Talk Islam points me to a controversy over the Muslim chaplain at Harvard, Taha Abdul-Basser, expressing a moderate viewpoint when it comes to killing apostates. Moderate insofar as he admits to the wisdom of killing apostates! Here is the comment from the listserv:
There is a vibrant Muslim community at Harvard. They have a Muslim chaplain, employed by Harvard and loved and respected by Muslims all around Boston. His name is Taha Abdul-Basser. He gives Friday sermons, is invited to talks and to him local Muslims go when they need religious advice. Rarely does any one voice disagreement with him.
Recently, Muslim students as MIT had a disagreement on what Islam has to say on apostasy. Fortunately, some one from Harvard was able to get Brother Taha’s opinion on this. Enjoy.
assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah
here is Brother Taha’s response on apostasy. he also suggested contacting two other people and if they get back, inshaAllah i will fwd the responses.
Wa-`alaykum as-salamTaha Abdul-Basser:
Wa-iyyakum.
I am familiar with these types of discussions.
While I understand that will happen and that there is some benefit in them, in the main, it would be better if people were to withhold from _debating_ such things, since they tend not to have the requisite familiarity with issues and competence to deal with them.
Debating about religious matter is impermissible, in general, and people rarely observe the etiquette of disagreements.
There are a few places on the Net where one can find informed discussions of this issue (Search [“Abdul Hakim Murad”|Faraz Rabbani” AND “apostasy”]) . The preponderant position in all of the 4 sunni madhahib (and apparently others of the remaining eight according to one contemporary `alim) is that the verdict is capital punishment.
Of concern for us is that this can only occur in the_domain and under supervision of Muslim governmental authority and can not be performed by non-state, private actors._
Some contemporary thought leaders have emphasized the differing views (i.e. not capital punishment) that a few fuqaha’ in the last few centuries apparently held on this issue, including reportedly the senior Ottoman religious authority during the Tanzimat period and Al-Azhar in the modern period. Still others go further and attempt to elaborate on the argument that the indicants (such as the hadith: (whoever changes his religion, execute him) used to build the traditional position apply only to treason in the political sense and therefore in the absence of a political reality in which apostasy is both forsaking the community and akin to political treasons in the modern sense, the indicants do not indicate capital punishment.
I am not aware of `Allama Taqiy al-Din Ibn Taymiya’s position on this issue but much is attributed to him by both detractors and supporters so one should be wary of accepting things attributed to him without asking experts. Perhaps you can ask Ustadh Sharif el-Tobgui or Shaykh Yasir Qadhi (I am copying both), both of whom are Ibn Taymiya specialists.
I would finally note that there is great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand. The formal consideration of excuses for the accused and the absence of Muslim governmental authority in our case here in the North/West is for dealing with the issue practically.
And Allah knows best.
Wa s-salam.
Taha
Taha Abdul-Basser is a graduate of Harvard, so that must be how he learned phrases like “hegemonic modern human rights discourse.”
“vibrant … community”
Bullshit alert! Or is “vibrant” now a euphemism for “primitive, noisy and violent”?
“Debating about religious matter is impermissible, in general, and people rarely observe the etiquette of disagreements.”
Translation: ‘sometimes people say things we don’t like, and we’re too fragile and insecure to take it gracefully (or civilly).’
“And Allah knows best.”
©Allah Brand orange juice.
Pinker’s “A History of Violence”:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html
Although it only gets brief mention, it’s clear that less religion = better people, or vice-versa.
How is this different that the Constitutional proscription of the death penalty for treason?
Seems to me what he’s saying is that, under the right circumstances, apostasy in a Muslim state is equivalent to treason.
Personally, I don’t support the death penalty, and am happy I don’t live in a Muslim state (living is one filled with so many Christians is bad enough), but my impression is that many on the right do support the death penalty. So is your argument that he is wrong for supporting the death penalty, or that he is wrong only in saying that it might be applied justifiably for apostasy?
I think “hegemonic modern human rights discourse” is probably a phrase coined by Third World types to defend themselves against criticism on the rare occasions when the human rights types criticize them rather than capitalist constitutional democracies.
There is indeed a hegemonic human rights discourse, for example that the dath penalty is always wrong even when scrupulously applied under many legal protections.
I think what this man is trying to do is be a moderate Muslim, in that he is saying “what it really means is….” by saying that the death penalty was given for apostasy when it amounted to treason, actively turning against the community and not just changing belief.
