefully uphold them.
If it’s enacted in a free society by the will or acceptance of the people, is it our place to demand that it be changed if we disagree with it?
Well if the laws are enacted in a “free” society by the will of the people as you say, I still have the right to oppose them and fight them whenever I can, as everyone else. Still, in my opinion, faulty laws are made in dysfunctional societies and Afghanistan is not a well functional society at the moment with a highly educated population. To be able to understand the concept of and the universality of Human Rights and deem it an improvement of traditional ways, you have to have a certain level of education.
Hitler was elected by about 30 percent of the people that went to the polls, and I would still argue that the result was disastrous and had to be fought, even, as was the case, by force.
How should that change be initiated?
It ought to be changed by education and encouraging the teaching of tolerance in schools and cultural centres. But now and then, when everything else fails and a faulty system are about to impose its views on a whole region or nation, the only option left to defend your values and your way of life, is by armed struggle, like in WWII.
WWII was a fight between two different systems, one that emphasised the right to might, the championing of violence and the survival of the fittest and the other that emphasised the unbreakable basic rights of every human being and their right to life.
Isn’t there an inherent respect for the rule of law, even if it’s flawed law?
No, if the rule of law is the law of authoritarianism then there is no rule of law only the rules of the elite in power. People could have respected Nazi Germany’s laws or the laws of Saddam’s Iraq, but they didn’t, they only feared them and that is a big difference. Fear is not respect.
Well, if you are a cultural relativist that might be the right interpretation, but if you believe in the universality of Human Rights and the right to life for every human being then you will champion those rights where ever and when ever they are violated. There are, in my opinion, certain rights and values that are sacred no matter what and worth defending, even by force if necessary.
We can take these one at a time, beginning with this one.
Are you saying we should ban abortion, the death penalty and war?
Are you saying we should ban abortion, the death penalty and war?
This is very much off topic and has nothing to do with the article above; anyhow here are my views on the topics you have mentioned.
Abortion is very much about the rights of the women, the right to decide over their own body, a fundamental right in my opinion and the right to chose whether they feel capable of providing for that child at the moment. If not, then it would be a great injustice to both mother and child if the child is born.
Abortion is never an easy choice for the mother and other persons involved, but as stated above, abortion is basically about the women’s right to decide over her own body and is thus very much a Human Rights issue.
The death penalty is also about people’s right to their own life. Basically, no one have the right or the authority to take the life away from a human being. You are allowed by law to defend yourself, but that does not mean you are granted the right to take some ones life, only that you are allowed to defend your own and if that ultimately means the death of some one else then you are in your right because you defended your own life and maybe prevented others from being taken in the process. In this case the rule of law is abolished, by the perpetrator, and thus you have no other alternative than fight or flight.
In peacetime the rule of law is usually functioning and thus the society is in control. The perpetrator or the violator are not in control when incarcerated and thus are at the mercy of the State. That is why there is no need for the death penalty other than for revenge, which I can not defend when it comes to taking life.
Another strong argument against the death penalty is the fact that you might send the wrong man or women to the death chamber and thus kill an innocent human being. If the perpetrator is imprisoned then a fault can be corrected, not so with the death penalty.
In a situation of chaos and war, with no State to protect you from abuse and the rule of law has broken down, I have to admit I am more in doubt.
It would of course be preferable if every one agreed to ban War, but this is in an ideal world and most of us know that we are not living in an ideal world. That is why I am not a pacifist, but the use of force should only be applied as a defensive measure and when everything else is tried and to no avail.
Again, I agree with the reasoning in your comment and I’m almost in complete agreement with the same beliefs. A few minor details may differ but don’t change the position.
I think the spot where we have trouble reconciling all of this is just a matter of balance. This is an area of necessary compromise based on factors specific to each situation. We need to balance the recognition of another’s culture that we disagree with and the responsibility to effect change to egregious human rights violations. In some cases, the basic freedoms of choice also come into play, balanced with the responsibility of an (injured) individual to respect his governing laws.
My concern is that we are also capable of defining which rights are the correct ones based on our own preferences and not respecting the rights of others to choose their own.
