Reform has never been a entirely positive process especially when it comes to religions. Christianity under the Protestant reformation was just as capable of violence and political corruption as the status quo. Just look at what happened under Martin Luther and his persecution of the anabaptists and never mind the long standing persecution of Catholics under the reign of Queen Elizibeth I.
This does not mean things should just be left as they are if there is a problem but to assert the need for a Reformation assumes that what is at the heart of the religion, i.e. the fundamentals have been lost or corrupted. Have the fundamentals of Islamic belief been lost or corrupted? Has the spirit of the religion been somehow hijacked by saboteurs from within? When and how has this been done? and perhaps most important what are the fundamentals that need to be rediscovered?
The truth is that we have seen reformist movements in Islam where the purpose was simply to return the religion to some state of innocence. It is called Wahabism, widely considered to be repugnant by most modern ‘reformists’. To demand Reformation in the modern world is intriguing in that it is largely being represented by individuals who have little to no formal education on Islamic scripture or her history of interpretation by scholars of all the major schools of thought, Sunni or Shia. At least Luther was someone who studied before his transformation to horse riding super hero of the masses (if a certain film is to be believed)
I also find it very interesting Adam would name drop Puritans as those who were traditionally opposed to change, but however we know that THAT THEY WERE REFORMISTS. I guess just not the right kind of reformers which leads to my final question of if a reformation took place what would it look like?
The apostasy laws say nothing about changing ones own religious beliefs, however the law has been understood as more akin to treason. As is the case when Christians were enacting this during their time in power. Jewish law teaches the same however has since been reinterpreted in light of the exile from Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. Islam has had no such need in its history to change those laws.
Christianity had its ‘reformation’ as well did Judaism. But these were done within the context of the religious traditions themselves. On that point however Sheikh Abdal Hakim Murad had once recounted when the then Caliph or the Ottoman Empire during the 1800s revoked the apostasy law because of it being unclear as how to implement it. So there are examples where this was done. Do you think the modern ‘reformists’ such as Adam Deen would be able to engage this issue with the same kind of reservation?
Patrice,
“The apostasy laws say nothing about changing ones own religious beliefs” – I thought that is precisely what they are about.
I know that in the part of the world where I live (UK) I am able to choose my religious beliefs with no fear of persecution from the state. In other parts of the world this is not the case. Do these other jurisdictions reflect the fundamentals of Islam in this respect? Or not?
It sort of tailed off after I posted my March 7th contribution, after which you posted an extract from an article from Charles Gai Eaton – this I found most interesting and gave me a way into appreciating how Muslims see the world.
However, no one responded further to the substantive points in my post – so perhaps there is more to say.
What i meant to say perhaps more clearly was that it says nothing regarding ones private beliefs. What i meant by treason was when one abandons the core beliefs of a society in favor of one thought harmful.
Is this fundamental? Thats above my pay grade and i simply don’t know enough about the relationship between law and religion in Islam. My main concern is how people who call for reformation do so often with a romanticized view of the concept as is found when the Protestant reformation is seen as a comparison. Did it accomplish its goals or simply just chuck a new coat of paint on what is really an inherent problem within the religion itself?
Is that what Adam has a problem with? The religion itself and its views of law as part of religion rather than two seperate entities?
Just a question for anyone who might know about Adam. Has he always had views like this or does this come as a result of his association with Quilliam?
Hmmm what to reform in Islam. It was already mentioned reforming killing apostates, how about reforming treating apostasy as an act of treason. Now there’s an idea.
How about reforming stoning adulterers, and cutting off the hands of thieves, or how about reforming killing people for Blasphemy, or killing homosexuals, or reforming public floggings, or reforming that a woman must provide four male witnesses to prove she as not raped (as in the case of Pakistan), thats not a complete list but its a start.
Your question is premised on a misleading understanding of Islam and how the shariah works in society. We would need to go through each item on your list and discuss the workings on the Divine law in practice.
But methinks you are not interested in that discussion.
Paul: Thanks for the info, i’m sadly not particularly familiar with Adam beyond his debates over the existence of God, are there any presentations available that he has done on the subject of reform?
I think you need to learn basic Islam or asks us questions about Islam that you do not understand rather than saying Islam must be reformed.
Where in the Quran does it say “woman must provide four male witnesses to prove she as not raped (as in the case of Pakistan)”
We do not have such a thing. Do not take Pakistan law as Islamic law. Saudi Arabia has law for women not to drive and it is not Islamic. During our prophet time, women rode Camels by themselves including his wife.
That is your ignorance about Islam, to demand its reformation with your list.
When it comes to punishing someone, Islam demands evidence or proof before that person is punished according to Sharia.
In case of sex, there must be witness and in case of rape there should be evidence of FORCE not four male witness.
