Support NeoGAF

[walking fiend]

So, we had a discussion in another thread about whether Islam sanctions 'killing of apostates'. The discussion wasn't quite related to the topic of the other thread, so I thought I can create another thread.

My claim is that even a literal reading of Qu'ran, which is the book of Islam, prohibits aggression and promotes peace. Thus killing is an option only as an act of defense in time of war:

Fight those in the way of god who fight with you, but do not be aggressive: God does not like aggressors.

If they keep aloof and do not fight, and offer peace, God has left you no reason to fight them.

But if they are inclined to peace, make peace with them.

---

Side note: The Arabic words that Qu'ran uses for fighting with apostates in these verses is not related to the word Jihad, but are different forms of the gerund Ghotela, which literally means killing in Arabic. The root of the word Jihad is Johd, which literally means effort (or strife), and in Islam can mean anything that a Muslim is supposed to do to maintain his/her Islam [praying to god, abstaining from sins, helping the poor, pondering upon nature, etc.]

So how does it come that the Islamic terrorists are called Jihadist and not simply 'killers'? Checking Webster, the word originated in 1865-70, which coincides with the final years and start of downfall of the last Islamic empire, Ottoman Empire, which was dissolved after WW1. However, the surge in usage of the word occurred after 1948 Israel-Arab war.

My conclusion is that the Jihad and Jihadists should first be studied in the context of the political situation of Arab nations and secondarily in the context of Islam, as Jihad seems to reflect the struggle of Arab nations to regain sovereignty over their lands more than the struggle of Muslim people against, well, apostates. My conclusion becomes more plausible once one realizes that there are 1.6 billion Muslims, while there are less than 400 million Arabic speaking people living in the world, and juxtaposes this observation with the fact that modern Jihadists have mostly originated from within this Arabic nations. I let you decide the consequences of my conclusion [hint: Tearing middle-east apart even further than it already has been is not a solution to terrorism; banning Muslims from crossing your borders isn't one either].

---

The rest of this post is my own personal musings with regard to whether Qu'ran should be read literally or not; so it can be ignored

The interesting part is that these verses, like most of the other verses, are conversations of God with Muhammad that were revealed to him as the events were unfolding during the first several years of Islam. So, why is this important? Well, because it seems quite obvious to me [probably much less obvious to many other people, I admit] that a literal reading of Qu'ran is bound to be misleading if one is not quite familiar with the social, political, and historical contexts that surrounded the revelation of each verse.

So, what is the context of all these verse about fighting with apostates? Well, I assume that Muhammad was quite familiar with the lives of Christ and many other prophets before him [at that time many Jews and Christians still lived in that part of the Arab world that is now called Saudi Arabia]; and he asked himself "do I want to be crucified?", and I assume he probably thought "no." So he decided to take up arms against those who wanted to kill him and his followers. I shouldn't need to point out that the apostates of those times were nothing like atheist liberal of our times that defend free speech and human rights; they weren't even remotely as civilized as Romans.

There is also a funny observation with regard to contextual interpenetration of Qu'ran: there is little historical information available about pre-Islamic era in the Arab world that doesn't come directly from Qu'ran [for example, take the topics of infanticide and women rights]. So you could say Qu'ran is the source that provides its own context for interpretation as well.

Now, we can see why it is possible to dissect the question of the topic "Does Islam advocate killing of apostates?" into two separate questions:

• "Did Muhammad advocate killing of apostates?"
• "Should a Muslim do what Muhammad thought he should do 1400 ago?"

My answer to the first question, is what I already presented in the first section of my post: it is a resounding no.

My answer to the second question is also short: each person should think and decide what is right or wrong -_- but in this particular case it should be pretty obvious that if 1400 years ago god didn't like aggressors, he doesn't like them now either.

"Could the activity of thinking as such, the habit of examining whatever happens to come to pass or to attract attention, regardless of results and specific content, could this activity be among the conditions that make men abstain from evil-doing?"
- Hannah Arendt

 

[haxamin]

Hadith seems to be indifferent towards it. The same response also judging by the the PMs I get on fb..

 

[sirap]

It's been years since I last studied the Quran, but I remember coming up with the same conclusion as you.

It's fascinating (and sad) seeing how much peoples perception of jihad has changed over the years.

Looking forward to seeing the replies in this thread. Islam isn't perfect—no religion is, and it's ridiculous to take everything written down in these holy texts literally.