It’s a great conversation with you and I appreciate your opinions and understanding. I think we are more aligned than some of the exchange portrays… basic human rights first.
basic human rights first.
Well, I am in total agreement with you here and thank you for a fruitful exchange of views. According to your comment above it seems as if we are in disagreement over minor political nuances and not over major principles and values and thus are in agreement over the most important things.
every human, everywhere has a right to worship or not to worship.
what they should never have is the legal right to inflict their brand on another.
I agree completely. Faith is not something that can be imposed on others, (like democracy </snark>). That’s the argument for freedom of choice rather than banning a medical procedure. Those who will adhere to the doctrines of a religion will do so by choice and it’s counterintuitive to impose those beliefs. At the same time, it’s important to allow freedom to choose in which ways we worship, providing it doesn’t harm others. I’m just saying that Abdul has the right to refuse help in order to bear witness.
i don’t get the impression that he intended to become a martyr when he attempted to get custody of his daughters.
There’s much in this life that we have that’s not by our direct choice. Christians don’t choose to have special needs children born to them but they accept the situations given to them with an open heart and understanding. They understand, by faith, that they have been chosen.
I don’t think it was his intent for this to happen but if the only choice is denouncing Christianity, it’s a fairly straightforward decision – don’t. If it were me, I would be praying my ass off for someone to get me out of there but I wouldn’t deny my faith even faced with execution.
One society claims the right to execute a citizen based on the one set of rules, the other claims the right to execute a citizen based on another set of rules.
Is it not hypocritical for these right-wing blogs to be up in arms over this case: Rahman denies the prophet and so must die.
Here, science must not be taught in our schools because it contradicts the Bible. The Earth need not be protected because soon it will be home only to the sinners who have not been brought up to heaven by the rapture.
Which society is in the Dark Ages? Obviously both.
What if it is Abdul’s choice to die for his religion? Does he have the right to become a martyr for the faith he believes in?
of course he does. He has the option of converting back to Islam, so if he is executed he will be executed as a Christian martyr. And in the true sense of a martyr, not as a suicide bomber or innocent victim of war.
Right. That’s what I was saying. The main purpose for Christians going abroad and spreading the word is to convert others. It looks like this is what happened years ago in Abdul’s case. Maybe Abdul was divinely chosen to serve as a light of inspiration to others as knowing the value of eternal salvation through Christianity.
It should be his honor to prove his faith by paying the ultimate price. This is pretty basic Sunday School lesson, isn’t it?
Oh, goody. Can we have a theocracy too? Pretty please.
If anyone is interested in the theology going on here, it’s like this:
Quoted from a Shia site.
Like supply-side economics and the Laffer curve, the theology makes perfect sense as long as you stay inside the bubble. Not that that will be any comfort for poor Abdul Rahman.
As far as I know, all four Sunni amadhab (law schools) grant the right to repentance even for murtadd fitri, though the Hanbali are (mostly in Saudi Arabia) are torn on the issue. Some schools, I don’t recall which, also prescribe execution for males only and imprisonment until repetance or death for females.
It’s correct that the rationale for death penalty is that apostasy is considered treason in Shari’a. The reasoning is that Islam is not just a faith but a political entity (Ummah, the community of believers), turning against which is treason. But death penalty isn’t mandated by the Koran, just by ahadith (al-Bukhari, I think).
albeit not enough to read it, it says there is no compulsion in religion.
Any law that contradicts this is not correct Sharia, and is un-Islamic.
I don’t care what the mullahs in Afghanistan say, you can go to websites and find people in various places that offer all kinds of interpretations of just about any religion.
While there are those who interpret some hadith as justification for killing people who convert from Islam to another religion, this is in direct violation of what the Koran says, which is essentially that there shall be no compulsion in religion, and on the subject of apostacy, the verse that can best be applied to that says God will not forgive the person.
The Koran “trumps” the hadith, therefore the Afghanistan law is un-Islamic.
No one seems to mention that, nor have I seen any references to the verses in Deuteronomy of the Jewish Torah, or the Christian Old Testament, where it does call for stoning to death of those who change to another religion.