It is better than western law which gave the women power to keep lying and collecting money from rich people when the have consensual sex with them and later blackmail them that they raped them and wrongly put them to jail or extort money from them.
Islam will not punish here in this world until there is concrete evidence. If there is not concrete evidence, the we leave it to God-He will make the punishment in the day of judgement.
Burhanuddin1,
I’ve just watched the video you recommended. It seems to be in the area of speculative metaphysics which is neither verifiable nor falsifiable – rather it forms part of a world view which informs ones stance towards the world and towards others. I’m not sure that it throws any light on the suggestion I posed “how about revoking all rules that punish apostasy”
Intellect,
“Do not take Pakistan law as Islamic law. Saudi Arabia has law for women not to drive and it is not Islamic”
Is there any state in the world that does implement Islamic law to your satisfaction?
Paul,
I’m sure it is, perhaps you can help me to understand.
I didn’t give a list, I’ve just mentioned apostasy. So how does this aspect of Divine law work in practice?
I thought we discussed all this already?
You ask how it works in practice. I’m not a scholar so I cannot give a fatwa on this issue. Are you asking about the law in an Islamic society, or the U.K. now. Does the individual concerned have position of their faculties? Is there a misunderstanding of Islamic teaching? Why have they left Islam? Etc etc. It is not a simple question.
I have no idea why Adam Deen thinks that he has the credentials and qualifications to lead a reform movement in Islam? I am sure that he has never studied Islam in any of the leading schools of Islamic learning, such as Al-Azhar, and does not understand Arabic or Turkish. He is a convert- doubtless with good intentions- who lacks the knowledge to speak authoritatively about Islam. That is my opinion- and I mean no disrespect to Mr Deen; I am sure that his intentions are good and he clearly understands philosophy quite well.
Maybe what we require is not a reform but a revivification (such as was undertaken by Ghazali centuries ago?). Islam has not been deformed; it is the Muslims who have been deformed. We (Muslims) need to be reformed- or conformed- to the classical consensus that was hammered out over centuries.
Andy, I’m not sure on what basis do you demand “revoking all rules that punish apostasy”?
In “your universe” a legal system is based on social consensus? Right?
So why not “keep all rules that punish apostasy” (to remain in your generalizing black and white mode)?
In those societies, where it’s social consensus? Where’s your problem?
Paul,
In our previous discussion you said
“God has His rights too and takes our religious obligations to Him with the utmost seriousness. He has ordained that once someone converts to Islam it is not permitted to leave the faith publicly and disrupt the community. The public denial of God’s will and decrees in an Islamic society is a grave offence.
There is a similar understanding in the Bible and the historical Christian tradition”
I’m not hearing from any of the Muslims on this forum an explanation of what this actually means in practice. I see references to Islamic Society, but this seems to be just a theoretical construct as there don’t seem to be any states in the world that satisfy the standards of Islam as expressed here. Some states claim to be Islamic, but I’m told they are not really so. If we are not talking about states, but sections of society within states, then they have no more right to punish people for leaving than my gym or golf club does.
So how does ‘not permitted’ work, and should there be punishment for ‘grave offence’? If so, what?
Andy you are not going to find a one size fits all answer to your question. Public apostasy in an Islamic society is punishable yes, for the reasons I have explained. But in any particular case a detailed investigation must be carried out to determine that the person really has left Islam and why. There could be a misunderstanding, the person might relent etc.
Lastly, none of us are qualified scholars who can issue legal rulings (fatwas), we can only speak in generalities
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards (or changes) his religion, kill him.’ ”
Patrice wrote: The apostasy laws say nothing about changing ones own religious beliefs, however the law has been understood as more akin to treason.
It seems certain that is saying something about personal beliefs.
But also because if someone becomes a true Christian, he wants to share the truth and love of God in Christ with others, and preach the gospel, evangelize, give out Bibles, tracts, etc.
It (Apostasy, especially the kind where in the new religion the person is motivated to share his new faith with others) is considered treason when that person starts talking about their faith to others, it seems. It upsets society. Muslim cultures generally and authorities seem afraid to allow freedom of thought and speech, debate, criticism – even in a peaceful method and manner.
Patrice,
Do you agree with the punishment laws of Islam?
Isn’t it hypocritical for Islam to demand the freedom to spread their religion, yet not give the same freedom for Christians to peacefully speak about the gospel of Christ and let people decide on their own?
Paul Williams wrote before (according to Andy) “God has His rights too and takes our religious obligations to Him with the utmost seriousness. He has ordained that once someone converts to Islam it is not permitted to leave the faith publicly and disrupt the community. The public denial of God’s will and decrees in an Islamic society is a grave offence.
