Monday, October 24, 2011

An excellent, recently published, article pertaining to Islam: "The Islamic Case for Religious Liberty"


Last night, I came across an article on Islam published in the new issue (November, 2011) of the journal, First Things, under the title: "The Islamic Case for Religious Liberty", by Dr. Abdullah Saeed (LINK).

I have been keenly interested in Jihad, and the related topic of religious liberty, as understood within the Islamic paradigm for sometime now, and my last two threads on Islam (link 1; link 2) touch on these issues. Dr. Saeed begins his essay with:

The words of the Qur’an and hadith contain rich resources for supporting the democratic order. If Muslims are to embrace modernity, including life in a pluralistic, democratic society, without abandoning their faith, they must take up the argument for religious liberty that is embedded in their history and that stands at the center of their most sacred texts.

Although the broad thrust of the Qur’an and hadith supports religious liberty, many parts of these texts can be, and traditionally have been, interpreted as denying it. One example is a qur’anic verse that deals with the question of the jizyah, a tax on non-Muslims: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Q 9:29). The Prophet reportedly sometimes demands the death penalty for apostasy, the most obvious example of this being the hadith “Whoever changes his religion, kill him” (Bukhari, Sahih, 9, 84, hadith 57).

These problematic texts are outweighed by the bulk of the texts and instruction provided by the two most important authorities in Islam, the Qur’an and the Prophet Muhammad’s actual practice. Both are remarkably supportive of the idea of individual and personal religious freedom.

I would like to urge all my readers to digest the entire article, and shall be looking forward to the reflections/thoughts of those who have taken the time to do so.


Grace and peace,

David

P.S. I would also like to recommend an older, but equally important, essay that is germane to our topic at hand: Jihad, Abrogation in the Quran & the "Verse of the Sword"

13 comments:

Rory said...

I read the article and I find it unconvincing. Modern Catholics try the same thing, but they too, fail. It is too convenient to claim that you believe in religious liberty when your religion is in the minority.

Nobody who is in a strong majority really believes in the liberty to teach and cultivate beliefs that could ever pose a threat to the majority. The most ardent believer in free speech or freedom of religion will be ready to shut anyone down who begins to succesfully attack the principle of freedom of speech or freedom of religion. If someone ever starts to win a significant following for overthrowing the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, to set up a theocracy, do you think the tanks wouldn't start rolling?

The Muslims and Catholics of the West have drunk deeply from the same well. Get them away from the democratic ideals that have formed most modern governments, and we will see just how integral these political freedoms really are.

I do concede that both Catholics and Muslims have an established tradition as well as Scripture that opposes compulsion to convert. While both have occasionally had zealots who take matters into their own hands, nobody believes there is any value in forced conversion.

But true religious liberty? Allowing every enemy of your faith to preach against yours when you are in a majority, in either a Muslim or Catholic nation. No way. It has never existed and never will.

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Some very interesting comments; I think there is good deal of truth in your words, however, have you given any thought to the nation of Turkey as a 'test-case' ?


Grace and peace,

David

Rory said...

Hey Dave.

As to Turkey? I do not profess to giving that nation much thought in its modern incarnation. What is going on in Turkey that might speak to your question?

David Waltz said...

Hello again Rory,

I mentioned Turkey because it "is officially a secular country", even though, "Around 90% of the population is registered as Muslim". (LINK)

The article in the above link also states:

==The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respects this right in practice; however, the Government imposes some restrictions on Muslim and much more on other religious groups and on Muslim religious expression in government offices and state-run institutions, including universities.

Although proselytizing is legal in the country, non-Sunni Muslims, Christians, and Jews face a few restrictions and occasional harassment for alleged proselytizing or unauthorized meetings. The Government continues to oppose "Islamic fundamentalism."

Persons wishing to convert from Islam to another religion sometimes experience social harassment and violence from relatives and neighbors, though the act is legal under Turkish law.==

I think you will discern the implications of above as pertaining to your opening post.


Grace and peace,

David


P.S. Go Ducks!!!

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

I agree with absolutely everything Rory said. It is insightful and to the point.