But that is also understandable. To mention such a thing would be anti-Semitic and Christian bashing, wouldn’t it?
that the Quran does not prescribe death for apostasy. It does suggest an awful lenghty term of hellfire however. However, the Quran has been interpreted as countenancing death for centuries.
And it is still the mainstream view.
I wish it were otherwise. Here is some Hadith:
Hadith are not considered to be the word of God.
They are reported sayings of the Prophet, and are accorded different “weight” in terms of probable accuracy, and that weight itself is the subject to this day, of this or that hadith.
Probably the best way to explain them is like an oral tradition. If poeple had followed for instance Moses or Jesus around and remembered things that they said, and then centuries after the fact, of these sayings being passed down, decided to compile them all.
That would not be the Torah, or the Bible, and because all three, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, while they were Prophets, they were not, at least according to the teachings of the Koran, divine. They were human beings, which means that everything that they said, even assuming 100% accuracy of those reporting it, cannot necessarily be considered to be divinely inspired.
Now in the case of the Bible, I am sure you know that which scrolls are considered to be divinely inspired and therefore part of the Bible, was decided by a gaggle of old farts in the third century AD, but nevertheless, those scrolls that made the cut ARE considered to be divinely inspired, so, the situation you have here is if Christianity had this oral tradition, these reported sayings of Jesus that are NOT in the Bible, if there were a conflict between what he says in the Bible, and what this or that person says they recall him saying at lunch one day, the Bible wins, because it is the text believed to be sacred, inspired by God.
There are some Muslims who do not believe that the hadith should be referenced at all, and the mainstream is NOT in agreement with the wackos in Afghanistan. Muslims change their religions every day, all over the world just as do Christians, Hindus, Jews and everybody else, and they do not get killed for it.
These mullahs that use this hadith in DIRECT CONFLICT with the Koran, are also the same people who defy the Koran by marrying off women without their consent, forbidding them to earn money, and a lot of them have never read the Koran in a language they speak!
That is not mainstream, that is not Islamic, but it is being touted as such by people who have never read the Koran and have no interest in doing so, nor do they have an interest in theology in general.
Their interest in, and outrage over this particular case, is not motivated by its un-Islamic nature, but different motives.
Second sentence should read:
…that weight itself is the subject to this day, of debate over the correct weight that should be assigned to this or that hadith.
I know what you are saying.
But find me an authoritative Muslim scholar that is widely respected that contradicts the hadith in this matter.
The hadith carries a lot of authoirity and can’t just be dismissed.
FWIW I agree with your theological position.
Call several. Google. You will find that this position is not mainstream at all, and the only “scholars” that would place that hadith – any hadith – over the Koran itself are neither scholars nor authoritative, Idon’t care how spiffy their websites look.
If this were a mainstream view, you would hear of people being killed for changing their religion every day, and you can bet that you would hear of it, for the same reason Abdul Rahman is getting so much publicity.
To call this mainstream is like saying that those ultra-conservative Christian sects where the ladies wear long dresses and believe that makeup and dancing is a sin, and will quote you Bible verses to support their views, are mainstream Christians.
Or to say that the Orthodox Jews who require ladies to shave their heads when they marry and keep their heads always covered, even if they cover them with glamorous wigs that are more alluring than their natural hair ever was, are mainstream.
To them, yes, the clerics who support this would be authoritative, but to most Christians and most Jews, respectively, they would not be.
And I can make this statement because it has been my privilege over the years to know many Christians and many Jews, who do not always agree on questions of theology, with each other, with me, or with their Jewish or Christian brothers, again respectively, but it would be surprising to you how many mainstream Americans have never known any Muslims even to dine in their homes, or invite them into theirs, have never visited a mosque, or again, read the Koran, yet to hear them hold forth on the subject of Islam when there is a sensational story of wackos, one would think that they had given the subject a lifetime of study, but for some reason, had learned nothing from it.
you sound like a devotee of Rashad Khalifa.
Bukhari’s interpretations are generally considered authoritative.