There is a similar understanding in the Bible and the historical Christian tradition”
It seems you agree Paul with the apostasy law in Islam. How does it disrupt the community to allow some to follow Christianity and have open and peaceful debate, like we do here at your blog?
so you don’t want freedom of thought or religion.
This raises questions about how strong Islam is within itself, since it seems afraid of open discussion and disagreement and questioning.
Andy’s questions are good ones. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other Muslim countries are Muslim countries- just because they may have one or two things that don’t line up with the ideal era of Caliphate – (Saudi Arabia – has a king, and does not allow women to drive or vote, etc. – besides that they are pretty much implementing Sharia law. The eras of ideal Caliphate – Muhammad and four rightly guided Caliphs and the era of Dhimmitude – to Caliph Omar 2 in 717 AD and beyond to Abbasid period. Yet that early period after Muhammad died was the period when the Shiites (partisans of Ali) and Sunnis started killing one another. Omar and Uthman died violent deaths. Ali was killed by the Khaurajites.
“We would need to go through each item on your list and discuss the workings on the Divine law in practice. ”
Ok lets discuss this one by one.
Stoning or killing adulterers to death for what ever reason or by what ever method or in anyway if any of whatever conditions you see fit. Do you believe that should be “reformed’?
Christianity did not execute apostates in the NT nor in the early centuries. The complete marriage of church and state from Theodosius (380-392 AD) onward was wrong. Until freedom of religion in 1700s.
The NT way of dealing with apostasy was excommunication – putting them out of the church. Put they were free in society. They just could not come back to church until they repented.
The Israel theocratic era was temporary. Jesus took the kingdom of God away from the Jews. (Matthew 21:43-46)
“therefore the kingdom of God is being taken away from you and given to a nation that produces the fruit of it”
“the Pharisees understood that Jesus was speaking about them”
You said;
It seems you agree Paul with the apostasy law in Islam. How does it disrupt the community to allow some to follow Christianity and have open and peaceful debate, like we do here at your blog?
so you don’t want freedom of thought or religion.
This raises questions about how strong Islam is within itself, since it seems afraid of open discussion and disagreement and questioning.
I say;
Islam is not afraid of anything. Islam is the truth. We discussed here over and over that Islam is tolerant of other religions with the fact that there are still non Muslims in Muslim majority countries from centuries till today and it is a fact.
It is also a fact that Islam had its full rule as a caliphate and implemented sharia and allowed Jews, Christians and others to live and Jews have much money than the Muslims even thought they pay Jizya.
When the Christians conquered the Muslim rule, they force converted, killed and persecute non Christians till all the Jews run for their lives and followed their Muslim brothers to wherever and it is evidenced in Morocco, Iraqi Jews and Christians, Yemenite Jews etc. until the evangelical Christians Zionists bribed some of them to move to Israel after its creation.
Some Jews are angry for the evangelical Christians spoiling their heritage and uprooting their communities to Israel.
In Europe under Christian rule, no single Muslim is allowed because the Christians are persecuting and killing themselves and example is John Calving ordering the Killing and burning the body of Michael because he denied the Trinity and the Deity of Christ.
Europe remain barbaric under Christian rule until the liberals, atheist and secularist saved the west by defeating the Christians and the Pope’s power reduced.
Ken Temple, Islam allowed Christians to practiced their religion and it is evidenced from centuries till today. Christians did not allow single Muslim under their rule. Islam allowed Christians, Jews and other religion to practice their religion and you can see indigenous native Christians in all Muslim majority countries today to prove the fact.
It is the evangelical Christians of the USA who are voting for war to kill Muslims in the Muslim majority countries to create vacuum for isis to kill both Muslims and Christians. A Muslim broadcaster cried live on TV about what isis are doing to Christians.
It is the wicked evangelical Christians of the USA who are voting for Donald Trump because he said “Islam hates us”
What does that mean? Another war on Islam and Muslims when Donald is in power voted by evangelical Christians to go and kill more and create more isis in Iran.
A Christian teacher in the USA gave an assignment for her students to learn Middle Eastern calligraphy and one happens to be the shahada in Arabic and the parents of the students are very upset about that.
I understand their upset. They think Islamic God is a moon God. If Muslims will not like Christians to teach their children to worship man, 3 persons, dead God etc. in an Islamic society, it is justifiable. In Islamic society or caliphate, Christians are allowed to practice their religion with their children but no Muslim will allow them to teach to their children worshiping a man.
Christian like Ken Temple right now will not allow a voodoo priest to teach his children how to worship a snake, but will accuse Islamic Caliphate to allow him to teach their children how to worship man Jesus.
Children and women are vulnerable and that is what the evangelical Christians use during war in Muslim countries to preach to children and women. They do not preach to men.
