veiled4allah: Death and destruction in the name of Islam?

-Tora Bora said:

Total comments: 7

"There will never cease to exist a band from my Ummah, fighting for
the Decree of Allaah, over-powering their enemy; they will not be harmed
by those who oppose them, until the Hour approaches them and
they are upon it (i.e. fighting for the Truth)."
(Muslim)

pumpkinaa said:

Total comments: 11

yea, after the incident in nigeria.. i was just really sad at the entire situation. and really started thinking about what the reactions of muslims should be as advocated by Islam-- by Allah (swt). so alhamdulillah.. that was a really informative post-- w/ all those links.

surlybird said:

Total comments: 1

I'm very glad to see Muslims condemning these actions. More power to you.

art said:

Total comments: 2

Al-Muhajabah, I am glad to see you condeming acts of death and destruction in the name of Islam, but I am confused. You also seem to say that you and most scholars support the death penalty for blasphemy, in some circumstances, after a fair trial.

I am a non-muslim with a big mouth. If you support ANY law for blasphemy, I GUARANTEE you I will be guilty of it. You and the scholars support my arrest, conviction, and execution.

Honestly, what more could I possibly care to learn about what Islam actually teaches?

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

Thank you for your comment, Art. I'm a bit confused about where you derived your idea of what I believe from. I re-read my post and I do not see anywhere a statement that I want people to be put to death for blasphemy. Perhaps you could clarify what you are referring to.

I'm also curious what you make of these excerpts from the Bible. Do you condemn Judaism and Christianity along with Islam? I ask this because I would like our debate to be clear and fair. Islam is no different from Judaism and Christianity in this matter and so rather than looking at why Islam takes the stance it does on blasphemy and apostacy, we really need to look at why the three major monotheistic religions take this stance. Does this link tell you all you plan to learn about Judaism and Christianity as well?

As a matter of fact, I support the "only if it causes unrest and rebellion" interpretation, keeping also in mind that the standards of proof mean the testimony of two witnesses that the person knew that his statements would cause rebellion and unrest and said them anyway for that reason, and that if the person at any time repents, the punishment cannot be inflicted on him.

The point is, this is not about individual acts of conscience, this is about civil disorder. Here is a quotation that discusses this issue:

A number of prominent ulema across the centuries have taken the view that apostasy is not a hadd offence. Ibrahim al-Nakhai (d. 95 H) and Sufyan al-Thawri (d. 162 H) have held that the apostate should be invited to Islam and should never be condemned to death. The Maliki jurist Ibn al-Walid al-Baji (d. 494) and the Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyyah have held that apostasy is a sin which carries no hadd punishment and that a sin of this kind may be punished only under the discretionary punishment of ta'zir. The late Shaykh of al-Azhar, Mahmud Shaltut, analysed the relevant evidence in the sources and drew the conclusion that apostasy carried no temporal punishment because in reference to apostasy the Qur'an only speaks of punishment in the hereafter. Shaltut also concurred with the analysis that the key factor in the Hadith which prescribed the death penalty for apostasy was "aggression and hostility against the believers and the prevention of a possible fitnah (sedition, civil strife) against the religion and state". Mahmassani has also made a similar observation saying that "the death punishment was not meant to apply to a simple change of faith but to punish acts such as treason, joining forces with the enemy, and sedition". (source)

Art, I would also like to invite you to continue to learn about Islam. Islam is not a monolith. Different people have different understanding and visions of it. The ones you detest may not be the only ones on offer.

art said:

Total comments: 2

Hi Al-Munaqabah,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Since my post was quite terse, I feel I owe you a considered response.

As for your question about condemning Judaism and Christianity along with Islam, the answer is yes, I roundly condemn all three of them for their bad and wrong-headed doctrines. I also applaud all three for their positive passages, their truths, and their contributions to the human condition. But I am not a member of any of them. So to me, religions are considered in proportion to their good and bad components.

The link you’ve provided cites numerous examples of religious prescriptions for capital punishment. (BTW – thanks for the link, I’ve added to my bookmarks.) The problem is, NOBODY in the developed Christian and Jewish world actually proposes that these passages should be the basis for law. On the contrary, flakes and fringe elements who cite harsh Bible passages (or Torah passages) are roundly condemned. In fact, western countries explicitly forbid

By contrast, predominately Muslim countries actually DO implement Islamic legal codes and REALLY condemn people to death for blasphemy (http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s728718.htm ). Frankly, I find the claim that “Islam is no different from Judaism and Christianity in this matter,” to be entirely unconvincing. In fact, Christians and Jews have entirely dropped their attempts to legislate blasphemy and apostasy; Muslims have not.