The line about there being no compulsion in religion in contradicted dozens of times in the Quran in different circumstances. Unless you think dhimmi is not compulsive…?
It is a mainstream view that the Hadith should be considered. You claim the Koran is in direct contradiction to the hadith on the issue of apostasy, but obviously it is not so simple.
The Koran does not make it absolutely clear what to do with apostates. Therefore the Hadith carries a lot of weight.
That is why I asked you to find me a well respected and influential Islamic scholar, a mainstream scholar that has repudiated Bukhari?
I am not saying you cannot do it. I am not suggesting that the average Muslim is thirsting for the blood of apostates. I am only asking you to back up your claim that among Muslim scholars it is generally agreed to ignore Bukhari on this point.
‘scholar’ has disagreed with him on one thing or another. He is kind of like the Christian St. Paul.
Mr, Pipes and ilk are especially fond of Bukhari on this particular subject.
I think you are looking for me to cite Al Turabi so you can point out how he is wrong about so many other things. 🙂
Which authoritative Talmudic scholars have repudiated Deuteronomy?
Which respected Christian scholars have repudiated St. Paul?
Every religion has its respected figures who being human, are guilty of plain bad theology, being wrong. Thus it was, is, and forever will be with Bukhari on this subject, anybody who agrees with Bukhari on this subject, and their little dog too.
To save my tired fingers, and because I have come closer in this thread to discussing theology myself than it is wise to do without fine burgundy, which I am told is not a good idea when one is taking OxyContin and Percocets, I will as usual, quote from an old blogrant:
nerdified link
ia agree with your theological position completely.
I already stated that. But, unfortunately, your view is not the popular view among scholars. As it is a touchy subject, and as Muslim governments like to get along with human rights organizations as much as possible, and as few people are in the mood most of the time to go around killing apostates, it happens that there is little support for raising a ruckus about the scholar’s interpretation and actually turning it into law.
But, wherever Muslim scholars have obtained power and have the free rein to impose sharia law, we see these types of rulings.
Go out and find me an article written in Arabic today, wherein a well respected Egyptian or Saudi or Qom/Najaf scholar is making an interpretation similar to yours?
As I google, I find only western human rights groups making the same claims and the same exigesis.
I’m with you on this, and I think you are right on the theology. But I am not a Muslim scholar and no one is going to care what I think about your interpretation one way or the other.
who earlier today did not care what the Koran says, to taking a position on what it says, versus how Bukhari interpreted it.
I think you may be overestimating the importance of the opinion of “human rights groups” vis a vis policy making whether in nations with a majority Muslim population or the US.
The fact is that one does not hear of the thousands of Muslims who change their religion daily to something else or nothing, because Bukhari is in practice repudiated by most people, in the same way that Deuteronomy is, which is why you also do not hear of Jews who change their religion being stoned to death.
Nor will you find a wealth of websites of authoritative Talmudic scholars and Rabbinic venerables outlining their Deuteronomy repudiation for the benefit of gentiles who may be under the mistaken impression that thousands of Jews are brutally murdered daily in downtown Jerusalem for the sin of having become Parsees or Presbyterians.
It is also worth noting that “scholars” as a rule, do not put up websites, and I imagine that with a topic like this, most of your search engine returns are going to be various western sites quoting Pipes quoting one of a gaggle of sites who claim to agree with Bukhari, albeit with some rather large qualifications, unless they are really wacked out, having to do with the concept of Islam as nation in the political sense, in which case a rejection of Islam would be seen as something comparable to treason, and even then the rejection, in order to qualify for the death penalty as outlined in Bukhari’s famous Pipes wetdream, if taken in context, also requires a negative consequence to the community or nation as a result.
I understand that there is an almost visceral need on the part of many westerners for the vast majority of Muslims to be either a variant of adherent to the teachings of Mullah Omar, and this is actually a good sign.
It means that the westerners are not so devoid of any moral conscience that they are able to freely demonize roughly 20% of the population of earth without having some “reason” to hang it all on, even if the reason has no basis in reality.
It is still, as you have so often said, a start.