ISLAMIC CALIPHATE ALLOW INTER REGIOUS DISCUSSION BETWEEN MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS LIKE WE ARE DOING HERE. YES, THEY ALLOW IF YOU READ THE HISTORY OF THE CALIPHATE. OUR PROPHET ALLOW A LOT OF CHRISTIAN MUSLIM AND JEWS DIALOG IN HIS MOSQUE. NO MUSLIM IS AFRAID OF CHRISTIAN EVAGELISM TO GROWN UPS BUT AFRAID OF TEACHING VULNERABLE CHILDREN AND WOMEN OF WAR HOW TO WORSHIP A MAN JESUS AS IS DONE IN SYRIA REFUGEE CAMP.
IT WAS DONE IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, SOMALIA, SUDAN BY CHRISTIANS WHO USE WAR TO SPREAD CHRISTIANITY,
Fact: Islam allowed other religion to practice their religion and the is fair. Freedom of religion is established clearly in the Quran.
Fact: Christians never allowed Muslims and other religion to practice their religion under Christian rule but they persecuted, kill and torture each other( Christians and Christians) until secularism took over from them by force and freedom of religion was established
Children, women and the vulnerable.
Ken, you would not allow a voodoo priest to teach your children how to worship snake and so do not expect Muslim parent will be happy for you to evangelize the worshiping of man Jesus to their children and women.
Don’t get me wrong, under the caliphate Christians, Muslims and Jews are allowed to dialog and discuss and evangelize their religion in a friendly manner like we are doing here.
Christians like you travel to Iran, Morocco, Egypt, Somalia, Yemen, Malaysia, Indonesia etc. and all Muslim majority countries to evangelize Christianity but you are finding it hard to covert the grown ups so you create war to target the vulnerable women and children and still you do not have much success there.
Intellect,
“under the caliphate Christians, Muslims and Jews are allowed to dialog and discuss and evangelize their religion ”
You use the present tense. Where is this caliphate?
So many questions ignored Mr Williams. You appear somewhat reluctant to express your own personal views of many aspects of your religion. One wonders how you apply your modern secular and tolerant upbringing with your rather polar opposite beliefs.
Intellect:
“Freedom of religion is established clearly in the Quran.”
At last! Some clarity. Surely this means that punishment for apostasy is unlawful in Islam. Freedom implies freedom for a non Muslim to remain a non Muslim, or for a non Muslim to become a Muslim, or for a Muslim to become a non Muslim.
glad you finally got the quote you wanted Andy! Punishment for apostasy is not ‘unlawful’ it is required (in certain circumstances) by the prophet himself.
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn `Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ), ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”
Muslim scholars/jurists (Ulemaas) affirmed that , at the level of personal conscience and private religion, the freedom of belief was absolute. This is Qur’anic mandate, now the way the dealing with the hadiths which seem to declare leaving Islam a penalty punishable by death is by subordinating them into the actual case-by-case of Prophet Muhammad and his early successors on apostates.
There are lists of instances in which Prophet Muhammad ignore blatant unbelief among the Medinan hypocrites and even pardoned such vocal apostate such as Ibn Abi Sarh a Meccan who made career of insulting the Prophet using poetry after his apostasy. This proves that the hadiths ordering execution for apostasy cannot be taken as definitive rather it must be understood within some specified context.
Islamic jurists must recognised that the severe form of apostasy which deserve death penalty was those close to high treason, that is a betrayal of the muslim state. This is a trangression apostasy such as public ridicule of the religion and calling others to apostate which could be seen as an attack on the religious establishment of an Islamic society.
Blogging Theology 
Reform has never been a entirely positive process especially when it comes to religions. Christianity under the Protestant reformation was just as capable of violence and political corruption as the status quo. Just look at what happened under Martin Luther and his persecution of the anabaptists and never mind the long standing persecution of Catholics under the reign of Queen Elizibeth I.
This does not mean things should just be left as they are if there is a problem but to assert the need for a Reformation assumes that what is at the heart of the religion, i.e. the fundamentals have been lost or corrupted. Have the fundamentals of Islamic belief been lost or corrupted? Has the spirit of the religion been somehow hijacked by saboteurs from within? When and how has this been done? and perhaps most important what are the fundamentals that need to be rediscovered?
The truth is that we have seen reformist movements in Islam where the purpose was simply to return the religion to some state of innocence. It is called Wahabism, widely considered to be repugnant by most modern ‘reformists’. To demand Reformation in the modern world is intriguing in that it is largely being represented by individuals who have little to no formal education on Islamic scripture or her history of interpretation by scholars of all the major schools of thought, Sunni or Shia. At least Luther was someone who studied before his transformation to horse riding super hero of the masses (if a certain film is to be believed)
I also find it very interesting Adam would name drop Puritans as those who were traditionally opposed to change, but however we know that THAT THEY WERE REFORMISTS. I guess just not the right kind of reformers which leads to my final question of if a reformation took place what would it look like?