Of course if the death penalty is always wrong it doesn’t make any difference.
by saying that the death penalty was given for apostasy when it amounted to treason, actively turning against the community and not just changing belief.
the argument against apostasy is that it is by definition treason.
@Michael M.
The two cases are completely different. Treason consists of action against the state. The equivalent in a Muslim state would be something like assisting Israeli agents to blow up a Mosque (not that they would have any interest in doing so.)
Mere apostasy should be likened to emigrating or merely voicing a criticism of the government neither of which is even remotely criminal in the Constitution.
Treason consists of action against the state.
this is where the muslim tendency to conflate polity and religion comes in.
Mere apostasy should be likened to emigrating or merely voicing a criticism of the government neither of which is even remotely criminal in the Constitution.
and this is where the fact that the state-religion is sacralized comes in.
@Michael M.
Because it makes sense to have punishments for treason, and yet it makes zero sense to have punishments for changing one’s mind.
And to say that the punishment for changing one’s mind should be death is deranged.
Treason is defined in the U.S. Constitution as consisting of “levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Nothing, specifically, about blowing up buildings. One need not do anything so radical or destructive as blow-up anything to be accused or convicted of treason under U.S. law. AFAIK, Adam Yahiye Gadahn is the most recent person indicted in the U.S. for treason. He made some videos. One could make the case that AYG “changed his mind,” (he converted to Islam as a teenager), in Dave2’s parlance, and for that has been indicted for treason. Of course, his indictment is based upon more than simply his conversion, but his conversion is what led him to support Al-Qaeda, which is what earned him the indictment.
I believe the point that Taha Abdul-Basser makes is that, in a theocracy under certain circumstances, apostasy is the equivalent of, as our Constitution puts it, adhering to the state’s enemies or giving the state’s enemies aid and comfort. A.K.A., treason. So to rephrase my question (because no one has answered it): how do you justify the death penalty for treason when you condemn the death penalty for apostasy-as-treason? It seems to me that both are, in the absence of any other specific actions such as really blowing up a building or betraying state secrets, essentially thought crimes.
Even the Rosenberg’s were executed for espionage, not treason, based upon evidence of what they did (allegedly), not where their sympathies lay.
how do you justify the death penalty for treason when you condemn the death penalty for apostasy-as-treason?
1) theocracies are moronic.
2) the analogy is still moronically weak. the threshold for treason is far higher than the threshold for apostasy.
there is an analogy, but it is strained and weak. the better analogy isn’t between a liberal democratic regime where treason exists but between a totalitarian regime (e.g., communism) where dissent from accepted ideology may be a capital offense. IOW, taha abdul-basser is characterizing islam as a totalitarian ideology.
Apostasy in Islam is a capital offense–one punishable by death point blank–end of story. For a Muslim convert to another religion or even become atheist is seen as an affront to the ‘umma’ or Muslim community. It is also important to realize that religion is not a separate entity from politics. The all encompassing control-freak nature of Islam does not make such a distinction and to do so is heresy.
When discussing-debating-arguing with Muslims about Islam I frame it within the context of totalitarian regimes as opposed to comparisons to Judaism and Christianity because as David Hume points out–it is exactly that.
Basser’s critique as a “moderate” is the normative response that Muslims should give. The Qur’an states that apostates should be killed if they do not convert or pay tribute to Muslims to live “freely” amongst them. For a Muslim to diverge from this is itself heresy. There is no free thought, discourse, criticism, or amendment of the Qur’an, Hadith, or Shari’a because they are all divine and beyond human ability to question. Hence the continued presence of pre-Islamic-Medieval practices and thought still being spread as absolute ‘truth’ by Muslims all over the world.
Correction: “For a Muslim [to] convert to…
@Michael M.
Even the Rosenberg’s were executed for espionage, not treason, based upon evidence of what they did (allegedly), not where their sympathies lay.
“Allegedly”? When you’ve been convicted, the allegation is proved. Whether Ethel’s conviction was obtained by prosecutorial misconduct or not, Julius was dead-on guilty. If his “sympathies” helped bring him down, tough shit.