And who knows, maybe this conversation will persuade one person to read the Koran, to visit their local mosque, to even get to know a Muslim or two.
That too, would be a start.
Until that start gets well underway, however, it would be very unwise for individuals posting on public internet sites, especially those residing on US servers, to admit to reading or speaking Arabic. ;->
for the sloppy construction of that sentence in my post. It was inaccurate.
However, it is a simple matter for a Muslim scholar to stand up and say to his fellow mosque goers that this man should be left alone and that he is not a disgrace to his people or his nation or his former religion, and that any scholar who says he should be killed or severely punished is wrong. You said it.
Why can’t we find anyone in a position of authority to say it?
No, they are going with the Hadith and saying he cannot be killed because he is a lunatic.
That is an exception, after all.
At least thinking people do, and to the others, it would not matter. It is not like the US is going to stop killing Muslims if Imam so and so will just say he disagrees with Bukhari!
There is not a need to go on CNN and say it, though I imagine at some point some poor soul will be dragged on and obliged to do just that.
I haven’t checked CAIR’s site today, but at some point, I will not be surprised if they do put up something or other, they tend to make quite an effort to do that sort of thing, for all the good it does.
Why aren’t prominent Christian clerics and scholars going on TV in Pakistan and denouncing US crimes against humanity, and emphasizing that these actions are not part of Christian teaching, and for that matter, neither is the occupation of Pakistan?
Similarly, Muslims as a group are simply not responsible for what some wacko in Afghanistan says or does, and for that reason there is no need to apologize to the white folks for his wackiness.
Still, I am sure that if you look hard enough, you will find such statements, as there have been ever since the 911 events, and still one keeps hearing that “Muslims” have not apologized enough for the World Trade Center, that Muslims are just not sorry enough.
Even if one accepts the Washington orthodoxy of the 911 events, it would still not make sense.
White males have just not apologized enough for the Oklahoma City bombing, either. This may because so many of them did not do it.
That’s funny…but…
It is the law in Afghanistan and not some wacky mullah issuing some wacky fatwa.
That is why is deserves to be discussed, not on CNN, but on al-Jazeera.
against humanity are the law in the US.
And in Afghanistan what else is there but some wacky Mullah issuing wacky fatwas? Afghanistan is a crusade theatre, whatever authority anybody has there is at the grace and favor of the crusaders.
that is a pretty weak response.
If Virginia decided to put a Muslim on trial for his life for converting from the Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell school of thought, Christian priests, ministers, pastors, and archbishops the world over would condemn it. It’s not too much to ask. Be serious.
As for condemning the war, there is no shortage of Christian leaders throughout the world and in the United States that have been doing just that.
What I am asking is why can’t the religious leaders in Islam step up and go only Muslim television and condemn Afghanistan’s jurisprudence as against Islam?
And the answer is, that it is not interpreted to be against Islam. It is interpreted to be bad form. And that isn’t sufficient motivation for it to be denounced, apparently.
When Jews start exterminating adulteresses and Christians begin stoning blasphemers then we’ll see who speaks up. But this is going on now in Nigeria and in Afghanistan and elsewhere and it is not being loudly condemned.
You bash America for its myopia, greed, heartlessness, and viciousness on a daily basis. How about turning it around and acknowledging my point. The laws in Afghanistan are not being dictated by America. It should be obvious that our generals have no interest in promoting the execution of Christians. And don’t try to say they need that for their propaganda war. That is not what is happening.
already know that this is un-Islamic.
As for the rabid anti-Muslim contingent, there is absolutely nothing that anyone can say to them that is going to change their minds. They are not reasoning, they are beyond reason, even those who once may have been capable of it.
I have already said I understand the emotional need to justify this blind hatred. How else could Americans pay taxes to have the flesh melted off children? To have them, their parents, their elders, starved, tortured, sexually abused? Without this kind of deranged sentiment, it would not be possible! You also are human beings! These atrocities are not natural, they cannot exist, cannot be supported unless first thinking and reason are removed.