LikeLike
As a starter, how about revoking all rules that punish apostasy?
LikeLike
It’s all relative, Andy, innit
LikeLike
What is relative to what B?
Err.. innit?
LikeLike
The apostasy laws say nothing about changing ones own religious beliefs, however the law has been understood as more akin to treason. As is the case when Christians were enacting this during their time in power. Jewish law teaches the same however has since been reinterpreted in light of the exile from Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. Islam has had no such need in its history to change those laws.
Christianity had its ‘reformation’ as well did Judaism. But these were done within the context of the religious traditions themselves. On that point however Sheikh Abdal Hakim Murad had once recounted when the then Caliph or the Ottoman Empire during the 1800s revoked the apostasy law because of it being unclear as how to implement it. So there are examples where this was done. Do you think the modern ‘reformists’ such as Adam Deen would be able to engage this issue with the same kind of reservation?
LikeLike
Patrice,
“The apostasy laws say nothing about changing ones own religious beliefs” – I thought that is precisely what they are about.
I know that in the part of the world where I live (UK) I am able to choose my religious beliefs with no fear of persecution from the state. In other parts of the world this is not the case. Do these other jurisdictions reflect the fundamentals of Islam in this respect? Or not?
LikeLike
Haven’t we had this discussion before Andy?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly Andy, is there something absolute?
LikeLike
Paul,
Yes we did indeed have a lively discussion recently on this topic
https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/03/02/dr-jonathan-brown-discusses-apostasy-law-in-islam/
It sort of tailed off after I posted my March 7th contribution, after which you posted an extract from an article from Charles Gai Eaton – this I found most interesting and gave me a way into appreciating how Muslims see the world.
However, no one responded further to the substantive points in my post – so perhaps there is more to say.
LikeLike
I’m not sure I have anything to add to Jonathan Brown’s contribution.
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1,
“is there something absolute?”
I’m not sure if this question actually has any meaning. Can you be tell me what you mean by “absolute”?
LikeLike
Andy I’m shocked. How do start any discussion of religious matters if you cannot discern between the relative and the absolute?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s2H0ScJSMY
LikeLike
Andy is an atheist ( thought a very nice one) 😊
LikeLike
Andy
What i meant to say perhaps more clearly was that it says nothing regarding ones private beliefs. What i meant by treason was when one abandons the core beliefs of a society in favor of one thought harmful.
Is this fundamental? Thats above my pay grade and i simply don’t know enough about the relationship between law and religion in Islam. My main concern is how people who call for reformation do so often with a romanticized view of the concept as is found when the Protestant reformation is seen as a comparison. Did it accomplish its goals or simply just chuck a new coat of paint on what is really an inherent problem within the religion itself?
Is that what Adam has a problem with? The religion itself and its views of law as part of religion rather than two seperate entities?
LikeLike
“With challenge comes change”. Not, bad Adam Deen. Maybe you can come up with a marketing slogan like “Yes we can”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just a question for anyone who might know about Adam. Has he always had views like this or does this come as a result of his association with Quilliam?
LikeLike
Adam’s views have evolved over time and are still evolving it seems, partly under their own momentum and part as a result of his new associations.
LikeLike
Hmmm what to reform in Islam. It was already mentioned reforming killing apostates, how about reforming treating apostasy as an act of treason. Now there’s an idea.
How about reforming stoning adulterers, and cutting off the hands of thieves, or how about reforming killing people for Blasphemy, or killing homosexuals, or reforming public floggings, or reforming that a woman must provide four male witnesses to prove she as not raped (as in the case of Pakistan), thats not a complete list but its a start.
So get to it Muslims start reforming.
LikeLike
Paul Williams So you don’t think any of those things I mentioned need to be “reformed”?
LikeLike
Your question is premised on a misleading understanding of Islam and how the shariah works in society. We would need to go through each item on your list and discuss the workings on the Divine law in practice.
But methinks you are not interested in that discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul: Thanks for the info, i’m sadly not particularly familiar with Adam beyond his debates over the existence of God, are there any presentations available that he has done on the subject of reform?
LikeLike
He is agitating to change/reform in Islam on a daily basis. You could do worse and follow him on Twitter for regular updates.
LikeLike
Yahya Sent Me
I think you need to learn basic Islam or asks us questions about Islam that you do not understand rather than saying Islam must be reformed.
Where in the Quran does it say “woman must provide four male witnesses to prove she as not raped (as in the case of Pakistan)”
We do not have such a thing. Do not take Pakistan law as Islamic law. Saudi Arabia has law for women not to drive and it is not Islamic. During our prophet time, women rode Camels by themselves including his wife.
That is your ignorance about Islam, to demand its reformation with your list.
