Ask Me Anything: Muslim Edition

[shazirah]

Probably not, because if you come from outside of Saudi Arabia, you have to have a letter of recommendation from your mosque and with the advent of computers and internet, everything about your trip is tracked. If there’s even a sniff of something being wrong, the police will stop you. If you look foreign, you’re probably going to get the third degree anyway.

 

[shazirah]

Lots, but a lot of it is by Twelver Shia, who believe the Mahdi was already born as Mohammed al-Askari but who has been occulted until he comes back at the end of the world. Twelver Shia are a little eccentric compared to Sunni theology. Shaykh al-Kulayni and Muhammad al-Numaniis are the authoritative interpreters of a lot of the Twelver material on the Mahdi. The Sunni hadiths have a lot of references to the Mahdi, but their authenticity is disputed and there’s no common consensus. Wahhabism has turned it into a whole genre of apocalyptic literature, but let’s just say that that probably needs to be taken with an enormous carton of rock salt.

 

[shazirah]

Because only Allah can know a person’s heart and specific circumstances. We believe Allah to be all-merciful. If mercy can be shown, then we believe Allah will show it. If someone has gone out of their way of their own free will and sound mind to become an active antagonist of the Muslim people and an enemy of God, then by Islamic legal jurisprudence, that person has to die to protect others from further harm - that’s what’s meant by not being forgiven. A minor apostate can recant because he has not allied himself totally against God or hurt people. A major apostate can’t recant and be spared from his crimes in the same way someone on death row can’t escape punishment by saying he’s sorry. What happens between that person and God is totally beyond anything we can know. Some people take a hard-line stance. Some people, like me, believe that God’s mercy is vast beyond anything we can understand and so we won’t know until the last day.

I should also mention that in the modern world, the cases of true major apostasy should be few and far between indeed, so we’re talking about a very extreme and rare situation.

 

[anon65111186]

It definitely differs from group to group and person to person. Shia are a little bit more like Catholics in that they put a lot of power in the hands of their religious leaders. Sunni are more dispersed, typically sticking with their preferred mullahs and jurists that they feel give reliable interpretations that gel with rational thought and historical continuity. There’s a top level of things that we’re required to believe in and do to be good Muslims, but the individual schools of jurisprudence really form how we think about the Koran underneath the core tenants of Islam.

Shia are allowed to commit taqiya in more situations than Sunni, but that’s because Shia - most specifically the Twelvers - have been historically persecuted a lot more. Most minority Muslim sects have a broader interpretation of taqiya because otherwise they wouldn’t exist in the 21st century. Sunni don’t really have an excuse, so we can only commit taqiya in extreme, extreme circumstances.

Thank you for explaining. So in general, both Shia and Sunni believe it is okay to lie in certain circumstances? Therefore lying is not absolutely wrong, but relatively wrong, depending on circumstances?

As a Catholic, lying is absolutely wrong and nothing can justify it, not even duress of potential martyrdom or the like. Catholics go with the principle that it is never permissible to intentionally tell a lie, ever.

 

[anon65111186]

If someone has gone out of their way of their own free will and sound mind to become an active antagonist of the Muslim people and an enemy of God, then by Islamic legal jurisprudence, that person has to die to protect others from further harm - that’s what’s meant by not being forgiven.

That person has to die - by whom? Whom is causing the death I wonder. Do muslims believe any muslim can judge a person worthy to die, or is it invested in clerics or just the state, if it be Islamic?

What defines harm, physical violence? Emotional harm? Spiritual harm?

In western Christian culture a person can antagonize Christians and God, yet no power, secular or religious, or any individual has the right to take another’s life, unless that person themselves took a life or was sure to take a life. The intention should not be to kill though, it should be to stop the person from killing or doing harm.

 

[shazirah]

We don’t think of sin in terms of black and white that way. One can only sin of one’s free will and coercion negates free will. Lying because you don’t want to admit you ate the last cupcake is a sin or you just don’t want to talk about something to a non-Muslim is a sin. Pretending to convert to another religion because otherwise your entire family will be tortured to death in front of you is not the same thing.

 

[anon65111186]

Pretending to convert to another religion because otherwise your entire family will be tortured to death in front of you is not the same thing.

Were there cases of peoples of other religions doing such a horrible thing? I can hardly imagine that, especially in modern times. I can however imagine ISIS or the like doing this to those who will not follow their version of Islam, because we see it in the news at times.

