Could The Scholars Have Been Wrong?

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

You know, it never ceases to amaze me. I thought the overwhelming evidence in the Qur'an against the notion that the apostate is to be killed would be enough to end the matter. It has not, however.

Those who insist on believing that Islam demands the head of the apostate on a platter cite a number of Prophetic traditions that seem to suggest that all those who leave Islam must be killed. The clearest of these is this hadith in the collection of Bukhari:

"Whoever changes his religion, then kill him."

Yet, why is it that no one seems to understand that this hadith was a particular commandment for a particular time, and it was not meant to be a general exhortation for all times? It is, in fact, a gross misunderstanding of this hadith which has led to numerous scholars - throughout the ages - to conclude that the apostate is to be killed.

This hadith, according to Asad Subhani - author of the book, Apostasy in Islam, and head of the Faculty of Islamic Studies in the College of Education in Zanzibar, Tanzania - was a command by the Prophet (pbuh) to counter a plan by the Jews of Medina to create turmoil and instability among the nascent Muslim community. Specifically, they had planned to have some of them embrace Islam for some time and then return to Judaism later on. Then others would do the same. This plan was even mentioned in the Qur'an:

And some of the followers of earlier revelation say [to one another]: "Declare your belief in what has been revealed unto those who believe [in Muhammad] at the beginning of the day, and deny the truth of what came later, so that they might go back [on their faith]; (3:72)

It is obvious that this hadith was not meant to be a perpetual commandment, because it is so generally worded that it would also require the execution of a Christian or a Jew who becomes a Muslim. This would make absolutely no sense if it were true.

Moreover, Asad Subhani regards only some of the hadith reports about killing apostates to be genuine, and these need to be examined, once again, in their proper historical context. Indian journalist Yoginder Sikand, who reviewed Asad's book, wrote:

Subhani claims that many of the Hadith reports that lay down death for
apostates relate specifically to those Muslims who abandon Islam and actively
engage in treason or what Subhani calls "conspiracies" against the Islam and the
"Islamic state." These reports, he argues, do not apply to other apostates, who
are free to choose any religion they want.

Many times, at the time of the Prophet (pbuh), when people would leave Islam, they would join the ranks of those actively fighting against the Muslims. It is against these people that the Prophet would attack. For example, take this hadith in Bukhari:

Narrated Anas:

Some people from the tribe of 'Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die.

Some people quote this hadith as "proof" that apostasy in Islam is punishable by death. But, the Prophet (pbuh) attacked these people because they attacked and murdered a Muslim, not because they left Islam. In fact, there is a hadith narrated by A'isha (r) that apostasy relates to the one who left his religion and fought against the Muslims.

Another hadith that was quoted to me to "prove" apostates are to be killed is this one in Bukhari:

Narrated Abdullah: God's Messenger said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

This proves nothing. What did the Prophet (pbuh) mean when he said "leaves the Muslims"? Did he mean "leaves the Muslims" and go about his peaceful way, or "leaves the Muslims" and fights against them? This distinction is crucial. I believe he meant the latter, because there were many instances in which people left Islam and the Prophet did nothing. For instance, a man had come to the Prophet (pbuh) on three consecutive days and told him he wanted to leave the religion of Islam. The Prophet (pbuh) took no action against him, even after he left Madina. Another example is the case of Abdullah ibn Ubay.

He was the chief of the Hypocrites, a group of Madinites who feigned Islam, but were secretly disbelievers who continually plotted for the destruction of the Muslim community. Everyone knew ibn Ubay was a Hypocrite, including the Prophet (pbuh). Clearly, Abdullah ibn Ubay was an "apostate," but the Prophet (pbuh) never had him killed. Another case was 'Uyayna ibn Hisn. He was the leader of the tribe of Ghatafan, and he accepted Islam. During a battle, he met with the enemy and encouraged them to fight against the Muslims. Doesn't this make him an "apostate"? The Prophet (pbuh) knew of this, but he did not have him killed either.

Moreover, the scholars who claim that apostates are to be killed based on the hadith "Kill whoever changes his religion" may not be on firm Islamic legal ground. In his article, "Is Killing An Apostate in the Islamic Law?", Dr. Ibrahim B. Syed, President of the Islamic Research Foundation International, wrote:

Muslims who support the death penalty for apostasy use as their foundation the
above cited hadith, in which the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: "Kill
whoever changes his religion." But this is a weak foundation because this hadith
was only transmitted from Muhammad (pbuh) by one individual. It was not
confirmed by a second person. According to Islamic law, this is insufficient
confirmation to impose the death penalty. The Shari`ah has not fixed any
punishment for apostasy.

So, what am I saying here? Am I saying all hadith is invalid? No. What I am saying is that the hadith has to be understood in its proper context. So frequently, Muslims will base an entire ruling on a one-sentence hadith without examining the historical and situational context of the saying of the Prophet (pbuh). This is not the proper way to deduce the sacred law. Just like one should not quote the Bible or the Qur'an out of context, one should not quote the Prophet (pbuh) out of context as well.

Furthermore, the Prophet (pbuh) would never do something that contradicts the Qur'an. If the Prophet said, "Whoever changes his religion, then kill him," then there must be a specific circumstance and situation. Why? Because the Qur'an, which was revealed to the Prophet (pbuh), says in unambiguous language: "Let there be no compulsion in matters of faith" (2:256).

This entire subject is dealt with in a much comprehensive manner in Asad Subhani's book Apostasy in Islam. Yet, this raises another question: could this mean that the legions of Muslim scholars throughout the centuries who have ruled that apostates are to be killed have been wrong this whole time? Umm...

References:

1. Sikand, Yoginder. "Afghan Convert Controversy: A CounPerspectivetive on Apostasy in Islam."

2. Syed, Ibrahim D. "Is Killing An Apostate in the Islamic Law?"

'Defending God's Honor' With Murder?

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

This article was first published on Beliefnet. It is reproduced here:

Amid intense international pressure, an Afghan court recently dropped the charges against Abdul Rahman, a 41-year-old Afghan man, who faced execution for converting from Islam to Christianity. But as many around the world uttered a collective sigh of relief, the tension continued to grow.

In Kabul, hundreds took to the streets protesting against the court’s decision. Rahman is still very much in danger of being murdered. Afghan clerics had warned that if the charges were dropped, they would incite Afghanis to execute Rahman unless he reverted to Islam. Cleric Abdul Raouf said, "Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die."

But I ask why? Why must Abdul Rahman die?

"Because he is an apostate [traitor], and the apostate must die." This is not the first time I have heard this reasoning. Some Sunni militants kill Shi’as because they claim them to be "apostates." So many of Islam's detractors --as well as some Muslims--frequently claim that leaving Islam is punishable by death. Such a claim is absurd and has absolutely no scriptural basis in the Qur'an. None.

The Qur'an, in fact, is quite clear in matters of faith and personal conscience. The choice is left completely up to the individual. Let’s reflect on these verses in the Qur'an:

"Unto every one of you have We appointed a [different] law and way of life. And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but [He willed it otherwise] in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto you ... (5:48)”

"Have, then, they who have attained to faith not yet come to know that, had God so willed, He would indeed have guided all mankind aright? (13:31)"

"And [because He is your Creator], it rests with God alone to show you the right path: yet there is [many a one] who swerves from it. However, had He so willed, He would have guided you all aright. (16:9)"

"For had God so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community; however, He lets go astray that wills [to go astray], and guides aright him that wills [to be guided]; and you will surely be called to account for all that you ever did! (16:93)"

All of these verses imply that humans are free to make their own choice when it comes to matters of faith. It is part of God's plan to have different faiths and to allow the humans to choose their own path. The Qur'an is even more explicit about this. Consider the following verses:

"There shall be no coercion in matters of faith. Distinct has now become the right way from [the way of] error ... (2:256)"

"Say [O Muhammad], 'The truth is from your Lord:' Let him who wills believe it, and let him who wills, reject (it). (18:29)"

"If it had been your Lord's will, they all would have believed--all who are on earth. Will you, then, compel the people, against their will, to believe? (10:99)"

"It is not required of thee (O Messenger), to set them on the right path, but God sets on the right path whom He pleases. (2:272)"

The evidence is quite overwhelming. In Islam there is complete freedom of choice in matters of faith and religion. Furthermore, the Qur'an states that the reason war is sometimes necessary--as a last resort and in self-defense--is to preserve religious freedom: "If God had not enabled people to defend themselves against one another, [all] monasteries and churches and synagogues and mosques--in [all of] which Gods name is abundantly extolled--would surely have been destroyed. (22:40)"

So is it that if someone chooses to leave Islam, he or she is liable to be killed? Where is the scriptural basis for this? As far as I can tell, there is none.

Moreover, the Qur'an is not silent about apostasy. There are numerous references to apostasy, but not one verse says the apostate is to be killed for his or her choice:

"... [Your enemies] will not cease to fight against you till they have turned you away from your faith, if they can. But if any of you should turn away from his faith and die as a denier of the truth--these it is whose works will go for naught in this world and in the life to come; and these it is who are destined for the fire, therein to abide. (2:217)"

"Verily, as for those who are bent on denying the truth after having attained to faith, and then grow [ever more stubborn] in their refusal to acknowledge the truth, their repentance [of other sins] shall not be accepted: for it is they who have truly gone astray. (3:90)"

"O you who have attained to faith! If you ever abandon your faith, God will in time bring forth [in your stead] people whom He loves and who love Him--humble towards the believers, proud towards all who deny the truth: [people] who strive hard in God's cause, and do not fear to be censured by anyone who might censure them: such is God's favor, which He grants unto whom He wills. And God is infinite, all-knowing. (5:54)"

"Any one who, after accepting faith in God, utters unbelief--except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith-- but such as open their breast to unbelief, on them is wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful penalty. This because they love the life of this world better than the hereafter: and God will not guide those who reject faith. (16:106-107)”

And even if someone were to leave Islam multiple times, there still is no death penalty imposed on him. The following verses are effective proof of this:

"Behold, as for those who come to believe, and then deny the truth, and again come to believe, and again deny the truth, and thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of the truth, God will not forgive them, nor will He guide them in any way. (4:137)”

Do the above Qur’anic verses warn of a severe chastisement for apostasy? Absolutely. In fact, these verses are akin to this passage in the Bible: "Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you; (For the Lord thy God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the Lord thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth. (Deut. 6:14-15)”

Apostasy is chastised to some degree by all the Abrahamic faiths. Yet, could it be any clearer that the punishment addressed in the Qur'an is in the hereafter and not the here and now?
Given this enormous and overwhelming evidence against a scriptural basis for the murder of apostates, how could any Muslim cleric--such as Abdul Raouf in Afghanistan--claim that Islam calls for the murder of apostates? What sort of faith keeps its adherents in its fold by threatening death if one leaves?

If Islam claims that the humans have complete freedom of will--which they do--then how can an apostate be killed? What kind of faith is so threatened by the rebellion of some of its adherents that it mandates they be murdered? Contrary to the contention of many, Islam is not that kind of faith.

I am relieved that Abdul Rahman was released, and I hope he will not fall prey to a mob mentality. His murder would be a grave injustice. Like it or not, he chose to leave Islam for Christianity, and that was his prerogative. One day he will, like us all, answer to God for his actions.

I truly believe that God was not "humiliated" by Abdul Rahman's choice to become a Christian. There is nothing in this universe that can "humiliate" God. But Islam is quite clear: There is no compulsion in matters of faith. God alone is the judge of our heart, and we should leave that judging up to Him. Believe me, He knows what He is doing.

Author Note: There are Prophetic traditions that, on the surface, seem to bolster the notion that apostates must face death. These will be explained in time, God willing. Stay tuned.

Are Muslims Supposed To Hate Non-Muslims? (Part 4)

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

As we discussed last time, those who are bent on promoting the "Doctrine of Hatred" cite verse 60:4 and the example of Prophet Abraham (pbuh). Yet, it is clear that this understanding is not valid when the verse is examined in its proper context. Thus, again, I can say truthfully that there is no basis for the claim that Muslims must hate all non-Muslims. None whatsoever.

Yet, there are other considerations that further strengthen my contention of the lack of evidence for the "Doctrine of Hatred." First of all, there are some verses that tell the Prophet what to do in case the people "turn away," or reject what he is saying:

Behold, this is indeed the truth of the matter [about Jesus not being God], and there is no deity whatever save God; and, verily, God - He alone - is almighty, truly wise. And if they turn away [from this truth] - behold, God has full knowledge of the spreaders of corruption. (3:62-63) [emphasis added]

Say: "O followers of earlier revelation! Come unto that tenet which we and you hold in common: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall not ascribe divinity to aught beside Him, and that we shall not take human beings for our lords beside God." And if they turn away, then say: "Bear witness that it is we who have surrendered ourselves unto Him." (3:64) [emphasis added]

But if they turn away [from thee, O Prophet, remember that] thy only duty is a clear delivery of the message [entrusted to thee]. (16:82)

Say: Pay heed unto God, and pay heed unto the Apostle. And if you turn away [from the Apostle, know that] he will have to answer only for whatever he has been charged with, and you, for what you have been charged with; but if you pay heed unto him, you will be on the right way. Withal, the Apostle is not bound to do more than clearly deliver the message [entrusted to him]. (24:54)

No where in these verses does it say, "If they turn away, then hate them." So, on what basis are Muslims supposed to hate all non-Muslims? Now, to be completely honest and forthcoming, in verse 3:32 it does say:

Say: "Pay heed unto God and the Apostle." And if they turn away - verily, God does not love those who deny the truth.

Yet, I do not conclude from this verse that I am, therefore, supposed to hate all non-Muslims. My guiding principle when it comes to my non-Muslim friends, colleagues, and neighbors is verse 60:8.

Secondly, in verse 3:110 it says:

You are indeed the best community that has ever been brought forth for [the good of] humanity: you enjoin the doing of what is right and forbid the doing of what is wrong, and you believe in God...

How can Muslims be the "best community that has ever been brought forth for [the good of] humanity" if they must harbor hatred in their heart of hearts for all those who are not Muslim? Does this make any sort of sense?

Thirdly, in verse 4:36 it says:

And worship God [alone], and do not ascribe divinity, in any way, to aught beside Him. And do good unto your parents, and near of kin, and unto orphans, and the needy, and the neighbour from among your own people, and the neighbour who is a stranger and the friend by your side, and the wayfarer, and those whom you rightfully possess.

In this verse, God commands the believers to do good unto their neighbors, and it does not stipulate the faith of these neighbors. Similarly, in a tradition reported in both Bukhari and Muslim, the Prophet (pbuh) said: "Whoever believes in God and the Last Day, let him to do good unto his neighbor." Again, the Prophet (pbuh) did not stipulate the faith of that neighbor. In addition, the wayfarer very well can be a non-Muslim, and the verse did not stipulate the faith of the wayfarer. How can Muslims obey these commandments if they are supposed to harbor hatred in their heart of hearts for all those who are not Muslims? Does this make any sort of sense?

Fourthly, in verse 5:5 it says:

Today, all the good things of life have been made lawful to you. And the food of those who have been vouchsafed revelation aforetime is lawful to you, and your food is lawful to them. And [lawful to you are], in wedlock, women from among those who believe [in this divine writ], and, in wedlock, women from among those who have been vouchsafed revelation before your time - provided that you give them their dowers, taking them in honest wedlock, not in fornication, nor as secret love-companions...

Now, if Muslims are supposed to hate all those who are not Muslim (such as Jews and Christians), how could it be that they can eat of their food? So, a Muslim can take a Kosher meal, but must remember that he has to hate the Jews who prepared it? Does this make any sort of sense?

Furthermore, if Muslims are supposed to hate all those who are not Muslim (such as Jews and Christians), how could it be that God would allow Muslim men to marry Jewish and Christian women? The verse does not say that the Muslim husband has to convert his wife, and it is quite conceivable that many Jewish or Christian wives of Muslims will stay that way. So, a Muslim can take a Jewish or Christian wife, but he has to hate his lover, his life-partner, the mother of his children? Does this make any sort of sense?

Fifth, if a Muslim is supposed to hate all those who are not Muslim, this would include a Muslim having to hate his non-Muslim parents. Yet, this clearly contradicts clear commandments of God:

Now [among the best of righteous deeds which] We have enjoined upon man [is] goodness towards his parents; yet [even so,] should they endeavour to make thee ascribe divinity, side by side with Me, to something which thy mind cannot accept [as divine], obey then, not: [for] it is unto Me that you all must return, whereupon I shall make you [truly] understand [the right and wrong of] all that you were doing [in life]. (29:8)

[Revere thy parents;] yet should they endeavour to make thee ascribe divinity, side by side with Me, to something which thy mind cannot accept [as divine], obey them not; but [even then] bear them company in this world's life with kindness, and follow the path of those who turn towards Me. In the end, unto Me you all must return; and thereupon I shall make you [truly] understand all that you were doing [in life]. (31:15) [emphasis added]

These verses clearly command the person to be kind to his parents even if they strive to make him or her worship other beings besides God, the worst sin a person can commit. But, according to the adherents of the "Doctrine of Hatred," Muslims must hate all those who are not Muslim. Does this make any sort of sense?

Sixth, God says that Muslims must invite to the path of God in the best manner:

Call thou [all humanity] unto thy Sustainer's path with wisdom and goodly exhortation for, behold, thy Sustainer knows best as to who strays from His path, and best knows He as to who are the right-guided. Hence, if you have to respond to an attack [in argument], respond only to the extent of the attack leveled against you; but to bear yourselves with patience is indeed far better for [you, since God is with] those who are patient in adversity. (16:125-126) [emphasis added]

And do not argue with the followers of earlier revelation otherwise than in a most kindly manner - unless it be such of them as are bent on evildoing - and say: We believe in that which has been bestowed from on high upon us, as well as that which has been bestowed upon you: or our God and your God is one and the same, and it is unto Him that We [all] surrender ourselves. (29:46) [emphasis added]

Obviously, this invitation is mainly to those who are not Muslim. If Muslims are supposed to hate non-Muslims, why would God continually stress that Muslims argue "in a most kindly manner"? If you should hate someone, why treat them kindly? Moreover, God exhorts the believers to be patient in the face of retaliatory attacks in argument from non-Muslims. Why do so if Muslims are supposed to hate all those who are not Muslims? Does this make any sort of sense?

Absolutely not. So, does this pose a problem for Muslims? Is there an inherent contradiction in Muslim beliefs? Am I being disloyal to my faith by asking these questions? Absolutely not. The only logical conclusion of my entire series of posts is that the "Doctrine of Hatred" must be categorically rejected. There is no basis in the sacred text of Islam for this doctrine which not only cuts off the Muslim from other human beings, but also chokes the air out of any spirituality and leaves the heart hard, dry, coarse, and ultimately dead.

So, to answer your question, Tom, if I was having dinner with a Christian and I told him about Islam and he said to me, "Hmm. That's interesting," but did not become Muslim right then and there, I would not scream "Infidel!" in his face; I would not say "You Kafir! I must now hate you!"; I would not turn over the table in my seething anger at him for rejecting Islam. No. I would simply continue my meal and continue enjoying the nice evening with him. As the Qur'an says, my "only duty is a clear delivery of the message" (16:82). It is God and God alone who will judge the domain of the heart. And believe you me, He knows what He is doing.

Are Muslims Supposed to Hate Non-Muslims? (Part 3)

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

Last time, I began to explain how there is no genuine Islamic basis to claim that Muslims must hate all non-Muslims. The verses that prohibit taking Jews and Christians as awliya' do not mean that Muslims are therefore not to have friendly relations with non-Muslims who are well-disposed to their Muslim counterparts (which, I believe, describes the overwhelming majority of my fellow Americans who are not Muslim). A full explanation of the term awliya' can be found in my last post.

Yet, as I said before, the adherents of the "Doctrine of Hatred" retort by quoting this verse:

Indeed, you have had a good example in Abraham and those who followed him, when they said unto their [idolatrous] people: “Verily, we are quit of you and of all that you worship instead of God: we deny the truth of whatever you believe; and between us and you there has arisen enmity and hatred, to last until such a time as you come to believe in the One God!"... (60:4)

This verse is quoted completely out of context. It can only be properly understood in the context of the entire passage in which it resides, namely, the first part of chapter 60. Let us examine the entire passage. It begins with:

O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take My enemies - who are your enemies as well - for your friends, showing them affection even though they are bent on denying whatever truth has come unto you... (60:1)

On the surface, this seems to bolster the contention that Muslims should not befriend non-Muslims. BUT, I intentionally quoted the verse incompletely to show how such a practice is deceitful and incorrect. The rest of the verse says:

... [and even though] they have driven the Apostle and yourselves away, [only] because you believe in God, your Sustainer! If [it be true that] you have gone forth [from your homes] to strive in My cause, and out of a longing for My goodly acceptance, [do not take them for your friends,] inclining towards them in secret affection: for I am fully aware of all that you may conceal as well as of all that you do openly. And any of you who does this has already strayed from the right path. (60:1)

As is quite clear, the verse prohibits Muslims from making friends with those who are engaged in active hostility towards the Muslims, not towards every non-Muslim on earth. Again, this only makes sense. Verses 2-3 further explain who these "enemies of God and the believers" truly are:

If they could but overcome you, they would [still] remain your foes, and would stretch forth their hands and tongues against you with evil intent: for they desire that you [too] should deny the truth. But [bear in mind that] neither your kinsfolk nor [even] your own children will be of any benefit to you on Resurrection Day, [for then] He will decide between you [on your merit alone]: and God sees all that you do. (60:2-3)

Again, these people are actively hostile towards Muslims. No where does it say that Muslims are supposed to hate all non-Muslims. No where. It is after these three verses that the example of Abraham is cited:

Indeed, you have had a good example in Abraham and those who followed him, when they said unto their [idolatrous] people: “Verily, we are quit of you and of all that you worship instead of God: we deny the truth of whatever you believe; and between us and you there has arisen enmity and hatred, to last until such a time as you come to believe in the One God!” The only exception was Abraham’s saying to his father, “I shall indeed pray for [God’s] forgiveness for thee, although I have it not in my power to obtain anything from God in thy behalf.” [And Abraham and his followers prayed:] “O our Sustainer! In Thee have we placed our trust, and unto Thee do we turn: for unto Thee is all journeys’ end. O our Sustainer! Make us not a plaything for those who are bent on denying the truth! And forgive us our sins, O our Sustainer: for Thou alone art almighty, truly wise!” In them, indeed, you have a good example for everyone who looks forward to God and the Last Day. And if any turns away, [let him know that] God is truly self-sufficient, the One to whom all praise is due. (60:4-6)

Given the context of the verse, it is quite clear that Abraham and his people had enmity and hatred for their people because their people were actively hostile towards them. Did not Abraham's people, when confronted with the absurdity of their idolatry, say: "Burn him and give aid to your gods..." (21:68)? How, then, can one extrapolate this verse to mean that Muslims must hate all non-Muslims?

The remaining verses in this passage, in fact, declare quite the opposite:

[But] it may well be that God will bring about [mutual] affection between you [O believers] and some of those whom you [now] face as enemies: for, God is all-powerful - and God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace. As for such [of the unbelievers] as do not fight against you on account of [your] faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: for, verily, God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of [your] faith, and drive you forth from your homelands, or aid [others] in driving you forth: and as for those [from among you] who turn towards them in friendship, it is they, they who are truly wrongdoers! (60:7-9)

According to the Muslim scholar Zamakhshari, the phrase "God does not forbid you" implies a positive exhortation. These three verses establish the guiding principle in Islam for relations with non-Muslims. As long as those who are not Muslim are not hostile towards us, we are commanded by God to treat them kindly and equitably. There is absolutely no basis for the claim that Muslims are supposed to hate all non-Muslims.

I mean, the evidence could not be any clearer in the Qur'an. Yet, if one has to mistranslate, misquote, or quote out of context verses in the Qur'an to "prove" that Muslims must hate all non-Muslims, can this be called "evidence" with any sort of credibility? I think not.

To be continued...

Are Muslims Supposed To Hate Non-Muslims? (Part 2)

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

One of my readers, Tom, asked a question. I will quote him directly:

"Hi Doc. Do you ever answer questions that appear in the comments section? Let's say a muslim invites a christian to dinner, tells him about the wonders of Allah (pbuh) and Islam, and humbly asks the christian to become a muslim, now that he knows the truth. And the christian declines. I am correct in thinking that the christian is now a kaffir who also is in a state of kufr? Should the muslim now hate the christian? Why does Islam teach its adherents to hate anyone?"

This is an excellent question, and this is the main impetus of this blog post. Thanks, Tom, for asking the question. Like I said before, the world will always be full of those who chose not to become Muslim. It is, in fact, part of God's plan. How do I know? God Himself told me so:

Have, then, they who have attained to faith not yet come to know that, had God so willed, He would indeed have guided all mankind aright? (13:31)

Unto every one of you have We appointed a [different] law and way of life. And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but [He willed it otherwise] in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto you... (5:48)

Thus, what are we as Muslims supposed to do with a non-Muslim? What is the relationship of Muslims to non-Muslims? It is one of peace and mutual respect. Islam does not call its followers to hate other people. This is a horrific misreading and misunderstanding of the Sacred Text of Islam, and it is high time for Muslims to abandon such destructive thinking.

Now, there are verses in the Qur'an that seem to contradict my contention. These verses say:

LET NOT the believers take those who deny the truth for their allies in preference to the believers... (3:28)

As for those who take the deniers of the truth for their allies in preference to the believers - do they hope to be honoured by them when, behold, all honour belongs to God [alone]? (4:139)

O you who have attained to faith! Do not take the deniers of the truth for your allies in preference to the believers! Do you want to place before God a manifest proof of your guilt? (4:144)

O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide such evildoers. (5:51)

The term used in these verses is awliya', which has several meanings in the Arabic, including "friend," "helper," "protector," "ally." The meaning differs depending on the context of the verse. Now, it is very interesting that those who are bent on claiming that Muslims should hate non-Muslims almost always translate awliya' as "friends." The truth of the matter, however, is quite different.

Muhammad Asad (may God's mercy be upon him) has explained the meaning of these verses the best. He wrote:

More than anything else, it obviously alludes to a "moral alliance" with the
deniers of the truth: that is to say, to an adoption of their way of life in
preference to the way of life of the believers, in the hope of being "honoured",
or accepted as equals, by the former. Since an imitation of the way of life of confirmed unbelievers must obviously conflict with the moral principles
demanded by true faith, it unavoidably leads to a gradual abandonment of those
principles.

However, as has been made abundantly clear in 60:7-9 (and implied in verse 57 of this surah), this prohibition of a "moral alliance" with non-Muslims does not constitute an injunction against normal, friendly relations with such of them as are well-disposed towards Muslims.

The last part is the most important part of his explanation. There is nothing to preclude normal, friendly relations with non-Muslims who are good to Muslims. In verse 5:57 (referenced above) it says: "O you who have attained to faith! Do not take for your friends such as mock at your faith and make a jest of it - be they from among those who have been vouchsafed revelation before your time, or [from among] those who deny the truth [of revelation as such] - but remain conscious of God, if you are [truly] believers." This makes sense. To extrapolate this and the other verses I cited above, however, to mean that: (1) Muslims are not to have friendly relations with anyone who is not Muslim, but not only that, (2) Muslims are supposed to hate them is terribly incorrect. There is no basis for this reading at all.

In addition, an example of how I understand Asad's above explanation is alcohol. If I start drinking (which is clearly prohibited by Islam) so that my non-Muslim friends and colleagues can like and accept me, I have taken them as "moral allies" in my hope of "being honored by them," as verse 4:139 says. But, I should remember that "all honor belongs to God [alone]," and thus, I should not compromise my faith by drinking in order to be popular. Yet, once again, this does not mean that I have to hate all those who are not Muslim.

The adherents of what I will call "The Doctrine of Hatred" retort by citing this verse:

Indeed, you have had a good example in Abraham and those who followed him, when they said unto their [idolatrous] people: “Verily, we are quit of you and of all that you worship instead of God: we deny the truth of whatever you believe; and between us and you there has arisen enmity and hatred, to last until such a time* as you come to believe in the One God!"... (60:4)

I cannot help but sigh at this point, because it deeply saddens me to see how Muslims can terribly misuse their own sacred text to evil ends. This verse is quoted completely out of context. It can only be correctly understood when the entire passage of the Qur'an in which it resides is examined, and this is the topic of my next post, God willing.

To be continued...

Are Muslims Supposed To Hate Non-Muslims?

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

Part I: Who are the kuffar?

Time and again, I have heard - from Muslims and non-Muslims alike - that Islam calls on Muslims are to hate non-Muslims (Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc). I have even seen scripture being quoted to that effect, and I have even listened as Muslims - deeply devout ones - have said to me, while keeping a straight face, that I am supposed to hate all those who are not Muslim.

I do not buy it one bit. I do not buy it no matter how many "Ulema," or religious scholars, are quoted as saying so. Yet, this begs the question: exactly who is a kafir? Many Muslims may understand that a kafir is anyone who is not Muslim, a so-called "infidel." It is not that simple.

The Arabic word kafir itself comes from the word kafara, which means "to cover up." In fact, farmers in Arabic are called kuffar because they "cover up" their seeds with dirt (such a usage is found in the Qur'an, in verse 57:20). Another meaning of kufr is ingratitude; it is the opposite of shukr, or gratitude. In fact, grammatically, kafir is an active verb, meaning that a kafir is actively "covering up" something. Thus, when the word kafir is used in the Qur'an, it is a voluntary action on the part of the person committing the kufr. Muhammad Asad (may God have mercy on him) explained the meaning of kafir best, which first occurred in the Qur'an in verse 74:10:

Since this is the earliest Quranic occurrence of the expression kafir (the above
surah having been preceded only by the first five verses of surah 96), its use
here - and, by implication, in the whole of the Quran - is obviously determined
by the meaning which it had in the speech of the Arabs before the advent of the
Prophet Muhammad: in other words, the term kafir cannot be simply be equated, as many Muslim theologians of post-classical times and practically all Western
translators of the Quran have done, with "unbeliever" or "infidel" in the
specific, restricted sense of one who rejects the system of doctrine and law
promulgated in the Quran and amplified by the teachings of the Prophet - but
must have a wider, more general meaning.

This meaning is easily grasped when we bear in mind that the root verb of the participial noun kafir (and of the infinitive noun kufr) is kafara, "he (or "it") covered (a thing)": thus, in 57:20 the tiller of the soil is called (without any pejorative implication) kafir, "one who covers", i.e., the sown seed with earth, just as the night is spoken of as having "covered" (kafara) the earth with darkness. In their
abstract sense, both the verb and the nouns derived from it have a connotation
of "concealing" something that exists or "denying" something that is true.
Hence, in the usage of the Quran - with the exception of the one instance (in
57:20) where this participial noun signifies a "tiller of the soil" - a kafir is
one who denies (or "refuses to acknowledge") the truth" in the widest, spiritual
sense of this latter term: that is, irrespective of whether it relates to a
cognition of the supreme truth - namely, the existence of God - or to a doctrine
or ordinance enunciated in the divine writ, or to a self-evident moral
proposition, or to an acknowledgment of, and therefore gratitude for, favours
received.

This is the proper understanding of the word kafir, namely someone who actively denies the truth. This necessitates that he or she comprehends what the truth is in order to deny it. If someone does not know the truth, how can he or she be called a kafir? How can someone deny something which he or she does not know? This is extremely important.

Now, it is true that the Qur'an does identify groups of people who are kuffar, or people who actively deny the truth. For instance, those who believe that Jesus is God have committed kufr, or denial of the truth: "Indeed, those who say, 'Behold, God is the Christ, son of Mary' deny the truth..." (5:17). Later in the same chapter God says: "Indeed, those who say, 'Behold, God is the Christ, son of Mary' deny the truth..." (5:72). The very next verse reiterates the same message: "Indeed, those who say, 'God is the third of a trinity' deny the truth..." (5:73).

But again, to be a kafir, one has to know the truth about Jesus' being no more than a messenger of God and still insist on his being God Himself. If someone has never heard and comprehended the truth about Jesus Christ (from a Muslim perspective), how can he or she be called a kafir, or one who actively denies the truth according to Islam? Furthermore, the Qur'an does not address Jews and Christians as "O kuffar." Rather, the Qur'an addresses them as ahl al kitab, or "People of the Book."

What's more, the Qur'an clearly delineates the nature of a true kafir: "God has set forth as a parable for those who are bent on denying the truth [the stories of] Noah's and Lot's wife: they were wedded to two of Our righteous servants, and each one [spiritually] betrayed her husband; and neither of the two [husbands] will be of any avail to these two women when they are told [on Judgment Day]: 'Enter the fire with all those [other sinners] who enter it!'" (66:10).

What more intimate relationship can there be besides husband and wife? The wife of a Prophet would be a first-hand witness to the revelation from God and its truth. She would see the proof of its veracity in the life of her husband. Noah's and Lot's wives, despite their closeness to Prophets of God, still denied the truth and joined the ranks of the unbelievers. This is truly what a kafir is. You can not equate someone like this with someone who has never heard or comprehended the truth and call the latter a kafir.

What does this mean for Muslims? For one thing, I do not think it is proper to call every person who is not a Muslim a kafir. We do not know the status of their hearts. Only God does, and it is God and God alone Who will take everyone to account for their beliefs and actions. In fact, many Muslims use the term kafir in a derogatory sense, maligning and looking down upon those who are not Muslim. This is neither right nor proper. Muslims are supposed to be a positive force in the world, the "best nation put forth for humanity." Spewing forth anger and hatred is wholly antithetical to what it means to be a Muslim.

Yet, the fact remains: the world will always be full of people who are not Muslim, be they kuffar or not. In fact, God has willed it to be so. So, what are we as Muslims supposed to do about this? Are we supposed to kill them all? Hell no. Are we supposed to "invade their countries, kill their leaders," and convert them to Islam? Umm, no. Are we supposed to hate them with all of our hearts? Wrong again. Rather, we are supposed to "invite to the way of [our] Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation" and leave the rest to God. He knows what He is doing.

To be continued...

A Lost Opportunity

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

At first, I had hope in Dr. Wafa Sultan and her stinging criticism of the Muslim World. I had hoped she would shed light on the darkness in which the Muslim World today is wallowing and help it out of this darkness by showing it the light of true Islam. I had hoped this international sensation would add to the debate raging within the Muslim World between the extremists who - with their murderous tactics - threaten to destroy the Muslim ummah and the reformers to wish to save it from utter destruction.

Unfortunately, however, I was wrong. As I listened to her speak about the crimes committed by Muslims throughout the centuries, I thought to myself, "Here we go again, another one of those." Her story is typical: a daughter of a devout grain trader from Syria, Dr. Sultan was raised a devout Muslim and remained one into her adulthood. That is until she witnessed the murder of her medical school professor in 1979 by Muslim gunmen shouting "God is great!"

"At that point," Dr. Sultan said, "I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god."

Her search for "another god" has led to her conclude that "The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings."

Although I hoped she meant that the "clash" we are witnessing is between civilization and religious extremism, in listening to other statements made by the good doctor, I realized that the "Middle Age mentality," the "backwardness," the "primitive," the "barbaric" to which she was referring was Islam itself. Her response to a question about who started the Crusades left me near speechless:

"The Crusader wars about which the professor is talking – these wars came after the Islamic religious teachings, and as a response to these teachings. This is the law of action and reaction. The Islamic religious teachings have incited to the rejection of the other, to the denial of the other, and to the killing of the other."

Are you kidding me? The Crusades were a response to Islamic teachings? Does not the good doctor remember that the Crusades started more than 400 years after Umar (R) first entered Jerusalem? And to what were the Crusaders - who slaughtered both Jews and Muslims until their blood was knee-high to the Crusaders' horses - exactly responding? What did the Muslims and Jews who were killed in Jerusalem in 1099 do to those European Knights?

The more I listened to what she had to say, the more I realized that she was simply the latest of a legion of critics who reflect upon the religion of Islam the sins of some of its followers. It is a tired, old tactic, but in today's age, people who do so are in no shortage of an audience. Dr. Sultan said: "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them." She also questioned why "a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up?"

Good point and good question. Yet, does the good doctor not know that the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world also do not destroy churches, kill people, destroy embassies and burn flags? Does she not know that the majority of Muslims around the world reject the violent rhetoric and tactics of the extremist mutants? Does the good doctor not understand that Islam does not condone suicide terrorism, even if said suicide terrorist claims that Islam is his (or her) motivation? Apparently not.

Does the good doctor not realize that simply because some Muslims horribly twist the faith of Islam for evil ends, it does not follow that the whole faith of Islam is evil? Does the good doctor not realize that simply because some criminals murder in the name of Islam, it does not follow that Islam itself is criminal? Does the good doctor not realize that simply because barbarians have usurped Islam for their bloody barbarism, it does not follow that Islam itself is barbaric? Apparently not, and this makes me truly sad indeed.

Yet, whatever she had to say about Islam and Muslims, the reaction of some Muslims to her comments are nothing short of absurd, immoral, and patently ridiculous. According to the New York Times article, shortly after the Al Jazeera broadcast, clerics in Syria declared her an infidel. The article said that, "one [cleric] said she had done Islam more damage than the Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad, a wire service reported."

The other guest on the Al Jazeera program, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, said there was no point in rebuking or debating her, because "she had blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, and the Koran." Since then, according to the New York Times, she has received numerous death threats. One message on her answering machine said, "Oh, you are still alive? Wait and see." An email was sent to her saying: "If someone were to kill you, it would be me."

Why? Why are some Muslims so threatened by her criticisms of Islam, however misplaced they are, that they are willing to threaten her - a fellow human being, a mother, a wife, a daughter, a sister - with death? Certainly God is not threatened by her statements. So, why should we be?

Rather than silence her with the threat of death, why not engage her questions in an open, honest, and forthright debate? What if she has some valid points? Wouldn't the whole ummah be benefited by her insights, if there are any? No, these Muslims refuse to listen to what she has to say and would rather declare her an "infidel" and end the discussion. They are acting like the people of Abraham (pbuh), when they were confronted with the absurdity of their idol worship. Rather than admit that Abraham (pbuh) had a point, they responded by saying: "Burn him and give aid to your gods..." (21:68).

Now, I am neither equating Dr. Sultan with the Prophet Abraham (pbuh) nor saying these Muslims clerics are defending idolatry. Far from it. Nevertheless, the violent reaction to Dr. Sultan's criticisms of modern-day Muslims only serves to solidify her apparent point: that Muslims have become a backward, barbaric people at odds with modernity and civilization.

Truth, it is said, does not fear investigation. The Qur'an itself calls upon its readers to ponder and reflect over the Sacred Text: "Do they, then, not ponder over this Qur'an? Or, are there locks upon their hearts?" (47:24). What is essential is that such questioning and pondering be sincere and in good faith. I see nothing wrong with questioning whether some commonly-held beliefs and practices of Muslims today are truly rooted in the Divine, or are they simply ignorant taboos and cultural norms wrapped in the cloak of Islam?

After all, there are many practices that many Muslims deem to be "Islamic" which have no basis in Islam at all, such as the shameful practice of so-called "honor killings." Yet, this would never be found out if no one was allowed to question such practices free from threat of death. Muslims have to learn how to debate and discuss critical aspects of their faith without resorting to threats and ex-communication. Otherwise, the problems that fester in the Muslim World will never be solved, and the entire world will suffer because of it.

Swords of Truth and Righteousness?

In the Name of God, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

It with the greatest sadness that I report - if you do not already know - that American aid worker Tom Fox of Clearbrook, VA was found dead in Iraq. He - along with three other aid workers - was first kidnapped late last year, and he appeared on an initial videotape made by a group called "The Swords of Righteousness." I have also heard that this group calls itself "The Swords of Truth." What a funny name for a group that murders innocent human beings.

This same group issued another videotape without Mr. Fox, and I had feared the worst. Now, my fear has been confirmed. My heartfelt thoughts and prayers go out to his family, who must be devastated at this moment. May the Lord be with them.

What sort of people would do something like this? What sort of "holy warriors" would kidnap unarmed, innocent peace workers who strived on behalf of Iraqi detainees? Do these people seriously think that they are doing God's work? Do these people think they are among the Party of God?

They are not. They are among the party of Satan, and evil is what they work each and every day. Their swords are not of truth and righteousness, but lies and corruption.

Now, before you scream it out to the computer screen, let me say this: My heart aches in pain with the death of each and every innocent Muslim in the "war on terror." In fact, whenever any innocent human being is killed, my heart aches. My God has told me that all life is sacred, and when that life is brutally taken away - especially in His name - my heart aches in pain.

That fact does not - and should not - prevent me from condemning the murder of Mr. Fox, a fellow American who was more brave, more noble, and more honorable than me, for he was willing to put his life on the line to help my brothers and sisters in Iraq. In fact, he ultimately gave his life for that mission. His murder pains and angers me deeply.

I pray that God puts an end to this murderous cancer in the Muslim world. Amen.