Comments on “Top Ten Reasons Why Sharia is Bad for All Societies”: Part 3

5.2 #3. Islamorders death for Muslim and possible death for non—Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even sharia itself.

As we have seen in previous parts of this commentary, the author of Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies continues with injecting his unsupported possibilities to build his imaginative case. He extended laws that apply to Muslims to non-Muslims as given in the subheading above, without providing a proof, and has a questionable understanding of common sense national values.

5.2.1 Lawsuit against Two Pastors in Australia, Religious Hate Speech Law in England

In 2005, The Muslim Council of Victoria, Australia, brought a lawsuit against two pastors for holding a conference and posting articles critiquing Islam. Three Muslims attended the conference and felt offended. The two pastors have been convicted based on Australia’s vilification law……

In 2005, British Muslims have been campaigning to pass a religious hate speech law in England’s parliament. They have succeeded. …..

With regards to the Australian pastors and the religious hate speech law in UK, the paragraphs the author wrote support the foundation of discussion in Section 4.5/Part1 regarding National Values. These were lawsuit and a bill before an Australian judicial system, and the British parliament respectively, not before an Islamic court or in an Islamic state. In both cases, the Australian and British systems conducted their business for the best interest of the country and constitutional rights of the people. Hadn’t the pastors’ conduct in Australia, or the hate mongers message in UK been violations to these countries constitutions and social peace, the justices and representative would have not passed the rulings on the pastors, nor the hate speech bill.

5.2.2 The Muslim Deserves Death for Doing any of the Following

First, the Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597—98, o8.7):

(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about ‘Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat’; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or ‘anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it’; (4) holding that ‘any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent’; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended ‘the Prophet’s message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.’

I’ll address this ruling and follow that with a story from the time of Mohammad to illustrate the rational, and to realize that the dynamics in life necessitates dealing with situations differently. The list above enumerates some actions that constitute Apostasy. And as usual, the author did not provide the complete picture to the audience to leave them where he wants … in the dark. He failed to quote from the same reference (c2.5) that unlawful are three levels, minor sins, major sins, and unbelief sins that put one beyond the pale of Islam (as discussed at o8.7), The latter necessitate stating the Testification of Faith (Declaring belief in God and His messenger). And that (o8.5) if a person apostatizes from Islam and returns several times, it is accepted from him, though he is disciplined (o17).

If God, His books, His messengers are of little or no value to the author or in parts of the world, they are the top value and hold the highest respect in the Islamic world. Until I came to North America, I have never seen and hardly heard someone making fun of God or his messages. If putting God in a joke is OK to the author, under free speech, Muslims have the highest reverence to God, all His books, all His messengers and do not differentiate between any of His messengers. God is the creator and source of bounties, His books is their light of guidance, and His messengers are their role models.

In the USA, US Citizens are required to live, believe in the country’s values, defend them when required. The country legislated laws related to treason, or terrorism justify withdrawing the citizenship and punishment to the extent of death penalty. Is there anything more treacherous than mocking and disrespecting the source of one’s existence, God Himself? So, why protect the first and not the second? They are both values, and the latter is a higher value than the former.

Under Islamic system, there are seven major crimes with specific punishments labeled as God’s rights. God’s rights means that they for the public interest and general state protection, and can’t be dropped. These crimes are adultery, accusation of committing adultery, theft, drunkenness, banditry, apostasy, and aggression. The rulings fall under “Al-Hodude; singular is Had” that is “the Limits”. Hodude is the line protecting Sharia. Both will be addressed in a separate post, for the readers to not interpret Shaia as punishment. Hodude are harsh installed as deterrents and preemptions to crimes. As such they would protect Sharia; a system built around truth, justice, equality, freedom, and providing the minimum essentials for a dignified living. They are huge barriers to make Hodude very hard to apply. It has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the crime has been committed. It is better for a justice to err in pardoning than in applying a “Had”. Of course, applying the Hodude should be under a just judge/ruler.

Apostasy is defined as the turning at will, without coercion, of a sane Muslim adult from Islam. Some examples indicating this situation were listed by the author. Islam does not coerce anyone to enter into its fold in the first place. To guarantee system stability from those who try to shake its ideological foundation, by coming to Islam then turning back from it, Islam installs the penalty of death for apostates who don’t return back to Islam. This serves as a filter that whosoever enters Islam has verified its logic, evidence of its soundness, truthfulness and it is the right way of life for them. Apostasy in Islam is equivalent to treason in modern times where death sentence is typical penalty. It is a person’s free choice to respect or not God/Books/Messengers. The extent of his practice could subject him to a court ruling. If he goes in public disrespecting values of people who are convicted with, he has set himself as a target, and should not blame anyone but himself.

