The Case of the Afghan Apostate
Islamic Pluralism 1, Religious Dogmatism 0.
This is how I greeted the news that Abdur Rahman has been spared execution and freed by an Afghan court. He is the Afghan who converted to Christianity from Islam 16 years ago. When his apostasy came to light last week after a family squabble, a prosecutor threatened to execute him as mandated by what he claimed to be Afghanistan’s Sharia law.
Many Muslim media carried compelling articles about the illegality and immorality of apostasy-killing as the hapless Rahman’s impending fate filtered out of Afghanistan. The most powerful indictment comes, of course, from the Quran: There can be no coercion in matters of faith (2:256).
By citing a weak and dubious hadith, one that goes against the message of love and compassion that Prophet Muhammad preached and practiced throughout his life, a handful of Afghanistan’s frozen-in-time, pre-Taliban clerics sought to impose the death penalty on Rahman.
But worldwide outrage and a fledgling democracy’s resolve under President Hamid Karzai to do the right thing forced the clerics to retreat.
While Rahman’s travails remind us that we still have ways to go before the interpretation of Islam is loosened from the grips of dogmatists, we can also take some satisfaction from the progress that has been made.
Consider what would have happened to Rahman if the Taliban were still in power. Remember the harrowing video - widely distributed after the 9/11 attacks - of the woman who was publicly executed in a soccer stadium in Kabul, “cowering beneath a pale blue all-enveloping burqa?” Can anyone doubt that Rahman would not have met the same fate, given the Taliban’s record in these matters, particularly the record of its "Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice”?
Implementing Sharia, as the Taliban defined it, became synonymous with beatings and killings. Is it any wonder that anytime patriarchal clerics talk of implementing Sharia, it sends shivers down the spines of Muslims in the affected areas, particularly of Muslim women?
Consider also the question of stoning to death (unmarried) people accused of adultery, again based on a weak hadith. Remember the case of the Nigerian woman Amina Lawal, charged with conceiving a child while single? A Nigerian Sharia court declared in 2002 that for her crime of adultery, she was to be stoned to death. (The court couldn’t be bothered about the man who was her “partner in crime.” He was nowhere to be found in the Katsina district in Northern Nigeria where the Sharia court held sway and was also absent from any theological discussion!)
The Quran mentions stoning five times - 11:91, 18:20, 19:46, 26:116 and 36:18 - but it is directed against prophets Shuaib, People of the Cave, Prophet Ibrahim, Prophet Noah, and Companions of the City, respectively. When these prophets and the righteous servants of God began preaching monotheism, people used to polytheism threatened them with stoning. That is as far as the Quran goes.
International outrage across religious boundaries forced the Nigerian court to spare Lawal’s life in 2003.
Hopefully, killing for apostasy and stoning to death (only women need apply) for adultery will soon be a thing of the past as absolutist clerics realize that their hold over Muslim minds and hearts is rapidly dissipating. In the Age of the Internet, ideas travel with the speed of light and millions of Muslims are taking advantage of it to deepen their understanding of Islam and mobilize support for progressive and humane causes. Many new avenues of thought are opening up. One example is the complex nature of the relationship between mosque and state, as opposed to the reflexive and traditional view that the two must be conflated in Islam. Even in conservative societies, Muslims are beginning to recognize that faith is a matter of personal responsibility and not a consequence of authoritarian decree. The days of any religious leader thundering “I am right, you are dead” will soon, let us pray, be over once and for all.
Showing posts with label Hamid Karzai. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hamid Karzai. Show all posts
Monday, April 10, 2006
Feb. 7, '06
Crazy over Cartoons
A privately owned Danish newspaper with a circulation of 150,000 published 12 crude cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad in an unflattering light, most notoriously as a turbaned terrorist. That was in September 2005. Hardly anyone beyond Denmark noticed them. Then suddenly European newspapers in Germany, France, Norway, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland decided that the cartoons were a litmus test for freedom of press and began reprinting them. The right to blaspheme, one German newspaper declared, is a fundamental freedom of democracy. A French newspaper wrote that democratic and secular societies must not be awed or intimidated by any religious dogma and that even God must remain fair game for caricature.