When it comes to punishing someone, Islam demands evidence or proof before that person is punished according to Sharia.
In case of sex, there must be witness and in case of rape there should be evidence of FORCE not four male witness.
It is better than western law which gave the women power to keep lying and collecting money from rich people when the have consensual sex with them and later blackmail them that they raped them and wrongly put them to jail or extort money from them.
Islam will not punish here in this world until there is concrete evidence. If there is not concrete evidence, the we leave it to God-He will make the punishment in the day of judgement.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Burhanuddin1,
I’ve just watched the video you recommended. It seems to be in the area of speculative metaphysics which is neither verifiable nor falsifiable – rather it forms part of a world view which informs ones stance towards the world and towards others. I’m not sure that it throws any light on the suggestion I posed “how about revoking all rules that punish apostasy”
LikeLike
Intellect,
“Do not take Pakistan law as Islamic law. Saudi Arabia has law for women not to drive and it is not Islamic”
Is there any state in the world that does implement Islamic law to your satisfaction?
LikeLike
Paul,
I’m sure it is, perhaps you can help me to understand.
I didn’t give a list, I’ve just mentioned apostasy. So how does this aspect of Divine law work in practice?
LikeLike
I thought we discussed all this already?
You ask how it works in practice. I’m not a scholar so I cannot give a fatwa on this issue. Are you asking about the law in an Islamic society, or the U.K. now. Does the individual concerned have position of their faculties? Is there a misunderstanding of Islamic teaching? Why have they left Islam? Etc etc. It is not a simple question.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have no idea why Adam Deen thinks that he has the credentials and qualifications to lead a reform movement in Islam? I am sure that he has never studied Islam in any of the leading schools of Islamic learning, such as Al-Azhar, and does not understand Arabic or Turkish. He is a convert- doubtless with good intentions- who lacks the knowledge to speak authoritatively about Islam. That is my opinion- and I mean no disrespect to Mr Deen; I am sure that his intentions are good and he clearly understands philosophy quite well.
Maybe what we require is not a reform but a revivification (such as was undertaken by Ghazali centuries ago?). Islam has not been deformed; it is the Muslims who have been deformed. We (Muslims) need to be reformed- or conformed- to the classical consensus that was hammered out over centuries.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Andy, I’m not sure on what basis do you demand “revoking all rules that punish apostasy”?
In “your universe” a legal system is based on social consensus? Right?
So why not “keep all rules that punish apostasy” (to remain in your generalizing black and white mode)?
In those societies, where it’s social consensus? Where’s your problem?
LikeLike
Paul,
In our previous discussion you said
“God has His rights too and takes our religious obligations to Him with the utmost seriousness. He has ordained that once someone converts to Islam it is not permitted to leave the faith publicly and disrupt the community. The public denial of God’s will and decrees in an Islamic society is a grave offence.
There is a similar understanding in the Bible and the historical Christian tradition”
I’m not hearing from any of the Muslims on this forum an explanation of what this actually means in practice. I see references to Islamic Society, but this seems to be just a theoretical construct as there don’t seem to be any states in the world that satisfy the standards of Islam as expressed here. Some states claim to be Islamic, but I’m told they are not really so. If we are not talking about states, but sections of society within states, then they have no more right to punish people for leaving than my gym or golf club does.
So how does ‘not permitted’ work, and should there be punishment for ‘grave offence’? If so, what?
LikeLike
Andy you are not going to find a one size fits all answer to your question. Public apostasy in an Islamic society is punishable yes, for the reasons I have explained. But in any particular case a detailed investigation must be carried out to determine that the person really has left Islam and why. There could be a misunderstanding, the person might relent etc.
Lastly, none of us are qualified scholars who can issue legal rulings (fatwas), we can only speak in generalities
LikeLike
Hadith –
Sahih Al Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ‘Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards (or changes) his religion, kill him.’ ”
Patrice wrote:
The apostasy laws say nothing about changing ones own religious beliefs, however the law has been understood as more akin to treason.
It seems certain that is saying something about personal beliefs.
But also because if someone becomes a true Christian, he wants to share the truth and love of God in Christ with others, and preach the gospel, evangelize, give out Bibles, tracts, etc.
It (Apostasy, especially the kind where in the new religion the person is motivated to share his new faith with others) is considered treason when that person starts talking about their faith to others, it seems. It upsets society. Muslim cultures generally and authorities seem afraid to allow freedom of thought and speech, debate, criticism – even in a peaceful method and manner.
Patrice,
Do you agree with the punishment laws of Islam?
Isn’t it hypocritical for Islam to demand the freedom to spread their religion, yet not give the same freedom for Christians to peacefully speak about the gospel of Christ and let people decide on their own?
LikeLike
Of course until recently Christians executed apostates. The bible too commands the death penalty – a law which Jesus upheld.