Peoples who find their own religions thoroughly intolerant, oppressive or dangerous have the right to leave their religions on their own terms, not on their religious leaders’ terms or religious books (the Bible, the Qu’ran, etc.). To apply or call for death penalty toward one for leaving a religion is a crime against humanity, a thought crime in itself. Any form of punishment for it, including beheading, should be outlawed worldwide.
Religions are made by peoples to control, manipulate, categorize and divide peoples under the pretenses of serving the Creator/God/gods.
David Hume said: “IOW, taha abdul-basser is characterizing islam as a totalitarian ideology.”
Well, perhaps that’s because Islam is a totalitarian ideology. The Koran and the Hadith are anything but tolerant when it comes to other religions, and there is little room for development of doctrine within Islam. Whereas Christianity believes that Scripture was written by humans in cooperation with divine inspiration (and Catholic and Orthodox Christians believe that the proper interpretation of scripture was entrusted by Christ to a magisterial authority in the College of Bishops and, in the case of Catholics, the Pope), Islam believes that the Koran was dictated directly by God to Mohammed through the archangel Gabriel. And the Koran is unequivocal in its advocacy of violence in the service of the Prophet’s message, and in its promises of a heavenly reward to those who are killed while attempting to spread it. Thus, the logic of Muslim extremists is very internally coherent. If one accepts the premise that the Koran is the directly dictated word of God, then Al-Qaida, suicide bombings, etc all follow pretty easily.
All of which has been leading me to think about Mohammed himself. He was certainly familiar with Christianity and monotheism, as Jesus is mentioned as a prophet in the Koran. His success must have lay in his realization that humans are deeply wired to accept monotheism, and that the desert tribes he lived among were currently pagan/polytheistic. Once one realizes that only a monotheistic God, independent of and sustaining the world, would be capable of providing happiness in the afterlife, paganism becomes irrelevant.
And then Mohammed must have latched onto that notion to create a cult of personality around himself. The Islamic equivalent of baptism is the profession of the Shahada – “God is one and Mohammed is His Prophet.” In the Islamic view, professing the Shahada serves to wipe away all of one’s past sins as well as making one a member of the true faith. Conveniently enough, this had some rather large benefits for Mohammed while he was still living.
And so Mohammed the prophet stands in pretty direct contradiction to Jesus, at least if the Gospels are regarded as authoritative accounts of His life. Jesus was celibate (unlike Mohammed – apparently the Caliphate had something to do with his descendants through his daughter Fatima) and throughout his life was very reluctant to reveal his identity as the Messiah – many healings that he performed were done so reluctantly, and he often adjured those he healed to tell no one what had occurred- this is basically the theme of the Messianic secret in the Gospel of Mark. Mohammed, by contrast, if he had possessed the ability to work miraculous healings, seems to have been of the personality type that he would demand his beneficiaries to spread his prophecies and the tales of their healing far and wide.
This is one reason why orthodox Christianity is completely accepting of and open to the use of the historical-critical method in Biblical scholarship, whereas Islamists aren’t so willing to tolerate discussion about the origins of the Koran.
I think this is also related to why Christians don’t end up rioting in the streets over things like the Piss Christ, but any denigration of the Prophet has Muslims up in arms. Mohammed was almost exclusively concerned with getting followers to accept him as the Prophet, whereas Christians are instructed to be more gentle in the defense of their faith (1 Peter 3:15-16): “In your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence, and keep your conscience clear, so that when you are abused, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.”
Pingback: DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » Harvard Muslim chaplain on the wisdom of killing apostates
allah may know best but this dark ageist knows nothing.
@David Hume
That just makes them good Orthodox Muslims.
“humans are deeply wired to accept monotheism”?
I guess that’s why humans were polytheists for most of religious history – Sumerians, Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, etc.
The Angelic Doctor Thomas Aquinas also applauded the execution of heretics on the reasoning that it was a kind of ‘treason’.
“With regard to heretics there are two points to be observed, one on their side, the other on the side of the Church. As for heretics their sin deserves banishment, not only from the Church by excommunication, but also from this world by death. To corrupt the faith, whereby the soul lives, is much graver than to counterfeit money, which supports temporal life. Since forgers and other malefactors are summarily condemned to death by the civil authorities, with much more reason may heretics as soon as they are convicted of heresy be not only excommunicated, but also justly be put to death.”
Christian-on-Christian violence was common in those early days – hundreds and thousands died simply because their views didn’t hew to a current orthodoxy. Only such things as the Reformation and subsequent Enlightenment separate us from the Muslim worldview.