 

[Chezzymann]

From what I've read

Spoiler

on wikipedia

different people interpret it differently similar to stuff like stoning in the bible. But yeah it seems like it comes down to a lack of historical context and translation issue like you said.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

The last thread was a bloodbath but thanks for your analysis, I agree with you whole-heartedly.

The issue really is that Islam has a massive PR problem and if the media can find a fuck-nugget to advocate something like this, the people who were looking to hate Islam or already had reservations will jump on it quicker than flies on shit. I guess the real issue is that outside of the odd Imam, Islam doesn't have a pyramid power structure like, for example, Catholicism has.

That means two things; a) there can be no easy consensus; b) there's nobody to blame. If Catholic priests do or say something stupid, the Pope or others can say 'no, this is wrong' but in Islam the argument almost feels cross-purposes where each advocate has an equal opinion. Though, I guess it could be said that Catholics can easily ignore a Pope or Archbishop. I guess it's kind of a double-edged sword, it validates stupid opinions but also means you can't blame an entire faith as easily so there's not really anyone to hold accountable.

So called prominent figures in Islam are usually just government-funded 'outreach' projects which New Labour seemed to adore or conversely there's people like Maajid Nawaz whose authority can easily questioned for the same reason.

 

[Nesotenso]

Yeah the word Jihad means struggle and the concept is more about the fact that an ordinary person faces constant obstacles to do the right thing.

I remember reading this from my religious classes. Copy pasting this from an online source.

Jihad has many forms,

Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb)

Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan)

Jihad by the pen/knowledge (jihad bil qalam/ilm)

Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad)

Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif)

There is an armed conflict component to it and terrorists will always try to justify that their cause is just.

 

[Mohonky]

The last thread was a bloodbath but thanks for your analysis, I agree with you whole-heartedly.

The issue really is that Islam has a massive PR problem and if the media can find a fuck-nugget to advocate something like this, the people who were looking to hate Islam or already had reservations will jump on it quicker than flies on shit. I guess the real issue is that outside of the odd Imam, Islam doesn't have a pyramid power structure like, for example, Catholicism has.

That means two things; a) there can be no easy consensus; b) there's nobody to blame. If Catholic priests do or say something stupid, the Pope or others can say 'no, this is wrong' but in Islam the argument almost feels cross-purposes where each advocate has an equal opinion. Though, I guess it could be said that Catholics can easily ignore a Pope or Archbishop. I guess it's kind of a double-edged sword, it validates stupid opinions but also means you can't blame an entire faith as easily so there's not really anyone to hold accountable.

So called prominent figures in Islam are usually just government-funded 'outreach' projects which New Labour seemed to adore or conversely there's people like Maajid Nawaz whose authority can easily questioned for the same reason.

Problem is that works both ways, Mufti's and Jihadists use exactly the same selective process to justify their means.

There is plenty of other bullshit in other religions that was routinely used in the past on a large scale to justify war, genocide, occupation etc, but that was largely staged over hundreds of years ago. Unfortunately for Islam, this same problem is still very relevant on a grand scale in many African, Middle Eastern, West Asian nations and sects within regions even where Islam is not the predominant religion.

 

[Toa TAK]

Looking forward to MuslimGAF's replies to this.

 

[walking fiend]

Hadith seems to be indifferent towards it. The same response also judging by the the PMs I get on fb..

I am not familiar with Hadiths in general, however, whatever is their content, it should come second to Qu'ran [I mean it is the holy book and actually is presented as the Miracle of Muhammad after all].

The last thread was a bloodbath but thanks for your analysis, I agree with you whole-heartedly.

The issue really is that Islam has a massive PR problem and if the media can find a fuck-nugget to advocate something like this, the people who were looking to hate Islam or already had reservations will jump on it quicker than flies on shit. I guess the real issue is that outside of the odd Imam, Islam doesn't have a pyramid power structure like, for example, Catholicism has.

That means two things; a) there can be no easy consensus; b) there's nobody to blame. If Catholic priests do or say something stupid, the Pope or others can say 'no, this is wrong' but in Islam the argument almost feels cross-purposes where each advocate has an equal opinion. Though, I guess it could be said that Catholics can easily ignore a Pope or Archbishop. I guess it's kind of a double-edged sword, it validates stupid opinions but also means you can't blame an entire faith as easily so there's not really anyone to hold accountable.

So called prominent figures in Islam are usually just government-funded 'outreach' projects which New Labour seemed to adore or conversely there's people like Maajid Nawaz whose authority can easily questioned for the same reason.

