Source: Huffington Post
I read with disappointment Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s recent piece in the Wall Street Journal. While professing to promote peace and understanding, Hirsi Ali claims that “Shariah imposes death for apostasy” or that Prophet Muhammad “imposed Islam on Jews and Christians.” Far from peace, Hirsi Ali succeeds only in widening the divide between Muslims and non-Muslims.
Perhaps this is why Jon Stewart refused to accept her claim to want to reform Islam.
Hirsi Ali asks who “owns” the Islamic Shahadah, or Islamic declaration of faith? Is it Mecca Muslims or Medina Muslims — the two broad categories she lumps the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims into.
The Mecca Muslims she claims, while are in the majority and peaceful, are unfortunately, “engaged in a daily struggle to adhere to Islam in the context of a society that challenges their values and beliefs at every turn.” I find this claim specious. In my regular interactions with tens of thousands of Muslims, I’ve understood first hand that Muslims of various sects, nationalities, and cultures have little difficulty reconciling their faith with Western society. In fact, next month I’ll be speaking at Harvard University on a panel with various world leading Islamic scholars. Our dialogue will centralize around finding ongoing means of peace through dialogue and communication — just as Islam teaches and as Prophet Muhammad exemplified.
Hirsi Ali laments that such Meccan Muslims are, “…not likely to heed a call for doctrinal reformation from someone they regard as an apostate and infidel.” Perhaps, but as a Muslim my issue is not that Hirsi Ali left Islam — Islam gives her that right and prescribes no worldly punishment whatsoever for those who leave Islam, certainly not death. My problem in heeding a call from Hirsi Ali on reformation stems from her earlier call to essentially militarily crush Islam “it in all its forms.” Historically Hirsi Ali hasn’t just called for the reformation of Islam; she has called for the annihilation of Islam. And as long as Hirsi Ali’s call to militarily crush and destroy Islam goes on without retraction, she shouldn’t be surprised that Muslims aren’t willing to heed her calls to anything, let alone to “Islamic reformation.”
More confusing is Hirsi Ali’s declaration that Muslims “cannot claim their religion has been hijacked by ‘extremists’ [because] “the killers of the Islamic State and Boko Haram cite the same text that every other Muslim…considers sacrosanct.” By that logic, Hirsi Ali herself is liable to Anders Breivik, who cites and praises her and her cohorts numerous times in his manifesto “justifying” the mass murder of 77 innocent Norwegians in July 2011.
Hirsi Ali identifies the “Medina Muslims” as the problem, claiming that they “pose a threat to all people” by imposing Shariah, callings Jews and Christians pigs and monkeys, kill apostates, stone adulterers, hang homosexuals, and beat women in burqas. Incidentally my recent book EXTREMIST debunks each of these myths in a step-by-step manner by citing the core of Islamic doctrine — the Qur’an, Sunnah, ahadith, and classical and contemporary Islamic scholars. In other words, if any such Muslims hold these views — and certainly a small minority due — my book is but a drop in the ocean of existing scholarship demonstrating such Muslims act in spite to Islam, not because of Islam.
Hirsi Ali claims “the only viable strategy for containing the threat posed by the Medina Muslims is to… identify and repudiate those parts of Muhammad’s legacy that summon Muslims to intolerance and war and… persuade the Mecca Muslims to accept this change.” As a Muslim who accepts Prophet Muhammad’s entire life — Mecca and Medina — I can say with conviction that nothing in Muhammad’s teachings summon Muslims to intolerance and war. On the contrary, Prophet Muhammad’s entire life is replete with examples of justice, compassion, and empathy — all to levels no human in history has ever matched.
Hirsi Ali concludes her piece with five areas she claims require reformation — the first of which is “Muhammad should not be seen as infallible, let alone a source of divine writ.” If anything Hirsi Ali is merely reminding us that she is an atheist. She may well make the same claim about any Prophet of God.
She continues with a second demand to “reject the supremacy of life after death” as that will somehow “remove the appeal of martyrdom.” While again essentially reminding us that she is an atheist and likely rejects the concept of life after death, her theory that such a belief promotes martyrdom is meritless. Dr. Robert Pape, University of Chicago professor and founder of The Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism, performed an exhaustive study of every suicide attack from 1980 to 2003. He concludes that there is, “little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions… Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland,” and, “[t]he taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism… an extreme strategy for national liberation.” Interestingly, Hirsi Ali makes no mention of the illegal Iraq War, Israel’s illegal settlements, or US tax dollars paying to radicalize Afghan youth in proxy wars with books printed at the University of Nebraska.
