Apostasy and Dissent II

I didn't want this to be buried in my comments section, so this is an addendum to my first post on this topic, and is response to temporal and alien. Also, alien, I would like to comment on your comment about the verse that came down when Muslims were fighting with their backs against the wall. A religion, revealed or otherwise (to me at least) should be universal and applicable. Putting that verse into the book crystallized it and made it an immutable part of the religion. So, it's not just a historical relic it is religious text. It justifies similar acts in modern times because depending on someone's perspective they can justify that an extreme act is warranted because the situation can be argued to be similar to the time of the said verse.

Now, I am not someone who remembers verses and numbers but I do remember stories and words. And I remember long ago verses and stories from the Quran and Hadith that I read as a child. However, I wanted to quote from the actual text.

Now, there is no specific sentence in the Quran that says death to apostates. However, there are many things that are allowed or forbidden that are not expressly stated in so many words. Stories and/or incidents are used for illustrative purposes. And, of course, the Quran is not the only source for Islamic law and practice. Forget the shariah and the schools of jurisprudence, there is also the Hadith, incidents from the life of the prophet, incidents others relate about what he said or did that are supposed to guide the lives of Muslims. I had to dig around to find the actual places.

So, here goes:

The Quran on Apostasy

During a four month period, and when the haj was going on, immunity was declared against all those fighting against Allah and his messenger. This was in A.H. 9. During these four months they could accept Islam, leave the country (and nothing would hinder their departure), or do neither and stay and be dealt with by the sword. Some of these people were known as the hypocrites, i.e., they had accepted Islam verbally but were still not fully committed to it. In other words they had confessed Islam and then renounced it, which is part of the definition of apostasy. The punishment here was the war waged against the leaders of this kufr or infidelity (9:11-12)

There is some commentary and debate about this next one, though many Islamic scholars believe in the interpretation of one verse from the Cairo edition of the Quran that states, either that all the deeds of an apostate become null and void in this world and the next and he must be killed OR that an apostate should be killed and lose his wife and heritage.

Ibn Fakhri fil Adab as Sultaniya also relates that Abu Bakr killed all of Mecca's apostates after the death of the prophet.

Apostasy in the Hadith

There are quite a few hadiths about this topic. According to Bukhari (volume 9, # 17), the prophet said: The punishment of death is prescribed for murder, adultery and the one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims.

(vol 9, # 57 relates an eye-witness account by Ikrima): Ali burnt some atheists who were brought to him. Hearing this Ibn Abbas said, that the messenger of Allah forbade burning them but that they did deserve death, because the prophet said, whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."

(vol 9, verse 58) A Jew who became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism was brought in fetters to Abu Musa and Muadh. When told of his crime Muadh said he would not sit until the man was killed. And so the man was.

Imam Malik (Book 016, # 4152)
Zaid b. Aslam reported that the prophet declared that the man who leaves Islam should be executed.

Historical Records

The prophet's life and actions form the basis of conduct for the believing Muslim. So, I present this example. After the taking of Mecca, ten people were ordered to be killed by the prophet, all ten of whom were apostates.

Furthermore, no matter their other disagreements all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence do agree on one thing, that the punishment for apostasy is execution.

However, one of the problems in pinning anything to the Quran or Hadith is that there are so many contradictory verses and events, which really muddy the water. So there are verses in which the prophet actually did nothing about some apostates. Ultimately I believe it comes down to one's own personal beliefs.

Perhapy my fundamental problem is that I expect a book of divine revelation to be consistent and clear, leaving no room for the kind of doubt that either does or does not prescribe death for apostates. In countries with Islamic law, because of the schools of jurisprudence and the hadith and the few verses from the Quran do form the basis for apostasy laws. Since there is nothing expressly forbidding death for apostasy but there is some evidence for harsh punishment for apostasy this law is applied. For all intents and purposes, this is agreed-upon Muslim law.

How a few enlightened people interpret these verses of hadiths in their homes doesn't matter when vast swathes of the Muslim world believe death for apostasy a fair exchange, and it is upheld by law.