I understand your point and from a practical point of view it seems to be quite a hurdle. I don't have a solution to it, as I believe the pyramid structure of catholic church was equally problematic [dark ages were horrible].

Yeah the word Jihad means struggle and the concept is more about the fact that an ordinary person faces constant obstacles to do the right thing.

I remember reading this from my religious classes. Copy pasting this from an online source.

Jihad has many forms,

Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb)

Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan)

Jihad by the pen/knowledge (jihad bil qalam/ilm)

Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad)

Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif)

There is an armed conflict component to it and terrorists will always try to justify that their cause is just.

This component can be interpreted only from the verses that advocate Muslims to Jihad and then goes on to advocate them to kill their enemies. However, as I have quoted in the OP, such killings have a very specific limit exposed upon them: you cannot kill or even wage war unless your enemies actively seek the same.

From what I've read

Spoiler

on wikipedia

different people interpret it differently similar to stuff like stoning in the bible. But yeah it seems like it comes down to a lack of historical context and translation issue like you said.

I think you edited out your question, but I believe it was actually on topic: sure, there are Muslims who believe that if laws of Islam are practiced exactly as stated in Qu'ran, it is going to work out perfectly. For such issues, I believe the solution lies in a contextual reading of Qu'ran. You see, the main problem is that if we are supposed to read everything in context, then what stops us from just interpreting it in whatever way we desire? Well, the answer as I noted in the last paragraph of my OP is that we need to think and stop escaping from the reality of world.

 

[iamblades]

So, we had a discussion in another thread about whether Islam sanctions 'killing of apostates'. The discussion wasn't quite related to the topic of the other thread, so I thought I can create another thread.

My claim is that even a literal reading of Qu'ran, which is the book of Islam, prohibits aggression and promotes peace. Thus killing is an option only as an act of defense in time of war:







---

Side note: The Arabic words that Qu'ran uses for fighting with apostates in these verses is not related to the word Jihad, but are different forms of the gerund Ghotela, which literally means killing in Arabic. The root of the word Jihad is Johd, which literally means effort (or strife), and in Islam can mean anything that a Muslim is supposed to do to maintain his/her Islam [praying to god, abstaining from sins, helping the poor, pondering upon nature, etc.]

So how does it come that the Islamic terrorists are called Jihadist and not simply 'killers'? Checking Webster, the word originated in 1865-70, which coincides with the final years and start of downfall of the last Islamic empire, Ottoman Empire, which was dissolved after WW1. However, the surge in usage of the word occurred after 1948 Israel-Arab war.

My conclusion is that the Jihad and Jihadists should first be studied in the context of the political situation of Arab nations and secondarily in the context of Islam, as Jihad seems to reflect the struggle of Arab nations to regain sovereignty over their lands more than the struggle of Muslim people against, well, apostates. My conclusion becomes more plausible once one realizes that there are 1.6 billion Muslims, while there are less than 400 million Arabic speaking people living in the world, and juxtaposes this observation with the fact that modern Jihadists have mostly originated from within this Arabic nations. I let you decide the consequences of my conclusion [hint: Tearing middle-east apart even further than it already has been is not a solution to terrorism; banning Muslims from crossing your borders isn't one either].

---

The rest of this post is my own personal musings with regard to whether Qu'ran should be read literally or not; so it can be ignored

The interesting part is that these verses, like most of the other verses, are conversations of God with Muhammad that were revealed to him as the events were unfolding during the first several years of Islam. So, why is this important? Well, because it seems quite obvious to me [probably much less obvious to many other people, I admit] that a literal reading of Qu'ran is bound to be misleading if one is not quite familiar with the social, political, and historical contexts that surrounded the revelation of each verse.

So, what is the context of all these verse about fighting with apostates? Well, I assume that Muhammad was quite familiar with the lives of Christ and many other prophets before him [at that time many Jews and Christians still lived in that part of the Arab world that is now called Saudi Arabia]; and he asked himself "do I want to be crucified?", and I assume he probably thought "no." So he decided to take up arms against those who wanted to kill him and his followers. I shouldn't need to point out that the apostates of those times were nothing like atheist liberal of our times that defend free speech and human rights; they weren't even remotely as civilized as Romans.

There is also a funny observation with regard to contextual interpenetration of Qu'ran: there is little historical information available about pre-Islamic era in the Arab world that doesn't come directly from Qu'ran [for example, take the topics of infanticide and women rights]. So you could say Qu'ran is the source that provides its own context for interpretation as well.