Proudfootz,
I’d like to start by pointing readers to your Youtube response to Prof. Edward Feser’s book, The Last Superstition. As one of your purported rebuttals of Feser’s theistic argument, you point out that Aristotle, Averroes, and Aquinas all utilize a similar argument to prove the existence of “pagan” God/Allah/”Christian” God – as if this were somehow a valid rebuttal of the proof in question! In actually, all it means is that Aquinas and Averroes would have been very much in disagreement as to the manner in which God/Allah had intervened in human affairs, and Aristotle, if he were watching their hypothetical debate, would simply be quite astonished (and very much interested in which of the two, if either, were correct in their argument) that the Unmoved Mover of his Physics (and the God of his Metaphysics) had purportedly intervened in human affairs. This is because Aristotle’s God was not at all identified by him with any members of the Grecian Pantheon – he considered himself to have logically deduced the existence of a Being who manifestly had quite dissimilar properties from any of the anthropomorphic deities worshiped by the Greeks.
As to your assertion that Christianity and Islam are identical in their treatment of heretics/apostates, I would first point out that no Catholic countries (nor theologians) advocate the execution of apostates – which is manifestly not the case among Muslim countries and theologians (as pointed out by our Mr. Hume). Furthermore, the origins of Christianity and Islam are very different with respect to their utilization of violence. Islam, from the beginning (meaning, during the life of Mohammed), used violence relentlessly to increase its adherents. Indeed, it seems to have been one of Mohammed’s primary concerns to increase the number of his followers.
We can contrast this with early Christianity, as depicted in the famous Letter of Pliny: “[The Christians whom I arrested] asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but rather to not commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food–but ordinary and innocent food.”
In other words, the early Christians were pretty much concerned with the same thing that modern Christians are – the avoidance of sin and the celebration of the Divine Liturgy (Mass). Early Islamists, on the other hand, were involved in over 70 battles of conquest – and that’s just during the lifetime of Mohammed.
I furthermore submit that your plucked-from-context Summa quote isn’t nearly as scandalous as you’d like to make it out to be, as Michael Novak explains.
Daniel –
Most christian nations do not argue for the execution of apostates NOW. They commonly DID during the time of Aquinas and before the Enlightenment. Violence of christians against other christians over theologiocal issues was a hallmark of the early church. Thus was the hegemony – I’m sorry ‘harmony’ – of christendom maintained.
I didn’t mention Aquinas’s lifting of the pagan Aristotle’s philosophy as a ‘rebuttal’ at all. It is merely an interesting fact that the same sorts of arguments are suitable for whatever god you happen to be defending – be it Pagan, Muslim, or what-have-you.
Nor am I suggesting Aquinas’s support for the execution of heretics is in any way ‘scandalous’ – it is merely human, all too human. This is how human institutions such as religions are often maintained. What the Muslim world needs is the same secularization the West went through (and thinkers like Edward Feser abhor).
Thanks for mentioning my video – I do hope that people will take notice of Fayzer’s ‘secular conspiracy’ theory. It is rather entertaining until one considers that some will take Mr Feser seriously.
Capital punishment for apostates is built into the basic structure of Islam. Execution for heresy was something that came with the adoption of Christianity as the Roman Empire’s official religion. It can (and has) been dropped from Christianity without affecting the basic structure of the religion. Islam has somewhat more difficulties, hence the Harvard Chaplain’s position which is, indeed, orthodox Islam.
Aquinas is still considered orthodox in the catholic cult. Luther and Calvin also preached death to those outside their respective cults.
Should the Muslim world have the chance to experience its own Enlightenment, inconvenient koranic verses will be able to be ignored just as christians today ignore bible verses they find uncongenial.
Pingback: Secular Right » Killing of apostates in context
Pingback: Harvard Islamic chaplain advocates death for Apostates « Sigmund, Carl and Alfred
Unfortunately, there can be no “Enlightenment” in Islam. Dictated word for word by the angel Gabriel is the Koran; that is what Muslims believe. Anything contrary to that position is heresy and if they don’t want to die cannot be argued.
Glad I’m in the land of the free and home of the brave where I can believe or not without fear of reprisal from people of a different opinion than mine.
Pingback: Augean Stables » Harvard’s Muslim Chaplain Notes the Wisdom of Killing Apostates