LikeLike
Paul Williams wrote before (according to Andy)
“God has His rights too and takes our religious obligations to Him with the utmost seriousness. He has ordained that once someone converts to Islam it is not permitted to leave the faith publicly and disrupt the community. The public denial of God’s will and decrees in an Islamic society is a grave offence.
There is a similar understanding in the Bible and the historical Christian tradition”
It seems you agree Paul with the apostasy law in Islam. How does it disrupt the community to allow some to follow Christianity and have open and peaceful debate, like we do here at your blog?
so you don’t want freedom of thought or religion.
This raises questions about how strong Islam is within itself, since it seems afraid of open discussion and disagreement and questioning.
Andy’s questions are good ones. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other Muslim countries are Muslim countries- just because they may have one or two things that don’t line up with the ideal era of Caliphate – (Saudi Arabia – has a king, and does not allow women to drive or vote, etc. – besides that they are pretty much implementing Sharia law. The eras of ideal Caliphate – Muhammad and four rightly guided Caliphs and the era of Dhimmitude – to Caliph Omar 2 in 717 AD and beyond to Abbasid period. Yet that early period after Muhammad died was the period when the Shiites (partisans of Ali) and Sunnis started killing one another. Omar and Uthman died violent deaths. Ali was killed by the Khaurajites.
LikeLike
Paul Wrote…
“We would need to go through each item on your list and discuss the workings on the Divine law in practice. ”
Ok lets discuss this one by one.
Stoning or killing adulterers to death for what ever reason or by what ever method or in anyway if any of whatever conditions you see fit. Do you believe that should be “reformed’?
LikeLike
What do you mean by reformed? Define
LikeLike
Christianity did not execute apostates in the NT nor in the early centuries. The complete marriage of church and state from Theodosius (380-392 AD) onward was wrong. Until freedom of religion in 1700s.
The NT way of dealing with apostasy was excommunication – putting them out of the church. Put they were free in society. They just could not come back to church until they repented.
The Israel theocratic era was temporary. Jesus took the kingdom of God away from the Jews. (Matthew 21:43-46)
“therefore the kingdom of God is being taken away from you and given to a nation that produces the fruit of it”
“the Pharisees understood that Jesus was speaking about them”
LikeLike
That’s just your view Ken. Eminent Christian theologians from Aquinas to Calvin would strongly disagree with you.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
You said;
It seems you agree Paul with the apostasy law in Islam. How does it disrupt the community to allow some to follow Christianity and have open and peaceful debate, like we do here at your blog?
so you don’t want freedom of thought or religion.
This raises questions about how strong Islam is within itself, since it seems afraid of open discussion and disagreement and questioning.
I say;
Islam is not afraid of anything. Islam is the truth. We discussed here over and over that Islam is tolerant of other religions with the fact that there are still non Muslims in Muslim majority countries from centuries till today and it is a fact.
It is also a fact that Islam had its full rule as a caliphate and implemented sharia and allowed Jews, Christians and others to live and Jews have much money than the Muslims even thought they pay Jizya.
When the Christians conquered the Muslim rule, they force converted, killed and persecute non Christians till all the Jews run for their lives and followed their Muslim brothers to wherever and it is evidenced in Morocco, Iraqi Jews and Christians, Yemenite Jews etc. until the evangelical Christians Zionists bribed some of them to move to Israel after its creation.
Some Jews are angry for the evangelical Christians spoiling their heritage and uprooting their communities to Israel.
In Europe under Christian rule, no single Muslim is allowed because the Christians are persecuting and killing themselves and example is John Calving ordering the Killing and burning the body of Michael because he denied the Trinity and the Deity of Christ.
Europe remain barbaric under Christian rule until the liberals, atheist and secularist saved the west by defeating the Christians and the Pope’s power reduced.
Ken Temple, Islam allowed Christians to practiced their religion and it is evidenced from centuries till today. Christians did not allow single Muslim under their rule. Islam allowed Christians, Jews and other religion to practice their religion and you can see indigenous native Christians in all Muslim majority countries today to prove the fact.
It is the evangelical Christians of the USA who are voting for war to kill Muslims in the Muslim majority countries to create vacuum for isis to kill both Muslims and Christians. A Muslim broadcaster cried live on TV about what isis are doing to Christians.
It is the wicked evangelical Christians of the USA who are voting for Donald Trump because he said “Islam hates us”
What does that mean? Another war on Islam and Muslims when Donald is in power voted by evangelical Christians to go and kill more and create more isis in Iran.
A Christian teacher in the USA gave an assignment for her students to learn Middle Eastern calligraphy and one happens to be the shahada in Arabic and the parents of the students are very upset about that.