Now, we can see why it is possible to dissect the question of the topic "Does Islam advocate killing of apostates?" into two separate questions:

• "Did Muhammad advocate killing of apostates?"
• "Should a Muslim do what Muhammad thought he should do 1400 ago?"

My answer to the first question, is what I already presented in the first section of my post: it is a resounding no.

My answer to the second question is also short: each person should think and decide what is right or wrong -_- but in this particular case it should be pretty obvious that if 1400 years ago god didn't like aggressors, he doesn't like them now either.

"Could the activity of thinking as such, the habit of examining whatever happens to come to pass or to attract attention, regardless of results and specific content, could this activity be among the conditions that make men abstain from evil-doing?"
- Hannah Arendt

There is no one true set of doctrines, for any religion. Religions are inherently contradictory because they were invented by men, and in the case of the Abrahamic faiths, not very educated men.

We can argue all we want about whether Islam advocates killing apostates, but in the real world there are millions of Muslims who believe whole-heartedly that it does, to the degree that they are willing to act on it.

Likewise we can speak glowingly about how the Quran advocates for peace and prohibits aggression(which I would not agree with, though is is much less barbaric than the old testament, so that's a bonus), but as long as Muslims must also follow the Hadith and the example of the prophet, it doesn't really mean anything in the real world.

What is written down on the page is all well and good, but what matters is what people truly believe. We have good evidence through opinion polling and governmental and non-governmental action that a scary number of Muslims believe that apostasy(and atheism, homosexuality, etc) is punishable by death.

ETA:

I don't buy the argument about Christianity having a power structure that allowed it to reform. Christianity only liberalized well after it's power structure was decentralized. I'd also argue that the reform that Christianity went through wasn't as much about the religious reform as it was the societal reforms. There is a reason we are still constantly having to struggle against being dragged back into the dark ages by lunatics who think the planet is barely older than the pyramids.

 

[univariate]

It absolutely does. It also advocates the killing of atheists.

The fundamentalists have twisted that to included Shia, Sufi, Druze, Christians, Jews, and even fellow Sunni Muslims.

 

[Fusebox]

Of course it does.

And then it contradicts that teaching.

And then it contradicts the teaching that contradicted that teaching.

Divine, infallible word of God and all that...

 

[Madouu]

Looking forward to MuslimGAF's replies to this.

He has summarized my exact thought on the matter very well.

 

[Trojita]

There is no one true set of doctrines, for any religion. Religions are inherently contradictory because they were invented by men, and in the case of the Abrahamic faiths, not very educated men.

Let's try and not be too edgy.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

Problem is that works both ways, Mufti's and Jihadists use exactly the same selective process to justify their means.

There is plenty of other bullshit in other religions that was routinely used in the past on a large scale to justify war, genocide, occupation etc, but that was largely staged over hundreds of years ago. Unfortunately for Islam, this same problem is still very relevant on a grand scale in many African, Middle Eastern, West Asian nations and sects within regions even where Islam is not the predominant religion.

Yeah, that's incredibly true. Anything is game, really, so long as people believe you. Power resides not where it's anointed but where people believe it to be. I think in regards to the last bit, the issue is Islam's place in the world as opposed to the ideology. Viewing Christianity through the same lens, the people advocating the murder of gay people in Uganda were Christian. Far worse than that, though, they were supported and encouraged by Pastors such as Scott Lively, Americans who exported hatred. Hell, in the UK it was often framed that FGM was an Islamic issue but it's really an African issue, with many Christians practicing the same.

I understand your point and from a practical point of view it seems to be quite a hurdle. I don't have a solution to it, as I believe the pyramid structure of catholic church was equally problematic [dark ages were horrible].

Oh, I would never advocate it. It was more an explanation of why there's this flawed thinking in our approach to Islam wherein people see someone say something and assume it's gospel when they have no more or little authority than the next Imam. Like, if a Muslim 'leader' does say something about killing apostates, it can be used as a club to beat all Muslims with.

ETA:

I don't buy the argument about Christianity having a power structure that allowed it to reform. Christianity only liberalized well after it's power structure was decentralized. I'd also argue that the reform that Christianity went through wasn't as much about the religious reform as it was the societal reforms. There is a reason we are still constantly having to struggle against being dragged back into the dark ages by lunatics who think the planet is barely older than the pyramids.

You're quite right. I feel as though I either wrote poorly (I've been working and drinking, easily my fault) or was misinterpreted because my point was more 'it's easier to make Islam look worse because there's no guiding authority' rather than suggesting Islam would benefit it. I mean, we're all very aware of what the Catholic church has been known for in the last century.