Do you think it was any different in Germany? If the German people had not been convinced that the Jews were somehow less than human, how long do you think Hitler would have lasted? That is why Goebbels was such a valuable player of the team!
Now as for Afghanistan, I do not think that the generals need anything to bolster up support for the crusade there, or anywhere else. You yourself indicate that the support is quite strong without any need for additional incitement.
But it is a fact that Afghanistan is a crusade theatre, under US occupation, and whatever puppet regime is in place is simply that, a puppet regime of the US. Granted, this is the land that every army from Alexander to Russia has run screaming from, but that does not mean that the US does not control who is minister of what, and what governmental decisions, if one can call them that, are made.
As for their reasons, well, you will be a better speculator on that, on their psychology than I. But it is simply a fact that Afghanistan is, as I said, under US occupation, and whatever decisions are made regarding Mr. Karzai or this Mullah, their job descriptions and dental plans, if any, are not up to the Muslim population of the world, or the Hindu population of the world, for that matter.
If the occupation forces disagree with the way this Mullah, or Mr. Karzai, are discharging their duties, I think you can count on them being shown the door pretty quickly. As would Mr. Chalabi in Iraq, Mr. Musharaf in Pakistan, and on down the line.
If any native overseer or functionary of any puppet regime in any US occupied territory, crusade land or client state, has any illusions about how indispensable he is to his American masters, he has only to ask where is Saddam Hussein today.
How the US chooses to conduct its crimes against humanity is not the responsibility of the world’s Muslims. Nor is how wacky are the individuals installed in the various slots. Or Mullah Omar.
Christians do not need to explain to thinking Muslims that US crimes against humanity are in conflict with the teachings of Jesus.
And neither do Muslims have any obligation to trot out and beg the foam-mouthed crusade enthusiasts for forgiveness because some US puppet in Afghanistan has several screws loose.
i gotta run ductape, but I am asking Muslims to have this conversation with themselves. I’d like to overhear it, not have it directed at me, or the West.
So, we’re talking past each other here.
accuse you of desiring communication with Muslims.
sorry, if you are angry with me. But this response of yours is a bit rude.
I understand your feelings. You have said what you think Muslims should do, and are indignant because you feel you are not obeyed.
It does not seem rude at all to you to speak of nearly one fifth of the world’s people as if you were a factory boss, and they your subordinates. Or an imperious father wh scolds his recalcitrant children. Do not talk to me or the other adults, talk among yourselves of this disobedience to my orders!
To some that would seem a bit rude, but it is your culture, your beliefs, you are entitled to both.
I can assure you that both Muslims and non-Muslims do “talk,” often, of US activities in Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond, including actions of US functionaries, such as the Mullah who has threatened this man Abdul Rahman.
So you may have the consolation of knowing that your orders are, after a fashion, being obeyed. 🙂
I can see this a sensitive topic for you, but you are wrong on several points.
Number one: Rahman’s crime is that his action 16 years ago, combined with his refusal to recant today, puts him in violation of the Afghanistan constitution, which is based on shari’a law, and not a controversial interpretation of shari’a law either.
As I have been pointing out and Sirocco as well, the shari’a law is based on whatever the most expert Koranic scholars think, and they think that Bukhari is binding in this case.
That is why none of them are speaking out with Koran-only arguments like yours.
I am dictating to anyone, or acting as a factory boss. I am saying that I would like to see Muslims stand up and defend this man on religious grounds, on Koranic grounds, on humanitarian grounds.
This is not some mullah in Afghanistan with a screw loose. This is what shari’a looks like when it is applied with the advice of the scholars.
I asked you to provide me with any examples of a renowned scholar taking an opposing view, and you tell me that no Muslims take the ruling on apostasy seriously.
Frankly, you take a lot of shots at me for pointing out the obvious.
Whatever the United States is doing in Afghanistan has nothing to do with how shari’a is carried out in Sudan, Nigeria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, or anyplace else it holds complete sway.
You made a theological argument, and one I agree with, but one that is not shared in seminaries.
I’m surprised you are defensive about it and lash out at me, since we have the same view about the prophet’s intentions as well as what should (not) happen to this man.
any Muslim, and/or is not available in English to anyone with access to a common internet search.