Like I said, though understandable, it wouldn’t be seen as Christian virtue to lie in such a situation and pretend to convert, thereby betraying the faith. Many Saints underwent similar situations themselves, and were Saints because they refused to lie or convert.

 

[anon65111186]

One can only sin of one’s free will and coercion negates free will

Though coercion is a factor also in Christian moral theology, nothing can fully erase free will, you always have a choice, even under duress.

 

[adgloriam]

Plenty of Muslims have gone to Fátima. What exactly is the position of Shiites in regard to Marian Apparitions? What is the exact difference to the Sunnis, regarding Marian apparitions? What did the Shiite Muftis who regard Fátima as plausible say?

 

[adgloriam]

What exactly does the Koran say about lying to “infidels”? What is the exact difference in gravity between a Muslim lying to a Muslim and lying to a Christian?

And how long would it take to read the Koran? With a reasonably reflected reading?

 

[ratio1]

As a Catholic, lying is absolutely wrong and nothing can justify it, not even duress of potential martyrdom or the like. Catholics go with the principle that it is never permissible to intentionally tell a lie, ever.

Can you please give a reference from official Church documents which support your statement? Thanks. I’m a bit rusty on this subject.

 

[Richard_White]

Well forgive me but that doesn’t make any sense. It baffles me that someone should be killed because he is “an active antagonist of the Muslim people and an enemy of God.” What exactly does that entail anyway?

In Christianity, God forgives all sin if we come to Him in repentance, even if we become atheists, satanists, murderers of fellow Christians, etc. and then see the error of our ways, ask Him for Mercy, and return to Him. In Islam, this is not the case. That person, even if He is really sorry for what he did and recants it totally, will not be forgiven by God and will actually be executed under Islamic justice. That is not the definition of mercy.

May God bless you always!

 

[Inisfallen]

What do Muslims, Sunni and Shia, think of Ahmadis?

 

[adgloriam]

If someone has gone out of their way of their own free will and sound mind to become an active antagonist of the Muslim people and an enemy of God, then by Islamic legal jurisprudence, that person has to die to protect others from further harm

In what countries is this enforced? Do you believe this? What kind of Muslims believe this? What percentage of Muslims by country have you met that believe this?

 

[anon65111186]

Can you please give a reference from official Church documents which support your statement? Thanks. I’m a bit rusty on this subject.

There is a plethora of documents on the subject, but for starters:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly teaches, just as Pope Saint John Paul II taught in Veritatis Splendor:

1. intrinsically evil acts are always immoral, regardless of intention or circumstances
2. an intrinsically evil act is an act with an evil moral object
3. neither intention or circumstances can make an intrinsically evil act moral or justifiable

“A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).” CCC 1753

“The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.” CCC 1754

“A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”). The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts – such as fornication – that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.” CCC 1755

“It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.” CCC 1756

 

[shazirah]

No, only a religious court can officially pronounce a sentence on an apostate and there are prescribed legal processes requiring evidence and so on. Penalties of sharia law can only be enforced by a state sanctioned authority. Outside of that, no one can enforce sharia. A person’s conduct is judged by Allah on the last day. That doesn’t mean that Allah does not know what they have done or that the Muslim community will not reject them in lawful ways simply because they don’t live under religious authority. And, quite frankly, that’s fine with me and many other people. If someone is a big enough problem that they could properly be a major apostate, that likely means they’d be in trouble with secular law anyway, so that takes care of that. There are other ways to deal with the problem in the modern world. The laws surrounding apostates were created to deal with political traitors, not someone who just decided not to be Muslim anymore.

I’m going to answer a few other questions regarding apostasy at once for the sake of brevity and leave it there. It’s always a hot button issue, and it’s one of the more tedious questions for me personally because it’s been hashed over by so many people so many times.

