The Islamic Case for Religious Liberty

[Ahimsa]

The bedrock of the Islamic case for religious liberty is the Qur’an’s vision of the human person. The Qur’an’s anthropology—which is shared by Christianity and Judaism—views every human being as a creation of God, blessed with intellect and free will. God created humans “in the best of molds” (Q 95:4) and in doing so honored humanity and conferred on it special favors (Q 17:70). The Qur’an emphasizes that human beings have inherent worth and dignity. Further, it holds that God gave humankind the intellect and ability to discern between right and wrong (Q 17:15 and 6:104).

The Qur’an emphasizes free choice. “The truth [has now come] from your Sustainer: Let, then, him who wills, believe in it, and let him who wills, reject it,” it says (Q 18:29). And also: “Whoever chooses to follow the right path follows it but for his own good; and whoever goes astray goes but astray to his own hurt” (Q 17:15). Resoundingly, the Qur’an declares that “there shall be no coercion in matters of faith” (Q 2:256). Belief is an individual choice—or, rather, it is a choice involving the individual and God. Therefore forced conversions are simply unacceptable, and anyone who would use force rather than persuasion to promote religion must ignore the view of the person central to the Qur’an.

 

[Barbkw]

Therefore forced conversions are simply unacceptable, and anyone who would use force rather than persuasion to promote religion must ignore the view of the person central to the Qur’an.

thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Quran-Hate.htm

On September 25, 2002, a group of armed Muslims in Karachi, Pakistan entered the office of a Christian charity, tied seven workers to chairs and then brutally murdered them. According to Muslim witnesses, the Islamists “showed no haste. They took a good 15 minutes in segregating the Christians and making sure that each one of their targets received the most horrific death.”

The killing of non-Muslim humanitarian workers by devout followers of Islam occurs quite often. The executions are not usually celebrated by Muslims, but there is rarely if any outrage expressed over slaughter in the name of Islam by a community renowned for its peevishness.

The holiest book of Islam (61% of which is about non-Muslims) draws the sharpest of distinctions between Muslims (the best of people, 3:110) and non-believers (the worst of creatures, 98:6). Praise is lavished on the former while the latter is condemned with scorching generalization. Far from teaching universal love, the Quran incessantly preaches the inferiority of non-Muslims, even comparing them to vile animals and gloating over Allah’s hatred of them and his dark plans for their eternal torture. Naturally, the harsh treatment of non-believers by Muslims is encouraged as well.

Although it is common for Muslims to become upset about anyone “insulting” their religion, here is what the Quran says about Jews and Christians:

The Jews call Ezra a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! (9:30) (See also Bukhari 8:427), one of the last things Muhammad ever said on his deathbed was "May Allah curse the Jews and Christians.”)

The Quran specifically addresses Christians, Jews, Polytheists (Hindus) and atheists:

Christians are blasphemers (5:17, 5:73) who have invented a lie about Allah (10:68-69) by ascribing partners to Allah (ie. the Trinity). Inventing a lie about Allah is the worst of sins (7:37, 29:68) and for this reason Christians are condemned to Hell (10:70). Although one (early Medinan) verse seems to say that righteous Christians will go to heaven, this is abrogated by later verses that make it very clear that Christians must cease being Christian (ie. reject the Trinity) or suffer eternal torment for their beliefs (5:72-73).

Jews are also cursed by Allah (5:13), in one of his final pronouncements. The Quran goes on to assure Muslims that Jews are wicked (4:160-162) – so wicked, in fact, that they have somehow managed to do the impossible (18:27) and alter the word of Allah (2:75). Jews are “fond of lies” and “devour the forbidden” (5:42).

The Quran assures believers that Jews and Christians have “diseased hearts” (5:52). Allah even takes credit for the enmity between them (5:14). Only Jews and Christians who submit to Islamic subjugation and pay the Jizya are protected in this world (9:29 & Ibn Ishaq 956).