It was inappropriate for me to make any theological arguments, and I retiterate, if I have done so it would be only for the benefit of those with a sincere interest in the subject. That point has now been made, and each individual can decide whether they would like to pursue further information, or whether they will feel more comfortable with the prevailing view of their own culture.
I will say that in almost every community in the US, there is a mosque, and there are people there who will welcome those sincerely seeking to learn more about Islam.
I will also repeat that getting to know Muslims, for those whose beliefs would not prohibit this, is a good way to separate Goebbelian effluvia from reality.
Because Afghanistan is under US occupation, no country has the resources to intervene because they do not agree with actions of US gunmen, Mr. Karzai, or any native overseer or functionary of the puppet regime.
US policies and their implementation are a frequent topic of conversation among non-Americans, both Muslim and non-Muslim.
For anyone that wants more information on this, you can read this theological exigesis. It argues in favor of execution for apostasy and was written in 1943 by Sayed Abul Ala Mawdudi.
There is no point in arguing with DF on this anymore. But maybe he will produce a tract that supports his view to provide some balance.
I will repeat my suggestion that Americans with a sincere interest in learning more about Islam get in touch with their local mosque, and get to know Muslims in their own community.
That would, in my opinion, be the best strategy for westerners seeking to provide some “balance” with the indoctrination of their regimes.
“answering-islam.org.uk” indeed. You are a piece of work, BooMan, and a unique asset to any entity you may or may not represent. 😀
the point isn’t the link, it’s the book.
If you read the essay you will see that he lays out his case very completely. And I might note that he makes a pretty important distinction.
He states that the penalty for apostasy is death, but only in a country that is ruled by religious law. It would be unfair, in his view, to kill an apostate in a country like Turkey, but not in a country like Saudi Arabia.
His reasoning is similar to the reasoning the United States uses to allow people to become citizens, but not to renounce their citizenship while living within the country.
Likewise, a Muslim cannot renounce his religion if he/she lives in a country ruled by Muslim law. However, if they live in a country that has secular law then the punishment should not be carried out.
In any case, here are some of your wacky mullahs at work:
Still searching for anyone besides CAIR that has refuted them.
at least at this time. So I guess that means you are right, BooMan. Muslims are clearly terrible monster creatures who drink baby blood, and all Americans should wear strings of garlic around their necks in case they happen to run into one. If only Daniel Pipes were a Democrat. Damn! Talk about electable!
Yeah, DF, that’s fair. I am looking for any rebuttal, and have been, and cannot find any.
It’s not like I have just dismissed your arguments. I have searched for anything to support them.
In any case, it’s not all that amusing to be compared to Pipes, who I consider to be the real baby-killer in this debate.
around the edges of theological discussion, an activity in which I do not participate on public message boards. That was inappropriate, and I did so only for the benefit of those with a sincere interest.
I will make the same suggestion to you that I have three or four times made addressing readers in general:
The best starting place for those interested in Islam is your local mosque.
It’s hard to know where to add my $0,02 on this thread, but I guess here’s as good a place as any.
I agree completely with BooMan. Let me first note that this not a question of how Bukhari interpreted the Koran, as you surely know. His only contribution is to have collected some of the numerous ahadith indicating that the Prophet favored the death penalty for ridda (and his collection ranks behind only the Koran itself as a primary source). Now, all four founders of the four surviving Sunni amadhab not only accepted these traditions but judged that they demand execution for male apostates. Here’s Imam Malik, for example:
Second, Shari’a was is constructed on the basis of the Koran and the Sunna. True, there exists a ‘Koran only’ movement, but that has no serious following among the ulama (outside Libya, where Khadaffi sponsors the view). Sure enough, in case of conflict the Koran is supposed to take precedence over the Sunna; it’s just that on the mainstream view there is no conflict here between the two. I’m actually unsure why that is, but I suspect it’s due to the idea that for present purposes 2:256 was abrogated by 9:5, 9-11-12; 9:73; 9:123, and so on. In any case it’s standard fiqh.