 

[siddx]

I live in the middle east. While I wouldn't say it outright condones or promotes the killing of apostates, it certainly doesn't condemn it. It and similar attitudes towards the lgbt community and Jewish people are serious problems that make feel sick about living there a lot of the time. I'm currently on vacation and dreading going back. It would be one thing if it was just backwards religious bullshit that is gross but can be sneered at and ignored, but because Islam is also law of the land in many of these nations, the ignorance and hatred flows down through all aspects of society, right down into the primary schools even.

 

[Jumeira]

There was no borders like today, no defined country - people and regions were known by religion, culture and language not entities with a central government, to become an apostate and to that fact bring harm to people of that religion/tribe by defecting (sharing intelligence, etc) would be seen as a form of treason, which gave the right for apostates to be eliminated. I believe the Ottomons removed this as a rule and preferred to spare apostates, following the Hanafi school of thought. Death by treason was a legitimate form of death sentence around the world until the late 20th century, only a few still practice this today. Would be good to see a study of current nations that enforce death for apostasy.

Fantastic write up OP. Incredibly insightful.

 

[Kenshin001]

Yes, it does. For every verse that says no, there is a verse that says yes.

They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.

I know this is taken out of context but that is how people read it. They choose the part they want.

The bigger question should be why do millions of Muslims around the world support the death penalty for apostasy if it is not advocated in Islam? Why is it enshrined in law in Islamic countries? Are all these people just stupid or is there is some basis for their appalling views?

 

[Kinitari]

I don't know what it was intended to do, but many Muslims find justification for their hate of Apostates in the Quran and the hadith. Growing up, I can't think of a group my relatives hated as much as apostates. It was pretty strong stuff.

 

[Valhelm]

There are some aspects of fundamentalist Islamic thought that are absolutely unacceptable. The Quran, much like the Torah, includes some verses that aren't compatible with modern liberalism. Unfortunately, most critics of Islam are themselves rightists. People like Ted Cruz or Trump don't really oppose the oppression of women, queer people, and the religious dissidents, but instead are angry that the wrong team is doing these things. In addition, clumsly or overly broad critiques of Islam can push at-risk Muslim youth toward fundamentalism, especially if the critique is given from the state.

I think the best way to fight Wahhabism and other strains of fundamentalist Islam is to promote liberal values within Muslim countries, especially regarding the treatment of disprivileged groups. This change must come from within, otherwise many Muslims will feel like they're being colonized once again.

 

[Speely]

Really interesting post, OP, and I appreciate your thoughts on Islamic belief and analysis of the holy texts. Some great insights. I hope what follows in this post isn't too uninformed and/or pedestrian-level shit. Sorry in advance because I know it is.

My take: Islam, like any religion, isn't an absolute anything. As soon as the words leave the page and enter a human being's brain, they potentially become so many different things that these things they become should be considered the real meat of the belief systems involved since that's actually how religions matter.

In this sense, a slew of sociopolitical issues can easily cause severe ideological dissonance between believers cut from the same cloth, and so the bigger issue to me is that there are dedicated belief systems that are huge and important parts of our cultures that literally facilitate the justification of objectively cruel actions simply because the direction of their moral views is at once absolute in quality and so completely subject to variance in application via local/individual experience, in quantity.

Most believers are pretty cool and sort of realize this on some level, but those with real motivation to get on some serious, life-taking shit can easily find a sort of sanctioned justification from almost any agreed-upon belief system that is based entirely on, well, belief. Islam just happens to be the religion of a lot of folks who are born into in places where there are a lot of reasons to want to take dangerous action, situationally.

TL;DR - Religion itself allows for the justification of just about anything when one considers that the Word doesn't exist until it's read. Everything else is just tribal filtering.

 

[Renekton]

At least for my country, the interpretation is uneven. A couple states interpreted it very strictly and stated the penalty is death, but actually never executed it.

For other states, apostasy is subject to Sharia court which usually rejects the request and forces the person through rehabilitation (rehab can include punishments like caning).

 

[heidern]

The bigger question should be why do millions of Muslims around the world support the death penalty for apostasy if it is not advocated in Islam? Why is it enshrined in law in Islamic countries? Are all these people just stupid or is there is some basis for their appalling views?

The reasons why millions of muslims believe this are the same reasons why millions of Brits believe that the NHS is going to get £350 million pounds extra every week.