Hindus are polytheists. Although Muhammad didn’t know any Hindus (and neither did Allah, apparently) the Quran still manages to lay the groundwork for the 1000 year ethnic cleansing campaign against the Hindu people that is estimated to have taken tens of millions of innocent lives. In Islam, polytheists are worse than all other religion. Those who join idols (14:30) or false gods (11:14) to Allah also invent a lie about Him (29:17) and will burn in Hell. Even believing in other divine entities along with Allah is an unforgivable crime (4:48, 40:12).

Atheists believe in no god, which is even worse than believing in the wrong one (Muhammad and his successors had atheists put to death - Bukhari 84:57). Merely questioning the existence of Allah is a testament to one’s impiety (25:21), even as Muslim narcissim is encouraged in the Quran. Muhammad always answered probing questions merely by telling the inquiring party that they would go to Hell if they didn’t believe in him (36:49-64). The Quran discourages Muslims from intellectual inquiry (5:101-102).

Anyone who gives up his religion is a “perverted transgressor” (3:82). Perverted as well is anyone who denies Allah (40:63) or does not believe Muhammad (2:99). Freedom of conscience does not exist in Islam. Muhammad clearly prescribed the death penalty for apostates (Bukhari 52:260).

While contemporary Muslim apologists often speak of “dialogue” (meaning a unilateral arrangement in which they tell you about Islam while you listen) the Quran speaks of Jihad instead:

Listen not to the unbelievers, but strive (Jihad) against them with the utmost strenuousness. (25:52)

What would be the point in hearing anything a non-Muslim has to say… or even talking with them for that matter? Allah has already sealed their hearts and condemned them to Hell:

As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom (2:6)

 

[CompSciGuy]

Too bad many leaders of Muslim countries in the Middle East do not appear to read their Quran.

 

[Marybeloved]

Too bad many leaders of Muslim countries in the Middle East do not appear to read their Quran.

Which parts?

 

[Contarini]

Which parts?

Indeed. Sacred books in general can be read in multiple ways. To say that people who hold a particular interpretation “haven’t read” their sacred book is naive. More likely, they just read it differently than the person making the accusation does.

St. Thomas Aquinas certainly read the Bible, for instance. That didn’t stop him thinking that heretics should be executed–quite the contrary.

Edwin

 

[Marybeloved]

For me the best (and to me honest) case for the establishment of these liberties in a practical sense within Islamic thought has been put forward by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser.

-He says simply: Shariah is God’s Law as Muslims believe, but does God himself sit in the judge’s seat to apply it in society?- Who is to interpret and apply it infallibly? Are its judges and interpreters infallible? If not, then whatever decisions coming from the human court are not really God’s law but that particular Judge’s Law. Therefore the Civil Laws of a country that govern Muslims and non-Muslims must be based on human reason and common sense rather than laws pretending to carry the force of Divine Law when they are at best fallible, human interpretations of Divine Law.

-So Shariah then becomes a personal law that God will reward each believer for obeying faithfully rather than one imposed on the people by the force of Government without any true devotion on their part (therefore no merit in God’s eyes).

It’s the only reasoning I ever heard that I could agree to as viable. It’s reasonable within the religious thought itself without having to deny parts of one’s faith or have imposed on one a liberal reinvention that seems to try to change the faith itself. In fact, Dr. Jasser says that every group of Muslim youth he gives talks to, once they see this basic reasoning (that shariah without God as judge or at least the Prophet will not be shariah at all) prove immune to radical influence or the majority Muslim thought that favors application of shariah in civil space.

 

[Izdaari]

For me the best (and to me honest) case for the establishment of these liberties in a practical sense within Islamic thought has been put forward by Zuhdi Jasser.

-He says simply: Shariah is God’s Law as Muslims believe, but does God himself sit in the judge’s seat to apply it in society?- Who is to interpret and apply it infallibly? Are its judges and interpreters infallible? If not, then whatever decisions coming from the human court are not really God’s law but that particular Judge’s Law. Therefore the Civil Laws must be based on human reason and common sense rather than laws pretending to carry the force of Divine Law when they are at best fallible human interpretations of Divine Law.