While there are countries that enforce versions of Sharia law as legal precedent (Saudi Arabia, for example), there are none that enforce the apostasy laws according to a reasonable historical interpretation of the Koran and the hadith. From a historical and political point of view that’s on purpose. They aren’t meant to enforce the spirit of religious law, they’ve become the tools of secular politicians. All modern majority Muslim countries currently in existence are secular states that simply grant a set of powers to religious courts (usually suspiciously in step with a ruling party in their interpretations) - and those powers mostly come into effect when it keeps the status quo in tact. So, many modernists would be more than happy to see that struck off, because it’s not Islam, it’s political corruption masking itself as Islam. I would be perfectly happy if every Sharia court currently in existence lost its state mandated powers. I think the world would be better for it. That doesn’t mean I don’t believe in Sharia law, just that I believe there’s no rightly guided Islamic state in the world and therefore no state which has a capacity to judge Sharia fairly on its populace as a legal system.

I’d rather move on from apostasy now because that’s pretty much the extent of what I’m qualified to say on the subject just being Jane Muslim on the street, but I really encourage you guys to read some cases of how apostasy was handled in early Islam. Even Ibn Taymiyyah, whose legal decisions heavily influenced Wahhabi jurisprudence from ISIS developed their craziness, differentiated between minor and major apostasy and did not advocate killing anyone who had not caused actual physical harm to other Muslims, so how can any modern state claim to have the right to do so?

 

[anon65111186]

No, only a religious court can officially pronounce a sentence on an apostate and there are prescribed legal processes requiring evidence and so on. Penalties of sharia law can only be enforced by a state sanctioned authority. Outside of that, no one can enforce sharia. A person’s conduct is judged by Allah on the last day. That doesn’t mean that Allah does not know what they have done or that the Muslim community will not reject them in lawful ways simply because they don’t live under religious authority. And, quite frankly, that’s fine with me and many other people. If someone is a big enough problem that they could properly be a major apostate, that likely means they’d be in trouble with secular law anyway, so that takes care of that. There are other ways to deal with the problem in the modern world. The laws surrounding apostates were created to deal with political traitors, not someone who just decided not to be Muslim anymore.

Wow, good and thorough answer, and I agree with you, I don’t think states should enforce Sharia, just as states shouldn’t enforce Jewish Halakhah, or Catholic canon law. That should be left to the competent religious authorities.

Catholics also agree that God will judge us on the last day, but they also believe there is a private, instantaneous judgement to heaven, hell or purgatory after the moment of death.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, it was interesting how you responded.

 

[Rau]

If someone has gone out of their way of their own free will and sound mind to become an active antagonist of the Muslim people and an enemy of God, then by Islamic legal jurisprudence, that person has to die to protect others from further harm - that’s what’s meant by not being forgiven.

But if he is not yet killed, and he reassesses himself and his actions, recognizes his fault and earnestly seeks forgiveness - he still will not be forgiven (according the the usual understanding of major apostasy) by God?

This is quite like the Justice man meets out - for this particular crime it’s “do the crime, do the time! (In the afterlife).

I wonder whether the Quran is really so explicit? Jesus also named various “fatal” acts for man - but never suggesting forgiveness would be denied.

 

[shazirah]

In the sense that he could avoid a death sentence simply by repenting and seeking forgiveness, no. As for what happens between him and Allah, I don’t think there is anyone qualified to answer that question authoritatively. People with very strict interpretations of the Koran would say that that person would not be forgiven. The scholars I’ve read that have the best grasp of the historical context and the spiritual message of the Koran however, tend to believe that we can’t know for sure, because we can’t know what transpires between Allah and a person in their inner being. We simply have to trust that when Allah says that He is All-Merciful, He really means it.

A lot of my specific opinion on the subject is informed by aspects of my work. I studied psychology in addition to linguistics, and I’ve been blessed with the personality of an excitable camp counselor so I’ve had interpreter assignments where I’ve helped work with radicalized youth. Some of those kids seriously hurt people and there needs to be consequences for that, but at the same time, how much of that violence came from poverty, alienation, abuse, and mental illness? Even if we can’t know, I believe that Allah does. So, I can imagine a situation in which the world would rightfully execute someone as a dangerous apostate, and that person might still find Allah’s forgiveness.

 

[Rau]

In the sense that he could avoid a death sentence simply by repenting and seeking forgiveness, no. As for what happens between him and Allah, I don’t think there is anyone qualified to answer that question authoritatively.

Ok, but the original point in discussion was about that which is between God and man (whether forgiveness is always available to the sincere penitent) not jurisprudence here on earth. Your earlier answer I think was to the effect that the mainstream answer on the former point is “no”, though you personally held out the possibility of “yes”. I only harp on a bit because it seems to be a point of major difference among the abrahamic religions.