The reasons why ex-Muslims aren’t actually executed frequently around the world are that (i) the penal law of Shari’a isn’t enacted in a lot countries; (ii) where it is, four male Muslim witnesses (or eight female ditto) or a public confession are required for conviction, which is obviously rare. But the punishment is on the books in Iran, Sudan, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Yemen besides Afghanistan.
that Bukhari cites, my reference is to his interpretation of the most commonly cited conflicting verse, (2.256) which is essentially that the no compulsion refers to an individual’s changing his religion to Islam, not from it. Conversely, it is also frequently argued that even Bukhari is referring not to one simply changing religion, but betraying a polity, especially during wartime, and thereby causing negative consequences.
In actual practice, it would be more accurately applied to execution of Iraqis who collaborate with crusaders and murder their neighbors on the orders of their American masters than somebody who simply decides to become a Unitarian.
2.256 is supported by 3:72, 4:137, etc. not to mention common sense. God gave man a brain, and also the free will to use it or not.
People who change their religion from Islam are not killed every day by the thousands for the same reason that Jews who change their religion are not.
And I am sure you are aware that in Deuteronomy, which unlike the hadith so loved of Pipes, is actual scripture it is quite clearly spelled out that Jews who change their religion shall be stoned to death.
It is also possible to quote some Talmud that would curl your hair. However, since I am not charged by Mr. Goebbels with a task similar to that taken up today by some westerners with respect to Muslims, I will refrain.
I do understand the need of many westerners to see Muslims as inhuman beasts, and in fact I have commended it, for it shows that such a demonization is needed by these people in order to justify atrocities committed in their name and with their money against Muslims.
And I believe you are confusing the “four male witnesses” with a hadith regarding an act of adultery.
I hope that you will continue your reading and your interest. 🙂
Ah, that clears it up.
Indeed, but the position of the classical law schools is essentially that apostasy from Islam is equivalent to betraying a polity, namely the Umma; wartime or no, negative consequences or no. And barring Salafism and various not very widespread reformist views (including that of my great hero, the late M.M. Taha), those schools have defined the Shari’a since around 1000 AD.
Hey, you’re preaching to the chorus (except that I personally don’t believe in the supernatural, but that is incidental). I am all for ijtihad galore; though it would make sense to ensure that one isn’t reinventing the wheel. The question here though is what traditional Islamic law, as reflected in the opinions of the vast majority of qualified ulama, has to say on the subject. In other words, an empirical matter, not an exegetical one. If you think established fiqh is aligned with your view, why not quote some reputable authorites, as BooMan challenged you to? I’ll accept anyone with their papers in order from al-Azhar! 😉
Actually Jews who change their religion are not executed because the (i) the Tora is not enacted as law in any state; (ii) even if it were, Talmud raises the evidentiary bar so high as to make sentencing unlikely.
Similarly, few – but far from nil – Muslims who change their religion are executed because (i) the Shari’a in its penal aspects is only enacted in a few countries; (i) even there the bar of evidence is high enough to make conviction infrequent. As you are doubtless aware, there is a categorical right to due process and individual Muslims may not take the law into their own hands.
FYI, Daniel Pipes is not someone I take seriously as a capacity on Islam. As to Deuteronomy and Talmud, see my remark above.
To be blunt for a moment, this kind of sad insinuation is why I mostly avoid talking to you. No hard feelings though.
With respect to witnesses, you are quite right. I had a mental glitch. But two male Muslim witnesses of upright standing is still a tough standard of evidence to meet.
I have done all the quoting and citing I intend to do. I do not engage in theological debates on message boards, and I most certainly do not engage in discussions of Islamic Jusiprudence, for obvious reasons of both propriety and security. and anything I have said on the subject in this case I have done in a well-intentioned but ill-advised attempt to correct misconceptions and for the benefit of those who might have a sincere interest in the material for its own sake. If that is your situation, I bid you all good wishes in your quest.
And here I thought that was what you have been doing all this thread. My mistake.
Not obvious to me; but then I am clearly not very perceptive as regards your intent.
Adieu.