P.S. Alien and temporal, I still consider you guys my friends and like the fact we can discuss this topic in a respectful manner. Cheers!

In Praise and Defence of Blasphemy

I admit it. I love blasphemy. There! I said it. There is something within me that attracts me to it. The more blasphemous an idea, the more it challenges any establishment, especially religious ones, the more I like it.
I’m talking ideas that challenge Jesus’ divinity; Mohammad’s prophet-hood and talk freely of Shiva’s drug addiction. Bring it on! Blasphemy, to me, is what makes the world progress. Thoughts that are drastically different from what others believe and feel, aah, they are the ones that truly force humanity forward.
Where would we be without the famous blasphemers Galileo and Copernicus. Even most religious figures—that can potentially be so hurt by it—were blasphemers in their day. Jesus and Moses were a threat to the established religion of the day as was Mohammad. Why, then are ideas, thoughts and their provocative expression so taboo? Hinduism had few taboos practiced as it once was. What happened?
Why do we need to protect God and divinity from people who say things about Her? Surely (if you believe in it) the being who created the universe and us needs no protection from mere ideas? How supremely arrogant is that? Can mortals truly protect God from the expressed ideas of other mortals. Does Lord Ganesha really care that his image showed up on toilet seat covers? He looks like a cool guy. Maybe he took it as a compliment. But we’ll never know, will we? Hindus in the US protested against the purveyor of such sacrilegious merchandise, making them pull the seat covers from the market.
This was, of course, nothing compared to the furor over what was not one of Rushdie’s best work (to me his worst is better than most writers’ best but I digress) The Satanic Verses. It was a book for God’s sake. Don’t buy it, don’t read it, if offends you. Protest even. But burning books and a death threat?
I know that people of the Diaspora sometimes take blasphemy more seriously than do our counterparts back in our countries of origin. If there is one thing that should (but often does not) open up someone’s mind to new ideas, it should be traveling and living in other countries. Observing and living among people and environments that are totally different from your own should be a liberating experience.
Instead it sometimes creates fear, making them hold on harder to the past, grasping at the tangible aspects of their original culture and in the process making of it a poor facsimile. And since religion is such a crucial part of some lives any blasphemy against their faith becomes intolerable.
It was a personal journey of my own to arrive at a place where blasphemy has become such a cherished idea. Blasphemy to me is the domain of a different mind, of a brave person (or a foolish one) but someone who definitely swims against the tide. And that right, in an increasingly polarized and intolerant world, is precious to me.
I am tired of the “it hurts my religious sentiments” brigade. What the heck is a “religious sentiment?” If it is so fragile as to be hurt by someone saying or writing something, perhaps you should examine your religion and your sentiment. Perhaps indulge in some blasphemy yourself and feel the exhilaration of it.
Besides what about my sentiments then? Are they any less valid because there is no religion attached to it? My sentiments can be potentially hurt by the display of religion out there, by every church, mosque or temple I pass and by everyone who says “god bless you,” when I sneeze. But to me (and others like me) these are the realities of life and living. This variety of religious stuff out there is what makes the experience of living so rich. And one such experience is blasphemy. It’s a part of the world and life and has been since the very beginning when the first cave-woman looked at others prostrating themselves in front of a giant cactus and saying, “you do that’s just one giant, prickly plant, don’t you? I bet we can split it open, cook it up and make ourselves some soup.” I wonder how they dealt with her.
Remember the old saying, ‘sticks and stones may hurt my bones but words shall never hurt me’? Letting blasphemy, no matter how heinous or offensive, flourish, even under protest, can only take us forward.Of course, this doesn’t endear me to most people whether they are Diasporic or not. But my fellow Diaspora dwellers, we above all, should embrace blasphemy or protest such ideas with other ideas. We are the ones who decided to look beyond a certain wall to take a peek at the other side. We traveled beyond the seven seas just to see what lay there. In another time that act itself would have been blasphemy, causing some of us to lose our caste. Blasphemy is our tradition. Our birthright. Let us embrace it.