Hirsi Ali third demands Muslims place “evolving laws made by humans” above those aspects of Shariah that are “violent, intolerant or anachronistic.” Once more, an atheist is asking Muslims to accept a subjective moral standard over a Divine moral standard while asking us to simply assume, without merit, that Shariah has “violent, intolerant or anachronistic” teachings in the first place.
Fourth, Hirsi Ali states something I agree with in its entirety, that “There is no room in the modern world for religious police, vigilantes and politically empowered clerics.” In fact, Islam itself condemns religious compulsion, has no clergy, and teaches separation of mosque and state.
Fifth and finally, Hirsi Ali again states something I agree with, that, “Islam must become a true religion of peace, which means rejecting the imposition of religion by the sword.” Nothing in the Qur’an permits spreading Islam by the sword, and the Muslim clerics who engage in such terrorism do so again in spite of clear Qur’anic injunctions to the contrary.
But of her entire piece, this phrase in particular caught my eye: Hirsi Ali calls herself a “dissident Muslim” and writes, “…we in the West need to challenge and debate the very substance of Islamic thought and practice,” and likewise, “Muslims need to make a conscious decision to confront, debate and ultimately reject the violent elements within their religion.”
On this we again agree — let us debate the substance of Islamic thought and practice. I welcome such a debate and it is because I have engaged in this debate that I can identify both as a Meccan Muslim and as a Medina Muslim, all the while finding zero conflict between my practice of Islam by declaring the Shahadah, and my oath as an American attorney to uphold the United States Constitution. And far from being some isolated example, I belong to a worldwide Muslim community of tens of millions in 206 nations, united under a spiritual Khilafat. We are a Muslim community that has existed for over 126 years in complete peace — despite facing violence, persecution, and even death for our attempts at reformation. And we have done this all and only because of adhering to every verse of the Qur’an and every teaching of Prophet Muhammad.
I argue that the only viable strategy to containing the threat posed by all forms of extremism is to maintain international justice, universal freedom of conscience, secular governance, and a return to our Creator in personal worship. And I hold this position because this is the example set forth by Prophet Muhammad himself.
So yes, let us confront and debate the path to reformation. As the Qur’an teaches, “Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in a way that is best.”
Thus, I call upon Hirsi Ali to accept my debate offer in a public forum, on a mutually agreed upon topic, arbitrated by a neutral and mutually agreed upon third party. I, like billions of Muslims worldwide, am sincere about reform through debate and dialogue. If Hirsi Ali is likewise sincere, then I look forward to her acceptance.
Qasim Rashid is an attorney and best-selling author of EXTREMIST. He is a national spokesperson for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
Dr Josef Goebbels at work.
If Qassim Rashid is trying to deny that ‘shariah imposes death for apostasy’, then he has succeeded in proving that he is either ignorant or deceitful. Death for apostasy has a recurrent theme in the quran, sira and hadith. The same sorces that Rashid refers to.
In addition, there are numerous classical and contemporary muhammadan scholars who have affirmed this.
It seems Rashid has not read or chooses to pretend that sura 4:89 does not exist. It says in part “-BUT IF THEY TURN RENEGADES SEIZE THEM AND SLAY THEM WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM”.
A scholar, Abdurrahmani I-Djanzini in ‘The Penalties For Apostasy in Islam According to the Four Schools of Islamic Law, page 11 :ALL FOUR –AGREE THAT THE APOSTATE WHOSE FALL FROM ISLAM IS BEYOND DOUBT–MUST BE KILLED, AND HIS BLOOD MUST BE SPILLED WITHOUT RESERVATION”.
Bukhari 9:83:37 “THE PROPHET SAID, ‘IF SOMEBODY(A MUSLIM) DISCARDS HIS RELIGION, KILL HIM”.
Reliance of the Traveler 08:1 “WHEN A PERSON WHO HAS REACHED PUBERTY AND IS SANE, VOLUNTARILY APOSTATIZES FROM ISLAM, HE DESERVES TO BE KILLED”.
Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a fundamentalist Egyptian cleric, who speaks on Al-Jazeera, claims that killing an apostate is right as long as there is a single hadith that orders it. There are many.
