format_quote Originally Posted by Qatada
Freedom of Religion & The Death Penalty?
Many people criticize Islamic law for punishing the apostate from the religion with the death penalty. They argue that this is not freedom to practise a religion you desire.
According to the USA, a person is allowed to follow whatever religion you choose, and switch to another religion at any time - without any consequences from the government.
Yes. This is according to every single secular democratic state. Freedom of belief is an important part of life. The moment you are prohibited from exhibiting your character is the moment that life becomes meaningless.
Does this mean that USA has given more rights to the individual than Islam has?
Not really. Why? Because The US, or UK don't punish for rejecting God because their system of secularism isn't based on the foundation belief in One God. Rather, its about believing their secularism or democracy is superior over other forms of beliefs. They will punish people (in many cases with the Death Penalty for this treason), and they will even punish other nations for rejecting democracy as the superior ideology (i.e. didn't the USA fight the Russians for their Communism, and the Muslims now for their Islamic state?).
First of all, there is no death penalty for 'treason' in the UK or the USA. The references for these claims I see made are wholly outdated and almost always unsourced. Irrespectively, no-one is punished for 'rejecting democracy' or 'rejecting secularism' in the UK or USA. You can create a party called United Fascists and despite ideological contempt, you'd probably be able to (with enough support) roll in an election.
Second of all, the Cold War was a drawn-out ideological face-off between two diametrically opposed economic ideals in two nations indeed - but this was of a specific ideological incompatibility inflamed by their importance in the world. This does not represent the complaints concerning the punishment for apostasy in Islam nor does it refute them. It is, a non-sequitor. We are talking about the prohibition of freedom of belief based on 'divine' direction, not the interaction of two superpowers.
Third of all, no-one is at war with Islam. This is just a repetition by those who want to believe that. Indeed though, Secularists in general (such as myself)
do condemn all totalitarian, theocratic, fascist and tyrannical regimes across the world.
So why then can't Muslims - whose basis and foundation is the Tawheed [Oneness] of Allah, have punishments for someone who willingly rejected Islam (hence disloyalty to the Muslims as a whole), based on their own methodologies? If Muslims believe that disloyalty to Allah, and the believers is treason - then why can't they punish for it in their own way?
This is an epic slippery slope. By your logic, why can't
any group desiring to prohibit expression and contempt towards their project have it legislated that anyone who slips free is terminated? What if the Sci-fi cult of Scientology declares that their fair game policy
ought to be law, because gosh darn it is a part of their
foundation (Hubbard formulated it). Why can't say any religious minority outright make claims for control over their flock? We would descend into a plural-theocratic tyranny where freedom of expression is all but annihilated.
The real answer is that because
human rights matter. No group, no matter how convinced or convicted in their actions ought to have control over others. It is a direct assault on the liberty of others - possibly the most cherished and integral right ever conceived: the right to live according to your own creed. The right to your own beliefs, your own lifestyle and a right to have your own voice. Why would anyone who holds these values as you hold your deen ever consider your argument as valid? I suspect you and others would with equal veracity complain if a Christian converted to a Muslim, and had his former community call for his end.
Why is this any different?
Now someone may go ahead and say that a Muslim leaving his religion is not disloyalty to his people?
But by apostating, this person has left his people and disunited them, and most likely even caused corruption amongst the people. The significance of this is that it could make others doubt Islam, as was done by the hypocrites - purposelly - during the life of Allah's Messenger.
This does not matter. Freedom of Belief trumps this. You might not value such a thing, but it is more important to you and everyone else than you realise.
I will skip the scriptural justification and speculation concerning the alleged motives by others considered for 'disunity' amongst muslims.
Now imagine in the USA, someone came and tried to cause disorder amongst the people. Saying to them that we should leave our loyalty to the state, and make our own form of loyalty superior.
What does this even mean? "make our own form of loyalty superior"? Just so you know, in the secular world and in the USA -
no loyalty whatsoever is required to the United States. Any citizen can choose to leave and reside in another nation for the rest of their life whilst spending that time criticising it from that nation. It doesn't matter and wouldn't matter.
What would happen? The media would be after that community, arguing that they are not loyal to the state, and anyone caught promoting their ideology over the ideology of secularism and democracy, they would be - imprisoned right?
Wrong.
Christian fascists (Operation Christian Vote) are a legal political party in the United Kingdom. Many Muslim groups exist in the United States that would very much rather the end of secularism. Many more nationalistic and racist groups exist in the USA legally complete with their own expansive websites and forums for interaction. The most famous of course is the Stormfront group.
[This is what alot of Muslims are being accused of.] If they persisted in this - they would most likely get literal life imprisonment (which is synonymous to death because you can't meet anyone you love, and don't have freedom in life), or the actual death penalty.
Ignoring the fact that none of the above is actually true of the USA or any secular democratic state - this is a
ridiculous analogy. In your analogy, you are talking about a group of people that deliberately attempt to (with no means specified) undermine the state's validity. Apostasy of Islam is simply renouncing your previous beliefs. It is an entirely personal matter where you feel you can no longer sincerely hold the tenets of Islam to be valid. The two have
nothing in common. One is an action by a group to undermine a state, the other is a personal renouncement of a set of beliefs you once had.
One is an act motivated by choice, one is not even a choice (belief and non-belief are
not choices).
If you are not arguing against this, then you are infact in favour of it. Do you find it okay for someone to be punished with life imprisonment, or death - if they are trying to overthrow your values?
That depends.
What do you mean by "trying to overthrow your values"? Irrespectively, what does this have to do with apostasy?
An Islamic judge, in an Islamic state will apply the Islamic law for that apostasy.
The person by leaving Islam has 3 days, within which any of his doubts can be cleared. The whole reason he left Islam is because something didn't convince him or he was in doubt. Its about anything he has doubts about which can be clarified. And the Islamic scholars and people who excel in different secular fields (i.e. scientists etc.) should help him as much as they possibly can in this.
This is problematic for many reasons.
First of all, there is a passive concession that apostates perhaps could have come to their position through
contemplation or, rather
without choice or
insincerity. This matters because it almost singlehandedly refutes all other issues concerning this.
Apostasy is
not a choice. You do
not choose your beliefs. If I come out tomorrow and it happens to be raining - I cannot say with sincerity that I believe it to be sunny. I simply have too much evidence to state that such is the case. I would be in a position of denial or insincerity to contend otherwise. The same is with apostasy. An apostate has come to the position that he can no longer believe that Islam is the true religion. He has no choice in this matter. By setting up harsh punishments (the penalty of death) for conceding this - you are ironically encouraging
hypocrisy (which I understand is something Muslims in particular hold as reprehensible). You are encouraging a system of secrecy amongst apostates where they conceal their position. And, honestly - could you blame them?
Second of all, why do you imagine that at death's door (3 day waiting period) that an apostate of Islam won't just lie and pretend to have reconverted back to Islam in order to save his own skin? Surely given what is at stake it could be incredibly likely - and indeed, he or she might be rather good at it.
Hiding disbelief [=disallegiance] in the heart is not punishable in this life unless accompanied with action
What?!
Okay, so essentially you are conceding that in some instances, dishonesty is preferable to honesty. That is tragic.
Hiding disbelief [=disallegiance] in the heart is not punishable in this life unless accompanied with action
You and no-one should ever be punished for what you or they believe or say.
Someone who apostates and hides their disbelief in their heart or even in private, will not be killed according to Islamic law. He'll simply be a hypocrite.
And this article has shown me that hypocrisy is passively encouraged by such law.