I think in secular society freedom of religion is allowable. However, in a society where Islam, Protestant, or Catholic Christianity and surprisingly even Buddhism and Hinduism as soon as the majority feel threatened they will take action in some way or form against the minority.

This may take the shape of open force. It may be subversive in nature.

http://www.lamppostproductions.com/?p=1275 < This is a very good article by a teacher of mine. He is also a traditionalist.

This sheds light on the issue of 'death for apostasy'.

David Waltz said...

Hi GV19,

So good to see you back; I was beginning to worry about you. Hope that all is well with your and yours.

Thank you so much for the link; I found the article to be charitable, insightful and informative. From Abdullah bin Hamid Ali essay, we read:


==It would be much easier to settle this matter by merely claiming that the hadith, “Kill whoever changes his religion,” is abrogated by the Qur’anic injunction prohibiting forced conversion and the limitation of conscience. However, the overwhelming majority of scholars hold that claims of abrogation cannot be made merely based on fancy without historical evidence. It is a reasonable assumption, though, based on historical information that the injunction to kill apostates was subsequent to the emigration from Mecca to Medina.20 This is because the permission to fight back against the polytheists (Q 22:39) was not given until the Muslim community made its exodus. If that is so, it is clear that Muslims were not expected to execute any apostate during their sojourn in Mecca, since it logically follows that if one is deemed not fit to fight, he is even less suited to be asked to kill. In addition to these considerations, there is not nor was there any religious obligation to execute apostates. Otherwise, we would find it difficult to explain why the Prophet—God’s mercy and peace on him—did not kill a number of apostates during his time. A man by the name Qurra b. Maysara, for instance, apostatized from Islam, but the Messenger—God’s mercy and peace on him—sent no assassin after him. ‘Abd Allah b. Sa’d b. Abi al- Sarh also apostatized during his time, although he later repented before the Prophet’s death, but he was also not killed. The same is the case of Al- Ash’ath b. Qays who apostatized and only returned to Islam during the reign of the first caliph, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq. Also, a man by the name Dhu al- Khuwaysira al-Tamimi, after accusing the Prophet—God’s mercy and peace on him—of unjustly dividing the spoils of war, was let go to live the remainder of his life free of harm. If there was some religious obligation to kill apostates under all circumstances, we would have seen the Messenger himself seek them out. The truth, however, is that because such people posed no danger to the cohesiveness and stability of the new Islamic polity, the Prophet—God’s mercy and peace on him—allowed them to follow their conscience that led them to adopt other metaphysical understandings. (Abdullah bin Hamid Ali, "PRESERVING THE FREEDOM FOR FAITH - Reevaluating the Politics of Compulsion", p. 6.)==

cont'd

David Waltz said...

cont'd

And then:

==It is reasonable to ask in these times whether or not rulings that developed and were upheld throughout the ages are still applicable in a globalized world where an ideal Islamic polity along with the everpresent hostilities from outsiders perhaps no longer exists. On the other hand, it might be appropriate to ask if the rational justifications for compelling outward piety were contextually reasonable for most of Islam’s history; justifications that portray a nation constantly at war or under the threat of aggression from its non-Muslim neighbors. The fact is that the rationale behind the distinction of legal rulings in Muslim lands and those in non-Muslim lands finds its crux in the assumption that there is greater and broader Islamic awareness in Muslim lands than there are elsewhere. The current state of affairs of Muslims, however, reveal to anyone educated in the Islamic tradition who has lived in the Muslim world that times have changed greatly and Islamic identity and consciousness rooted in the theological, legal, and spiritual traditions is far worse in many Muslim countries than it is in Western lands...

... The truth is that faith is itself a divine act that is beyond the permanent influence of human actors. If anything, experience has taught us this, since the doors through which many reach faith are many and fundamentally dissimilar. Apostasy is no more of a crime against society than it is a crime against God. Being a crime against God demands that one be left to reconcile one’s self to God; not forced to say that one has faith when the heart silently speaks to the contrary. The consequence of my thesis is that while the execution of defectors may still have its uses in the current age, to continue to characterize defection as apostasy or to judge that apostasy necessarily means defection would be inappropriate. Physical repulsion back to faith needs to be reconsidered. Similarly, practices of excommunication, boycott, embargo, and peerpressure should be abandoned too...