I am not sure that Rashid disputes the fact that Muhammad imposed his religion on the Jews and Christians. The condition he always gave to some of the cities or communities he intended to attack was invite them to convert or face the sword. That happened to some of the Jewish communities in Medina and the Christian city of Najran. In other instances he attacked without warning.
If anyone is at fault on this, it is not Ayaan Hirsi Ali for she has stated the correct position.
When there is talk about reforming islam, it raises the question of what aspect is to be affected. Islam is based on the quran which its believers say is the literal word of their god. Both the book and the religion are the best things that allah ever did. Muhammad, its messenger, was the best of allah’s creatures whose example every muhammadan should strive to emulate. Given that scenario, how can allah’s word or the sunna of its prophet, which is based on it, be reformed? Allah had admonished that nobody should try to interpret its word. Would reformation modify or exclude any part of the quran or the sunna?
No reformation of muhammadan can occur without the charge of blasphemy and apostasy. It will be another good reason for blood bath.
Rashid says, “I HAVE UNDERSTOOD FIRST HAND THAT MUSLIMS–HAVE LITTLE DIFFICULTIES RECONCILING THEIR FAITH WITH WESTERN SOCIETY”. If that is so, why do they seek a separate identity by advocating the institution of sharia laws and the wearing of hijab and even burqa? Such demands keep them apart from the Western society.
“OUR DIALOGUE WILL CENTRALIZE AROUND ONGOING MEANS OF PEACE THROUGH DIALOGUE AND COMMUNICATION–JUST AS ISLAM TEACHES AND AS PROPHET MUHAMMAD EXEMPLIFIED”. Not many statements are more misleading than this. Islam does not exemplify dialogue and communication. It demands blind obedience. It has no room for discussion outside its realm. It commands subservience.
Muhammad did not brook any disagreement or opposition.
Quoting him as exemplifying the means of reaching peace through dialogue is the latest version of taqiyya. No other man in the history of mankind has instilled so much fear, on so many innocent people, for so long.
“ISLAM GIVES HER THAT RIGHT(TO APOSTATIZE) AND PRESCRIBES NO WORLDLY PUNISHMENT WHATSOEVER FOR THOSE WHO LEAVE ISLAM, CERTAINLY NOT DEATH”.
Ayaan knows better than that for she was in the system. In addition to the passages quoted above, she knows many more including these ones, Bukhari 9:89:271 “ABU MUSA REPLIED: ‘HE EMBRACED ISLAM AND THEN REVERTED BACK TO JUDAISM’. MUDAH SAID, ‘I WILL NOT SIT DOWN UNLESS YOU KILL HIM(AS IT IS) THE VERDICT OF ALLAH AND HIS APOSTLE”.
Bukhari 9:84:64 ALLAH’S APOSTLE SAID, –SOME YOUNG FOOLISH PEOPLE–WILL GO OUT FROM(LEAVE) THEIR RELIGION AS AN ARROW GOES OUT OF A GAME. SO, WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, KILL THEM, FOR WHOEVER KILLS SHALL HAVE A REWARD ON THE DAY OF JUDGMENT”. Ayaan falls into this category.
…
There is no punishment for apostasy in the Holy Quran.
Qur’an says: Apostasy is Not Punishable In Islam
Is There Freedom of Thought or Coercion in the Holy Quran?
Defensive War in the Holy Quran in 600 Words
Zia,
Can you explain what sura 4: 89 means by killing anyone who becomes a renegade?
The quran does not define what it means by ‘renegade’ but the Concise English Dictionary defines the word as “A PERSON WHO DESERTS AND BETRAYS AN ORGANIZATION, COUNTRY, OR A SET OF PRINCIPLES”. “A PERSON WHO ABANDONS RELIGION”. “HAVING TREACHEROUSLY CHANGED ALLEGIANCE”.
Apostasy is defined as “THE ABANDONMENT OR RENUNCIATION OF A BELIEF OR PRINCIPLE”. “DEFECTION”.
Whichever word is chosen out of the lot, renegade and apostasy mean the same thing. Becoming an apostate or renegade means to abandon religion or belief. It qualifies the person for the punishment of death stipulated in sura 4:89.
Please read the very next verse and that answers your question.
The verse that you are quoting would be verse number 90 according to our reckoning.
So, now I will quote verses number 90-91:
So, for the Muslims it is only defensive war, never pre-emptive war. If the enemy does not war-monger and go on a killing spree, the Muslims have no need or justification for a war, according to the Holy Quran.