As far as a statement that you want people put to death for blasphemy, you say the following:

"As a matter of fact, I support the "only if it causes unrest and rebellion" interpretation, keeping also in mind that the standards of proof mean the testimony of two witnesses that the person knew that his statements would cause rebellion and unrest and said them anyway for that reason, and that if the person at any time repents, the punishment cannot be inflicted on him."

This confirms my impression from the original post. You DO support blasphemy convictions (to death, I must presume) under some circumstances (for causing “unrest and rebellion”. I think that describing this as a civil disorder issue is nonsense; civil disorder is neither compounded nor mitigated by blasphemy.

We have, before us now, a specific example of a blasphemy charge stemming from the Miss World incident (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N27156828). Do you support this fatwa? Clearly “unrest and rebellion” followed. Suppose two witnesses testify that the reporter actually said that she knew unrest and rebellion would follow her remarks – would this make it blasphemy? Did you support the Salman Rushdie fatwa? Surely he knew his writings would cause an unrest and rebellion. In what specific incidences have you supported blasphemy charges?

As I said, I am quite sure that if there is ANY blasphemy law, then I will be guilty of it. And I have no interest in repenting. Since I know that I will be killed upon the institution of a blasphemy law, I must resist such an occurrence, to the death if necessary.

Al-Munaqabah, I believe you are sincere when you lament death and destruction in the name of Islam, I am sure that most Muslims do. However, I fear that you hold at least one belief (with regard to blasphemy) that makes death and destruction inevitable.

Thank you for providing the forum to express myself. I hope that our dialogue (and thousands like it) will help diffuse the tension we now face.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

Thanks for your detailed response, Art. The comments section of a blog is a difficult place to have an in-depth discussion of weighty issues such as this, but as long as we remember to read and respond in a thoughtful manner I think we can manage it.

Let me set up an example. Let's say that I start making public speeches saying that democracy is an invalid and false ideology. A lot of people would tell me to get the hell out of this country if I think that the principles its government is based on are invalid and false (BTW, I do not believe that, I'm just using it as an example). In any case, it's clear that I'm making a political statement and that if I incite a riot by my comments, I've caused civil disorder.

Blasphemy and apostasy involve stating that Islam is an invalid and false ideology. In an Islamic state, that amounts to saying that the principles the government is based on are invalid and false. That is when it becomes a political statement and a possible cause for civil disorder. That is what the scholars I quoted were trying to get at. I failed to explain this thoroughly before because I feared my comment had already gone on long enough.

Another issue that needs to be taken into account is that historically, Islamic governments have set up autonomous regions where non-Muslims may live according to their own rules. Thus a blasphemy law is also based on the assumption that the non-Muslim is coming into the Islamic state in order to declare that state to be based on invalid principles. This is not the situation in Nigeria, where non-Muslims have not been exempted from Islamic law nor allowed to set up their own autonomous region under their own law (another flaw in Nigeria's attempt to establish the Shari'a).

As to the Nigerian fatwa, the following are some of the problems I have with it:
1) It seems to be calling for the journalist to be put to death without a trial, which is murder and will be punished by God
2) There is no evidence that the journalist intended to incite a rebellion or declare the principles of Islam invalid. Good grief, all she did was make an irreverent joke. That doesn't even come close to what I'm talking about here
3) As mentioned above, the proper legal structure has not yet been set up

If the journalist lived in a Christian autonomous region in Nigeria but chose to come into the Islamic-ruled area of Nigeria, where she repeatedly and persistently declared the principles of Islam to be invalid with the intention (as determined by two witnesses) to incite rebellion or foment a war against the Islamic state and she refused to repent, then charges could be brought against her. There are actually four possible punishments (Quran 5:33) and the one I would personally choose in those circumstances is exile not death. I would limit the death penalty to someone who actually took up arms in their rebellion or war against the Islamic state.

I hope this clarifies my views somewhat. Yes, I do believe in the death penalty in certain circumstances, but those circumstances are very, very limited. You may feel that the death penalty is wrong in all cases, and I respect that.

The Quran in 5:32 says that if anybody kills a single human being wrongfully, that person will be to God as if he or she had killed all of humanity. In my opinion, many Muslims need to take this verse a lot more seriously. Better to let a guilty person go free than to kill an innocent person. The guilty will be taken care of by God on Judgment Day. The harm to the innocent person cannot be repaired.

Trust me, I'm not nearly as bloodthirsty as you think

Simple Muslim said:

Total comments: 2

Nor are the most Muslims.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

Very true. Somehow, the loudest voices are taken to speak for the majority. There are around 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, and I find claims that "most" of them are raving fanatics or bloodthirsty savages to be ludicrous. Probably more than 99% of all Muslims live their lives quietly and don't get involved in political action or violence of any kind. Those who rush to attack Islam seem to be unaware of that.

All comments are copyright their authors

RSS feed of comments on this entry

Finished reading and posting comments? Return to veiled4allah