Lately, I have been writing quite a bit on the controversy over whether there is a death sentence in Islam for those who leave the religion. It is a question I have discussed, albeit briefly, with some Islamic experts such as Muzammil Siddiqi, Maher Hathout, and MPAC director Salam al Marayati (which I have posted on this site). For example, Marayati told me on December 15 that the Koran says nothing about apostates being put to death. Yet, others say that it can be found in the Hadith and that the major schools of Islamic jurisprudence have affirmed it.
As I continue to research this burning question, I have dug up two sources on each side of the fence, which the reader can accept or reject. The first is a Christian site, Answering Islam, which does research on Islam and concludes that death for apostates is, indeed, part of the religion. On the other side of the fence is a site called Answering Christianity, a Muslim site which is devoted to rebutting the claims of Answering Islam. I am not vouching for the expertise or credibility of either site, but they do seem to have done their research.
First is an article on Answering Islam by a writer known as Silas. He makes the case that the Koranic verses are subject to interpretation, but that the Hadith are much clearer that apostasy is punishable by death.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/apostasy.htm
In regards to the reference to the major schools of thought in Sunni Islam, I have attached the below Wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Islam#Differences_in_the_Schools
In regards to the Malik, Hanafi and Hanbali schools, Silas claims that they are clear that the punishment for apostasy is death.
In rebuttal, we have an article from Answering Christianity.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/apostates.htm
(If you also want to read the 9-11 article that claims that Israel took down the twin towers, feel free to do so.)
7- Conclusion:
"As we clearly see from the Noble Verses above, apostates are no longer to be killed in Islam. I am not here promoting apostates, but there is no reason to kill someone who doesn't deserve to be killed. Certainly if the apostate is hostile toward the Muslims and joins the enemy in a war against them, or tries to corrupt the Muslims in the Muslim lands by trying to convert them to his/her new deviant religion, then the matter becomes different. But if a Westerner today for instance embraces Islam for a while and then changes his position due to the overwhelming false anti-Islamic media, then certainly killing that person would be a grave sin and a big mistake."
(Emphasis mine.)
I highlight the distinction between the silent apostate vs the public apostate who takes more positive action because this point seems to come up again and again. When I posed the question to Imam Muzammil Siddiqi at Loyola Marymount University this year and gave as examples people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and Nonie Darwish, he brought up the example of Afghan Muslims who fought on the side of the Soviets and referred to that as "treason". (He did not explicitly say that apostates who criticized Islam publicly should be put to death, but he did draw some sort of a distinction between them and those who left the faith silently and never spoke out. He said that in his opinion, the latter should be left alone.)
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2012/04/muzammil-siddiqi-and-freedom-pledge.html
The question is important because freedom of religion in the US is absolute and nobody should have to fear death for changing their religions whether they speak publicly about it or not. Treason relates to betraying your country during war-not leaving or criticizing your religion. It is also important because the assimilation process can also involve a changing of religions in succeeding generations-as exemplified by many of our Asian-Americans.
The subject merits further research-and discussion. As is my wont, I would welcome any feedback from my Muslim readers.
No comments:
Post a Comment