Qasim Rashid says, “core of Islamic doctrine — the Qur’an, Sunnah, ahadith, and classical and contemporary Islamic scholars.”
The core of Islam is mentioned in the quran. If you want to see quran in practice then there is sunnah. That is it. There is no other source for the religion of Islam. The rest is explanation and opinion including hadith. Hadith is nothing but recollection of certain quotes of the Prophet centuries and generations after the fact. Every problem in Islam can be traced back to hadith.
Death for apostasy in Islam is a deep rooted and well established doctrine. All seven imams of fiqh and a great majority of Muslim scholars over centuries and even today, and a great majority of ordinary Muslims over centuries and even today believe in this. Even when this concept is not in the quran, this erroneous belief is based upon hadith, and scholarly texts and opinion.
As for the Shariah, I would ask Qasim Rashid to look at “Misaq-e-Madina”. There is no shariah in it as understood by Muslims. There is no hudood punishments, no economic system, no political system. It is a treaty based upon common sense keeping in mind tribal rivalries to maintain peace and order, which is an Islamic value.
The statement of separation of mosque and state is interesting. I would request Qasim Rashid to present just one verse from the quran which supports this concept. Even the elders and leaders of his own community do not believe that. Living and growing up in the West our children believe in such concepts. But they are not accepted by the religious leaders and are not supported by current religious opinion.
As for issuing debate challenges, it is against the instructions of the founder of his community. Instead of challenging others it is time that Muslims should look to themselves and reform their doctrine and establish good moral values in their followers.
I agree with almost all of what Qasim Rashid says, but does it matter. Not really. Those who drive the religious doctrine never support such thought. No one follows Qasim Rashid. He is just one man. But there are religious leaders and scholars who can issue position statements on such issues but don’t.
Zia,
The verse is either 89 or 90 depending on the particular version of the quran in use.
According to Mushin Khan’s version, “THEY WISH THAT YOU REJECT FAITH, AS THEY HAVE REJECTED(FAITH), AND THUS THAT YOU ALL BECOME EQUAL(LIKE ONE ANOTHER). SO TAKE NOT AYLIYAA'(PROTECTORS OR FRIENDS) FROM THEM, TILL THEY EMIGRATE IN THE WAY OF ALLAAH(TO MUHAMMAD). BUT IF THEY TURN BACK (FROM ISLAAM), TAKE(HOLD) OF THEM AND KILL THEM WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM–”
The offense is, ‘they wanting you to reject the faith'(by turning away from isaalm)’and thus you all become equal’. It does not mention any violence on ‘their’ part. The killing is purely offensive because the victim has rejected faith and wants others to do the same.
This is buttressed by a sentence in the same next verse “–HAD ALLAAH WILLED, INDEED HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN THEM POWER OVER YOU, AND THEY WOULD HAVE FOUGHT YOU–“.
As allaah did not give them power, they were unable to initiate any fighting.
Withdrawing ‘FROM YOU, AND FIGHT NOT AGAINST YOU’ means to “EMIGRATE IN THE WAY OF ALLAAH(TO MUHAMMAD)”. In other words, if such a person reverts and no longer apostatizes. Otherwise, the penalty of death for apostasy hangs on his neck awaiting execution.
There are other verses in the quran to support this.
Verses 92 and 93 strictly forbids ‘a believer’ killing a fellow ‘believer’ except by mistake and provides for the compensation to be paid in the case of accidental killing. There is no such provision for the ‘non-believer’.
Yes, the quran emphasizes death for apostasy.
“THE STATEMENT OF SEPARATION OF MOSQUE AND STATE IS INTERESTING. I WOULD REQUEST QASIM RASHID (and anyone else) TO PRESENT JUST ONE VERSE FROM THE QURAN WHICH SUPPORTS THIS CONCEPT. EVEN THE ELDERS OF HIS COMMUNITY DO NOT BELIEVE THAT. LIVING AND GROWING UP IN THE WEST OUR CHILDREN BELIEVE IN SUCH CONCEPT. BUT THEY ARE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY CURRENT RELIGIOUS OPINION”.
That seems to be the true position on this issue as far as muhammadanism is concerned. There is no authority to back up the concept. Both religious leadership and current(general) religious opinions are fused against it. It is reported that Muhammad said that islam is both religion and state/government(politics). Throughout his life in Medina and Mecca, he remained the religious and political head, as were his successors. It was a perfect theocracy. Nobody can deviate from that.