True, but does gratuitous assault on religious sensibilities serve any purpose, other than inflaming religious passions and forcing a bogus showdown between what some pundits pompously call “Islam versus the West?” Where is the journalists’ responsibility? If the media want to start a debate between the conflicting demands of the secular and the sacred, between self-censorship and the right to speak or write one’s mind – and it is an important debate – certainly it can be done more intelligently than by mocking religious icons. As Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post wrote, caricatures of Prophet Muhammad might not be the best starting point for a constructive dialogue.
But if European newspapers displayed errors of judgment or engaged in deliberate provocations, the violent Muslim reaction in the West Bank and Gaza, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Indonesia and other Muslim countries was worse. Peaceful street demonstrations, recalling ambassadors, cutting off trade ties and pulling products off grocery shelves are legitimate ways of showing displeasure but issuing bomb threats against diplomatic personnel, sacking offices and setting foreign embassies ablaze are utterly unjustifiable, unacceptable and most tellingly, un-Islamic. Peaceful disagreement is a tenet of any civilized society and in that sense Muslim mobs have blown it, however difficult it may be for us to acknowledge. We must wean ourselves from the romance of violence, or the radicals will continue to bury any progress made by the moderates.
To their credit, imams in Lebanon, Jordan, Indonesia and other countries as well Muslim leaders in Denmark and France have condemned the violence and warned Muslims not to allow the radicals and the misguided in their midst to distort the image of Islam.
The most important question Muslims can ask in this context is: What would the Prophet have done? Numerous instances from his life show that the Prophet would never have approved of the Muslim violence spawned by the cartoons. The Quran makes this clear when it asks the Prophet to “show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant.” (7:199) President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, where eight protestors have already died, echoed this Quranic teaching when he asked the Afghan people to forgive those responsible for the cartoons. "We must have as Muslims the courage to forgive and not make it an issue of dispute between religions or cultures," he said.
Crazy over Cartoons
A privately owned Danish newspaper with a circulation of 150,000 published 12 crude cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad in an unflattering light, most notoriously as a turbaned terrorist. That was in September 2005. Hardly anyone beyond Denmark noticed them. Then suddenly European newspapers in Germany, France, Norway, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland decided that the cartoons were a litmus test for freedom of press and began reprinting them. The right to blaspheme, one German newspaper declared, is a fundamental freedom of democracy. A French newspaper wrote that democratic and secular societies must not be awed or intimidated by any religious dogma and that even God must remain fair game for caricature.
True, but does gratuitous assault on religious sensibilities serve any purpose, other than inflaming religious passions and forcing a bogus showdown between what some pundits pompously call “Islam versus the West?” Where is the journalists’ responsibility? If the media want to start a debate between the conflicting demands of the secular and the sacred, between self-censorship and the right to speak or write one’s mind – and it is an important debate – certainly it can be done more intelligently than by mocking religious icons. As Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post wrote, caricatures of Prophet Muhammad might not be the best starting point for a constructive dialogue.
But if European newspapers displayed errors of judgment or engaged in deliberate provocations, the violent Muslim reaction in the West Bank and Gaza, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Indonesia and other Muslim countries was worse. Peaceful street demonstrations, recalling ambassadors, cutting off trade ties and pulling products off grocery shelves are legitimate ways of showing displeasure but issuing bomb threats against diplomatic personnel, sacking offices and setting foreign embassies ablaze are utterly unjustifiable, unacceptable and most tellingly, un-Islamic. Peaceful disagreement is a tenet of any civilized society and in that sense Muslim mobs have blown it, however difficult it may be for us to acknowledge. We must wean ourselves from the romance of violence, or the radicals will continue to bury any progress made by the moderates.
To their credit, imams in Lebanon, Jordan, Indonesia and other countries as well Muslim leaders in Denmark and France have condemned the violence and warned Muslims not to allow the radicals and the misguided in their midst to distort the image of Islam.
The most important question Muslims can ask in this context is: What would the Prophet have done? Numerous instances from his life show that the Prophet would never have approved of the Muslim violence spawned by the cartoons. The Quran makes this clear when it asks the Prophet to “show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant.” (7:199) President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, where eight protestors have already died, echoed this Quranic teaching when he asked the Afghan people to forgive those responsible for the cartoons. "We must have as Muslims the courage to forgive and not make it an issue of dispute between religions or cultures," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)