...If one believes that s/he bears a universal truth, let others reach a similar realization, but by conviction, not by compulsion. (Ibid.. pp. 10, 11 - bold emphasis mine.)==

I must be 'missing' something, for it seems to me that Abdullah bin Hamid Ali's view is quite close to that of Dr. Abdullah Saeed—what am I 'missing' here?


Grace and peace,

David

thegrandverbalizer19 said...

With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.

You are not missing anything. You hardly skip a beat. This link was merely to compliment what was already presented. To show that this is not disparate sources but there is a general tendency among the academics among Muslims to see it as such.

Peace and Blessings.

Ken said...

Muhammad himself said, "Whoever leaves his Islamic religion, kill him."

Abu Bakr waged the wars of apostasy to bring the pagans back to Islam by force.

the Muslims conquered all of the Middle East, Persia, Egypt, N. Africa, Spain, etc from 632-732 AD and beyond. Seems like they were just obeying Surah 9:29 and Surah 8:39 and Hadiths, "I have been ordered to fight until religion is all for Allah", etc.

Later, the Ottomans kept coming, stopped at Vienna in 1684.

Turkey became secular because Mustapha Kemal Ataturk was disgusted with Islam and its corruption [in his own opinion] he saw in the Ottoman Sultan's and the Caliphate, and that they had sided with Kaiser Wilhelm and Germany in WWI. He abolished the Caliphate in 1924, and abolished the Sultan's position in 1922.

Erdogan, the current President of Turkey is seeking to bring Turkey back to more Islamic principles.

They have an official secular government, but it is still 99 % Muslim and still very hard - really difficult for Turks to leave Islam and become Christians. They do not allow missionary visas.

Islam does not seem to have a tradition against compulsion, except for the Meccan period of 613-622 AD; after that, clearly it was force, fighting, war, and killing the infidels or convert to islam and Jews were slaughtered in Medina, and Christians and Jews had to pay the jiziye and stay quiet - not allowed to Evangelize or debate; so it is a lie for Muslims to say the the Christians and Jews have freedom of religion - they do not - because they cannot talk about their faith and seek to persuade Muslims to become Christians, for example.

Ken said...

Good to see the Grandverbalizer19 back and making comments. Always interesting !

I was worried also; as your site has been so quiet lately - kind of strange for one who calls himself one who verbalizes grandly - talks a lot and big.

Ken said...

Rory wrote:
If someone ever starts to win a significant following for overthrowing the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, to set up a theocracy, do you think the tanks wouldn't start rolling?

Many modern Islamists believe that the modern USA ideals of freedom of speech and religion and the bill of rights and the constitution and Capitalism are against Islam - idols. Anjem Choudary in England is one example and he says it clearly all the time. At least we can tell what he really thinks.

But if Muslims win populations in areas slowly, and change the laws for Sharia, how can that be stopped since the majority will have voted that in?

Ken said...

Rory wrote:
I do concede that both Catholics and Muslims have an established tradition as well as Scripture that opposes compulsion to convert. While both have occasionally had zealots who take matters into their own hands, nobody believes there is any value in forced conversion.

Muhammad himself was not just some zealot coming later, but the founder and example and he is the one who said "fight the unbelievers until they submit and religion is all for Allah and there is no more rebellion ( Fitneh) and "fight the people of the book until they pay the Jiziye and are made to feel their submission, being brought low ." (Surah 8:39 and 9:29)

Ken said...

Why didn't Abu Bakr believe that Surah 2:256 (there is no compulsion in religion") was still obligatory and not abrogated, when fighting and forcing the Arab Muslims (became pagans again) to come back to Islam during the wars of apostasy after Muhammad died - 632-634 AD?

Why didn't Omar believe that verse was still binding when he started the wars of conquering Byzantine and Persia, which led to conquering N. Africa, Spain, Egypt, Palestine, etc. 634-732 AD and beyond, even until the Ottomans were stopped in the 1600s ? Why no one else in Islamic history thought Surah 2:256 was still binding?