…
In the Holy Quran there is a principle to explain the subtle or hidden from those verses which are self-evident. (Al Quran 3:8) The Quran also tells us in the same verse that those who have an axe to grind do the reverse and Namelee is a prime example for that. There are several very clear cut verses that tell us that there is no punishment for apostasy in this world, but, Namelee chooses to ignore them. For example:
For secularism let me suggest the following article and a book review:
Shariah and Constitution: A Personal Journey
Book Review: Islam Without Extremes by Mustafa Akyol
As regards Namelee’s misrepresentations of the Quranic verses from chapter 4 or Sura Nisa, let me just quote the verses in sequence from a non-Muslim’s translation, Arthur John Auberry’s and just highlight what I want to stress:
The last of these verses shows that life of everyone, Muslim or non-Muslim is sacred, except those who are at war with the Muslims. Even in war time rules of war apply and Muslim armies were not to kill women, children or elderly.
Zia,
The last of those verses actually confirms that the lives of ‘unbelievers’ are not to be protected. The unbelievers whose lives are to be spared are only those who are in compact with the muslims.
There is no mercy for the ‘non believer’ or the apostate.
The charge of misrepresentation is highly misplaced as I quoted from Mushin Khan’s version which is among the prominent or outstanding ones.
A verse in the Quran (2:62?) states that Those who are believers (in Muhammad)and those who are Jews and those who are Christians and those of other fsiths who believe in Allah and do good deeds, have nothing to fear nor will they be grieved.
This verse is clearing giving certificate of safety and happiness to many non-Muslims. Even though this verse is not giving good news to Atheists, yet it does not mention any adverse thing about them as to what will be their state of affairs (happiness or doomed life.)
So Islam is very gentle in the matter of faiths.
The following verses of the quran speak to this topic:
Sura 9:26 “–FIGHT AGAINST SUCH OF THOSE TO WHOM THE BOOK WAS GIVEN(CHRISTIANS AND JEWS)AS BELIEVE NOT IN ALLAH NOR THE LAST DAY, WHO DO NOT FORBID WHAT ALLAH AND HIS APOSTLE HAVE FORBIDDEN, AND DO NOT EMBRACE THE TRUE FAITH, UNTIL THEY PAY TRIBUTE OUT OF HAND AND ARE UTTERLY SUBDUED(HUMILIATED)”.
Sura 9:122 “O BELIEVERS, MAKE WAR ON THE INFIDELS WHO DWELL AROUND YOU. LET THEM FIND FIRMNESS IN YOU. KNOW THAT ALLAH IS WITH THE RIGHTEOUS”.
Notice that in verse 26 the offense is being an infidel who does not believe in allah, nor its last day and who does not forbid what allah and its apostle has forbidden.
For those of us who do not and will not believe in allah and its apostle(and we number in the billions) the command is for us to be made the victims of war.
In verse 122, the infidel’s crime is living around allah’s believers and nothing more. The ‘believers’ are to be firm and show no mercy.
In both the quran and hadiths there is a clear call to eliminate all other religions and their adherents until the only religion left proclaims allah alone.
How do these verses support freedom of worship?
Muhammadan scholars are in agreement that sura 9:29 has abrogated the verses of tolerance.
At Suyuti 3:61 “THE ORDER FOR MUSLIMS TO BE PATIENT AND FORGIVING WAS ISSUED WHEN THEY WERE WEAK, BUT WHEN THEY BECAME STRONG, THEY WERE ORDERED TO FIGHT AND THE PREVIOUS VERSES WERE ABROGATED”.
Ibn Arabi “THE VERSE OF THE SWORD HAS ABROGATED 124 VERSES.
On the strength of these and similar verses, Tabari(9:69) concluded :”KILLING INFIDELS IS A SMALL MATTER TO US”.
If the ‘people of the book’ are not favored, the same or even harsher punishment awaits the atheists. Indeed, muhammadan history has it that those atheists who were caught and brought to Ali were burnt which prompted Ibn Abbass to say that the victims were undeserving of allah’s punishment. Rather, they should have been killed by another or other methods.
We do not believe any verses are abrogated. We should read all verses in the fullest context.
The over riding principle of Islam is love, compassion and justice. Let me quote a few verses about the non-Muslims:
Your quotes about other scholars certainly show that we should not bank too much on authorities from centuries ago to interpret the Scriptures for us.