I understand their upset. They think Islamic God is a moon God. If Muslims will not like Christians to teach their children to worship man, 3 persons, dead God etc. in an Islamic society, it is justifiable. In Islamic society or caliphate, Christians are allowed to practice their religion with their children but no Muslim will allow them to teach to their children worshiping a man.
Christian like Ken Temple right now will not allow a voodoo priest to teach his children how to worship a snake, but will accuse Islamic Caliphate to allow him to teach their children how to worship man Jesus.
Children and women are vulnerable and that is what the evangelical Christians use during war in Muslim countries to preach to children and women. They do not preach to men.
ISLAMIC CALIPHATE ALLOW INTER REGIOUS DISCUSSION BETWEEN MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS LIKE WE ARE DOING HERE. YES, THEY ALLOW IF YOU READ THE HISTORY OF THE CALIPHATE. OUR PROPHET ALLOW A LOT OF CHRISTIAN MUSLIM AND JEWS DIALOG IN HIS MOSQUE. NO MUSLIM IS AFRAID OF CHRISTIAN EVAGELISM TO GROWN UPS BUT AFRAID OF TEACHING VULNERABLE CHILDREN AND WOMEN OF WAR HOW TO WORSHIP A MAN JESUS AS IS DONE IN SYRIA REFUGEE CAMP.
IT WAS DONE IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, SOMALIA, SUDAN BY CHRISTIANS WHO USE WAR TO SPREAD CHRISTIANITY,
Thanks.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
Fact: Islam allowed other religion to practice their religion and the is fair. Freedom of religion is established clearly in the Quran.
Fact: Christians never allowed Muslims and other religion to practice their religion under Christian rule but they persecuted, kill and torture each other( Christians and Christians) until secularism took over from them by force and freedom of religion was established
Children, women and the vulnerable.
Ken, you would not allow a voodoo priest to teach your children how to worship snake and so do not expect Muslim parent will be happy for you to evangelize the worshiping of man Jesus to their children and women.
Don’t get me wrong, under the caliphate Christians, Muslims and Jews are allowed to dialog and discuss and evangelize their religion in a friendly manner like we are doing here.
Christians like you travel to Iran, Morocco, Egypt, Somalia, Yemen, Malaysia, Indonesia etc. and all Muslim majority countries to evangelize Christianity but you are finding it hard to covert the grown ups so you create war to target the vulnerable women and children and still you do not have much success there.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Intellect,
“under the caliphate Christians, Muslims and Jews are allowed to dialog and discuss and evangelize their religion ”
You use the present tense. Where is this caliphate?
LikeLike
lol he does not mean a temporal polity in the world today, but the system considered as such.
LikeLike
So many questions ignored Mr Williams. You appear somewhat reluctant to express your own personal views of many aspects of your religion. One wonders how you apply your modern secular and tolerant upbringing with your rather polar opposite beliefs.
LikeLike
yes one wonders indeed…
LikeLike
And one concludes……..
LikeLike
Intellect:
“Freedom of religion is established clearly in the Quran.”
At last! Some clarity. Surely this means that punishment for apostasy is unlawful in Islam. Freedom implies freedom for a non Muslim to remain a non Muslim, or for a non Muslim to become a Muslim, or for a Muslim to become a non Muslim.
LikeLike
glad you finally got the quote you wanted Andy! Punishment for apostasy is not ‘unlawful’ it is required (in certain circumstances) by the prophet himself.
LikeLike
Oh…
Where would I find the prophet’s ruling on this?
LikeLike
It’s in the Hadith. If you just google it
LikeLike
Is this the sort of thing you have in mind?
(Found here http://sunnah.com/bukhari/88)
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn `Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ), ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed.
LikeLike
Intellect:
How do you reconcile your statement:
“Freedom of religion is established clearly in the Quran.”
with: ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’ ( http://sunnah.com/bukhari/88)
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
Hi Andy
Muslim scholars/jurists (Ulemaas) affirmed that , at the level of personal conscience and private religion, the freedom of belief was absolute. This is Qur’anic mandate, now the way the dealing with the hadiths which seem to declare leaving Islam a penalty punishable by death is by subordinating them into the actual case-by-case of Prophet Muhammad and his early successors on apostates.
There are lists of instances in which Prophet Muhammad ignore blatant unbelief among the Medinan hypocrites and even pardoned such vocal apostate such as Ibn Abi Sarh a Meccan who made career of insulting the Prophet using poetry after his apostasy. This proves that the hadiths ordering execution for apostasy cannot be taken as definitive rather it must be understood within some specified context.
LikeLike
Islamic jurists must recognised that the severe form of apostasy which deserve death penalty was those close to high treason, that is a betrayal of the muslim state. This is a trangression apostasy such as public ridicule of the religion and calling others to apostate which could be seen as an attack on the religious establishment of an Islamic society.
LikeLiked by 1 person