Freedom, Tolerance and the Shari’ah
| Khatib : |
Sadullah Khan |
| Khutbah No: |
191 |
| Khutbah Date: |
03/31/06 |
The Qur’an says in the matter of freedom of religion,
[b]لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ[/b][i]Let there be no coercion in matters of faith; for Truth stands clear from error [/i][b][Q2:256] [/b]The reason for the enshrinement of the values of this freedom verse; this magna carta of religious tolerance is that the two largest tribes of Madinah, ‘Aws and Khazraj made a pledge before Islam settled in Madinah that if their wives give birth to baby boys they will Judaize them. This is how some of the members of those two Arab tribes became Jews. However, when Islam became established in Madinah and many among those two tribes embraced Islam, members of these families wanted to force their children to return to Islam. This verse, the Magna Carta of religious tolerance; prevented them from forcing their youth back to Islam.Islam advocated such a principle at a time when the Roman Empire used to force people to Christianity or be beheaded, and the Persian Empire used to torture its religious reformers. Within this atmosphere, Islam came to assert the principle of freedom of religion.
The Cases of Abdurrahman and Jill CarrollThe cases of the apostate (
murtad) Abdurahman; (the Afghani who converted from Islam to Christianty 16 years ago) and the Jill Carroll (the American hostage held by the ‘Revenge Brigade’ in Iraq) has dominated world news this week.~[u] In the case of Abdurahman[/u], there is this notion that Islam allows freedom of religion for people only to become Muslim; not freedom to believe what they choose. That you are free to enter Islam but not to leave it.Islam is thus labeled intolerant on the basis of the ruling of some Muslims jurists that if a Muslim leaves Islam or converted to some other religion such person is killed for being
murtad (leaving Islam). But eminent contemporary Islamic scholars and many classical scholars hold different view on the basis of ijtihad, research and investigation. There is not a single instance that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did treat apostasy as a prescribed offence under hudud (capital punishment) only for leaving Islam. The Prophet (pbuh) never put anyone to death for apostasy alone rather he let such person go unharmed. [The examples of
‘Ubaydullah bin Jahsh (became Christian) and
‘Abdullah ibn Sa’d (reverted to idolatory)]. No one was sentenced to death solely for renunciation of faith unless accompanied by hostility and treason or was linked to an act of political betrayal of the community. As a matter of fact though there are 20 references to apostasy in the Qur’an, the Quran is completely silent on the question of death as a punishment for apostasy. The punishment is in the Hereafter. As conclusive proof of argument against the death penalty for apostasy:
[b]إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ ثُمَّ كَفَرُواْ ثُمَّ آمَنُواْ ثُمَّ كَفَرُواْ ثُمَّ ازْدَادُواْ كُفْرًا[/b][b]لَّمْ يَكُنِ اللّهُ لِيَغْفِرَ لَهُمْ وَلاَ لِيَهْدِيَهُمْ سَبِيلاً[/b][i]“Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve and then increase in their disbelief – God will never forgive them nor guide them to the path”. [/i][b] Commenting on the verse, contemporary Islamic scholar Mohammad Hashim Kamali pointed out: [/b][i]“The implication is unmistakable. The text would hardly entertain the prospect of repeated belief and disbelief if death were to be the prescribed punishment for the initial act. It is also interesting to note that the initial reference to disbelief is followed by further confirmation of disbelief and then ‘increase in disbelief’. One might be inclined to think that if the first instance of apostasy did not qualify for capital punishment, the repeated apostasy might have provoked it – had such a punishment ever been intended in the Quran” [/i]
The evidences being cited by those in favor of executing apostates are … 1.) [b]لا يَحل دم اٌم رءٍ مسلم الا باِحدى ثلاثة[/b][b]الثيِّب الزاني ، والنفسُ بالنفسِ و التاركُ لدينهِ المُفارقُ للجماعة[/b][i]“The blood of a Muslim who professes that there is no god but Allah and that I am His Messenger, is sacrosanct except in three cases: a married adulterer; a person who has killed another human being; and a person who has abandoned his religion, while
splitting himself off from the community (muifariqu lil-jamaah)”. [/i][b]Imam Ibn Taymiyyah explaining the aforementioned hadith of the Prophet (pbuh) inferred that [/b][i]“the crime referred to in the hadith under discussion is that of high treason (hirabah) and not apostasy (riddah) as such”.[/i][b]This view is supported by such eminent earlier scholars as Ibrahim al Nakhai and Sufyan al Thawri; both held the view that [/b][i]“apostate should be re-invited to Islam but should never be condemned to death”. [/i][b]The renowned Hanafi jurist Shams al Din al Sarakhsi ~[/b][i] ~ “apostasy does not qualify for temporal punishment”,[/i][b] Malaki jurist al Baji [/b][i]“apostasy is a sin which carries no prescribed penalty, hadd” [/i][b]and modern scholars as Abd al Hakim al-Ili and Ismail al Badawi ~[/b][i]~ “apostasy to be punishable by death has to be “political in character and aimed at the inveterate enemies of Islam”, [/i][b]Mahmud Shaltut ~ [/b][i]“apostasy carries no temporal penalty”.[/i][b]Subhi Rajab Al-Mahmasani in his work Falsafat al-tashri’ fi-Islam; the philosophy of jurisprudence in Islam states ~ [/b][i]“death penalty was meant to apply, not to simple act of apostasy from Islam, but when apostasy was linked to an act of political betrayal of the community”.[/i][b]2.) The alleged tradition (considered weak) …[/b]
من بدَّلَ دينَهُ فاقتُلُوه [i]“Kill whoever changes his religion”[/i]The scholar Selim al-Awa raised a very rational argument that if the hadith[i]“whoever renounces his religion shall be killed” is literally applied it would be applicable also “to Christians, who convert to Judaism and vice versa” which “manifestly fall outside the intention” of the hadith.”[/i]This view is also held by scholars such as Imam al-Shaukani (
Nayl-ul Autaar), Imam Muhammad bin Ahmed Sarakshi (
al-Mabsut), Ibn Taimiyya’s (
al-Sarim al-Maslul), Ayatollah Murtada Mutahhari, Dr Hasan Turabi, Sheikh Shaltut al-Azhari… Some recent works in English that make reference to early sources regarding the subject include the contemporary Islamic thinker and activist Mohammed Selim al-Awa’s
Punishment in Islamic Law and Dr Mohammed Hashim Kamali’s
Freedom of Expression in Islam. ~
In the case of Jill Carroll, a friend of the Iraqi people, an innocent reporter, whose translator (Iraqi Muslim) was killed and she held hostage for 3 months; such hostage taking should provoke outrage. For those so concerned about gender separation; where was the outcry at the private holding of a woman; and an innocent one at that. All Muslims around the world need to challenge; not just those committing atrocities, but also the philosophy and political doctrine used by these cowards to justify their murderous deeds; because invoking Islam to commit Muslim-on-Muslim, or harming/killing of ANY innocent people; is reprehensible; and those who show case this terror as an act of '
jihad fi sabililah' are equally complicit in these crimes.
Hijacking Islam and it’s Shari’ah Many among us seem to have lost sound understanding of the teachings of our Faith and the deeper principle it espouses. Islam has been reduced from an international source of civilization, reduced to a discourse of anger and the rhetoric of rage; while Shari’ah has been reduced from a system of universal justice to merely a discourse about methods of punishment.
Back to khutbah list