In terms of application of the “Had”, a person might be ignorant of these values, and was a fault on his side. So, he is provided education and given time to rationalize, but when his chest is satisfied with these ideas, it is the right of Sharia to apply the “Had”. In terms of punishment, being killed or not, Scholars have divided it into two lines whether the resulting harm is limited to the person, or drawing people to it and cracking the society. The first group of scholars says, if it is localized to the individual, nothing to do to him. The other group, however, see that the person is a source of corruption to society and the penalty should apply.

From a parallels perspective, comparing to the cases discussed in the previous point (Australia and UK). It basically says, it is a breach to the law of the land to publicly mock the deity, or blaspheme/disrespect the prophet, a revered person. What has been quoted is not much different from the British religious hate speech, or Australian vilification laws, although the sentence is different because of the system setting.

The following stories illustrate the dynamics in life. At the time of Prophet Muhammad PBUH, there were people who came into Islam then changed their religion; he didn’t coerce them to return or otherwise. People insulted him, and he didn’t retribute for himself. But when there is a system in place, things has to be regulated, otherwise chaos is the alternative.

Hypocrites where living in the company of Prophet Mohammad in Medina. He knew them, as did his companions knew their leaders. The custom of the people of this land, throughout their history, they wouldn’t accept insulting a dignitary amongst them, let alone a prophet. The head of the hypocrites, Obay Ibn Saloul, made a statement degrading and insulting the Prophet publicly. The companions got angry, and wanted a permission from the Prophet Mohammad to execute the person who crossed the limit towards him; the son of the hypocrite leaders, a follower of Mohammad, asked. He wanted to execute his father, so he would not feel revenge towards anyone else. Prophet Mohammad ordered him not to do so saying “So that none would say Mohammad kills his companions.”

On the other hand, after the prophet’s death, some tribes turned away from Islam and took arms against the state, and were lead by claimants of prophet hood. There was no other choice to the ruler but to fight them back to bring stability to the state.

5.2.3 Iran’s Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie

In 1989, Iran’s Supreme Leader issued a fatwa (legal decree) to assassinate Salman Rushdie, a novelist, who wrote Satanic Verses, which includes questions about the angel Gabriel’s role in inspiring the Quran. Now the extremists in the highest levels in Iran have recently renewed  the fatwa.

Salman Rushdie Came from a Muslim family but says that he was never really religious[1]. He is a British Indian novelist and essayist whose writing style is classified as magical realism; an aesthetics style of fiction in which magical elements blend with the real world. Satanic Verses consist of frame stories involving Gibreel Farishta and Saladin Chamcha, Indian expatriates in England, archangel Gibreel, the devil, a transformed narration of the life of Muhammad (called “Mahound” or “the Messenger” in the novel), the figure of expatriate religious leader (transparent allusion to the life of Ayatollah Khomeini), and Ayesha, an Indian peasant girl who claims to be receiving revelations from the Archangel Gibreel. Embedded in this story is a series of half-magic dream vision narratives, ascribed to the disturbed mind of Gibreel Farishta. They are linked together by many thematic details as well as by the common motifs of divine revelation, religious faith and fanaticism, and doubt.

Giving this background and following from the previous point comment, we would know what the answer should be. Prophet Mohammad’s would have treated this case differently. I would say it would have been a great opportunity to use the propaganda created around the novel to educate about Mohammad and his message. If it is an issue of Satanic Verses, referring to Quran, it would be perfect setting to present Quran methodology in talking to the human intellect through dialogue and providing proofs for its perfection and completeness. This was Mohammad’s discourse during his life. This is what I would have expected to happen by Muslim scholars to do. However, given the status of the Islamic world at large, as mentioned early on, no proactive initiative have been taken.

Looking at Ayatollah Khumani’s fatwa, the background of the case says it all. Rushdie set himself as a target to Khumani who didn’t disappoint him by issuing a death sentence (not a decree to assassinate, as stated by the author). Khumani edict on Salman Rushdie’s is the only fatwa towards Rushdie. Where there similar decrees from the Muslim world scholars? None reported, yet denounced Rushdie’s stories as baseless and blasphemous. Ayatollah Khumani does not represent the Islamic world as a whole, or Islam at large, as such his edict couldn’t be taken as Islam’s view point.

This form of literacy should be classified as religious bigotry that ought to be controlled as it comes with a toll on the society. Margaret Thatcher gave Rushdie round-the-clock police protection, many politicians on both sides were hostile to the author. British Labour MP Keith Vaz led a march through Leicester shortly after he was elected in 1989 calling for the book to be banned, while Conservative MP Norman Tebbit, the party’s former chairman, called Rushdie an “outstanding villain” whose “public life has been a record of despicable acts of betrayal of his upbringing, religion, adopted home and nationality.” 

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie.