Opinion

A peep into the belief system which justifies capital punishment for apostasy would reveal that it is based not on the Qur’an, but on spurious reports attributed to the Prophet (Pbuh).


The recent attack on Taslima Nasrin by Muslim extremists at Hyderabad has once again showed that the real threat to society comes from extremism and not terrorism. The relative ease with which the image of a religion of peace was distorted to make it appear diabolical by a handful of fanatics is indeed shocking. It is time we debated and defeated the ideology which allows its clergy to issue un-Islamic fatwas of death against Muslim critics of Islam presuming them to have been rendered apostates by their criticism. In the case of Taslima Nasrin it was her conversion to atheism and her comments against Islam that put her on a collision course with the extremists. But the question is: Does Islamic law sanction the killing of a renegade Muslim?


A peep into the belief system which justifies capital punishment for apostasy would reveal that it is based not on the Qur'an but on spurious reports attributed to the Prophet. Instances quoted by most ulama in support of death penalty for apostates are torn out of their political context to mislead the Muslim laity into believing that a Muslim who gives up his belief is guilty enough to be killed. It is conveniently ignored that there is not a single case in which the Prophet adjudged a Muslim to be killed for apostasy alone. All those individuals who were put to death on the orders of the Prophet were hypocrites who joined the ranks of the Muslims only to scuttle the Islamic cause from within (see Qur'an 3:72) and later on, on the verge of being exposed, declared their unbelief and openly indulged (along with the Mushriks of Makkah) in subversive activities against the Islamic state.


In fact it was the Qur'an which solved the dilemma of the Muslims of how to deal with such enemies. It said, “Why should you be divided into two parties regarding the Hypocrites? God has cast them off for their deeds…They but wish that you should reject faith and thus become like them. So take not friends from their ranks until they give up (their evil intentions) for the sake of God. But if they turn back to enmity seize them and slay them wherever you find them…except those who seek refuge with a people who have a peace treaty with you, or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you or their own people…and, if they withdraw from you and fight you not, and offer you peace, then God allows you no excuse to war against them.”(4: 88-90). These verses, thus, make it clear that even a known hypocrite cannot be killed unless he violently opposes Islam or the Muslims.


Moreover, not many are aware that the Qur'an addresses the issue of apostasy in several places and nowhere does it talk of any mundane punishment for it, let alone death penalty. It only warns of divine retribution in the next life: “And if any from among you (Muslims) turn back from their faith and die in a state of disbelief (as a kaafir), their works will bear no fruit in this world and the Hereafter. Those are the people who will abide in the Fire.” (2:217).


It may be noted here that this verse envisages the natural death of an apostate thereby effectively giving him/her an entire lifetime (short of the actual moment of death) to excogitate on Islam and revert back to its truthful message. This is consistent with the Qur'anic concept of Laa ikraaha fiddeen (no compulsion in religion) wherein any person including a Muslim, without violently threatening the Islamic order, enjoys the free will and the fundamental right to profess, practice and propagate the religion of his choice. And it is impossible that the Prophet (as reported in some inauthentic hadiths) could have ordered the killing of those who exercise their god-given choice by violating the very message he brought, particularly when he was asked to judge between people only “by what God has revealed” (5:49). Ironically, the Qur'an says that “those who fail to judge by what God has revealed are unbelievers (kaafiroon)” (5:44). Therefore, any report or hadith that is antithetical to letter and spirit of the Qur’anic message should be rejected as an un-Islamic interpolation and any law enacted on the basis of such an hadith should be declared null and void.


It is obvious that the attackers of Taslima Nasrin were mechanically acting on the pronouncements of an extremist clergy and were ignorant of the fact that in Islam a person can be acted against only if he or she is found guilty, after a fair trial, of subversive activity against an Islamic state and not for differing with the Muslim worldview. Taslima’s views could have been easily countered through an intellectual discussion. For instance, on her website taslimanasrin.com she says, “If any religion allows the persecution of the people of different faiths, if any religion keeps women in slavery, if any religion keeps people in ignorance, then I can’t accept that religion.” Any student of Islam would know that there is no truth in these allegations.


Psychologically speaking, it appears that Taslima has been misled into judging Islam wrongly due to her traumatic sexual exploitation by the patriarchal Muslim society of Bangladesh. One wonders if she is aware that a remarkable woman named Sarojini Naidu had this to say about Islam: “Sense of justice is one of the most wonderful ideals of Islam, because as I read in the Qur'an I find those dynamic principles of life, not mystic but practical ethics for the daily conduct of life suited to the whole world." (Speeches and Writings of Sarojini Naidu, Madras, 1918, p. 167).


And if Taslima feels that Islam keeps women under slavery, she may find the views of another great woman enlightening. "It is only in the last twenty years” said Annie Besant, “that Christian England has recognised the right of woman to property, while Islam has allowed this right from all times. It is a slander to say that Islam preaches that women have no souls". (Annie Besant, The Life and Teachings of Mohammed, Madras: 1932). And does Taslima know that the Prophet declared, “If anybody has a female child and does not bury her alive, nor treats her unjustly, nor prefers his sons over her, Allah would admit him in Paradise.” (Abu Dawood)?


In an April 2007 television interview to Karan Thapar on CNN-IBN Taslima remarked that Islam allows a woman to inherit only half of what a man gets and therefore, it is unjust to women. Her criticism is best answered in the words of Sir Mohammad Iqbal: “…the rule of inheritance must be regarded not as an isolated factor in the distribution of wealth, but as one factor among others working together for the same end. While the daughter, according to Mohammedan Law, is held to be full owner of the property given to her by the father and the husband at the time of her marriage; while, further, she absolutely owns her dower-money which may be prompt or deferred according to her own choice, and in lieu of which she can hold possession of the whole of her husband’s property till payment, the responsibility of maintaining her throughout her life is wholly thrown on the husband. If you judge the working of the rule of inheritance from this point of view, you will find that there is no material difference between the economic position of sons and daughters, and it is by this apparent inequality of their legal shares that the law secures the equality” (The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Kitab Bhavan , p.170).


And in the unfortunate event of the woman being divorced the Prophet said that it is “the best form of charity to maintain your daughter who has been returned to you, particularly when she has no earning member except you.” (Ibn Majah). Surely, this is not the religion which Taslima Nasrin is talking about, and one hopes she re-evaluates her understanding of Islam in the light of the aforementioned arguments.


(The writer is a peace activist based in Chennai and can be reached at email.faiz@gmail.com)