-So Shariah then becomes a personal law that God will reward each believer for obeying faithfully rather than one imposed on the people by the force of Government without any true devotion on their part (therefore no merit in God’s eyes).

It’s the only reasoning I ever heard that I could agree to as viable as it’s reasonable within the religious thought itself without having to deny parts of one’s faith or have imposed on one a liberal reinvention that seems to try to change the faith itself. In fact, Dr. Jasser says that every group of Muslim youth he gives talks to, once they see this reasoning (that shariah without God as judge or at least the Prophet will not be shariah at all) prove immune to radical influence or the majority muslim thought that favors application of shariah in civil space.

prays that more Muslims will be persuaded by Dr. Jasser

 

[Peace_of_cake]

Indeed. Sacred books in general can be read in multiple ways. To say that people who hold a particular interpretation “haven’t read” their sacred book is naive. More likely, they just read it differently than the person making the accusation does.
St. Thomas Aquinas certainly read the Bible, for instance. That didn’t stop him thinking that heretics should be executed–quite the contrary.
Edwin

this seems a good point to me as was Dr Jasser’s that Marybeloved gave.
It is often mistaken that Shariah Law is Divine Law. In actual fact it is more like natural law in that it is man’s efforts to uncover God’s Law. The Islamic state, classically, is not a theocracy because no one speaks for God, but rather it is a nomocracy or based on the rule of law.
The ‘Western’ legal system is based on Canon Law. Originally Canon Law was just another branch of theology, man’s attempt to uncover Justice - God’s attribute. It used Greek and Roman methodologies as tools to this aim. Then it became a distinct field and was seperated from theology. In addition law was divided into secular and sacred law systems, but they shouldn’t be thought of as completely distinct back then since most lawyers etc in the King’s Court were clergy. However with the separation from theology law took a course of it’s own and increasingly distant from the Church until only the secular was left, hence why modern Western Law has no real ‘moral’ comment.
Shariah Law is much the same in that it is very much interwoven with other disciplines. Shariah has not been separated from moral theology in the Muslim World. However there is split into ibadaat (worship) and muamalaat (social interactions). The weighting is primarily on the former where it is very precriptive. In the latter however it is very brief and only comments on a few areas. Also in the time of Muhammad there are examples of living without the ‘state’ laws etc. Therefore there is no reason why Muslims can’t live in secular lands practicing the ibadaat only. Also there is much scope in the muamalaat for harmoniously engaging with liberal democracy.
Dr Jasser has made an interesting point, but he may have difficulty convincing more learned Muslims as he doesn’t seem to be aware that there are two Shariahs in classical understanding: one in this world judged by man based on outward indicators, and one in the next judged by God based on the reality of things
Anyway it is interesting what will transpire. An element of Shariah will remain in any ‘Muslim’ country as it is their heritage, just like Canon Law is the Wests. Of course Shariah in the classical sense doesn’t really exist in it’s totality anywhere, Muslim states tend to use hybrids systems of Western and Shariah Law.
Hope that was handy, can recommend a few books for further reading if anyone is interested? I would generally say no Catholic should be without Brundage’s book Canon Law as an accessible overview.
I love Aquinas and his legal treatise (which is a work of theology!) is still highly influencial and in fact making a bit of a come back. Personally I’m with him on the heretic front providing the context he meant is in place. As such I find it hard to criticise Islam… Where no doubt Aquinas may have had some inspiration

 

[Marybeloved]

I love Aquinas and his legal treatise (which is a work of theology!) is still highly influencial and in fact making a bit of a come back. Personally I’m with him on the heretic front providing the context he meant is in place. As such I find it hard to criticise Islam… Where no doubt Aquinas may have had some inspiration

I love St. Thomas too, but he was definitely wrong on this! And I have no doubt the Church now would totally disapprove of any idea of killing heretics. There’s also no justification at all for the killing of Apostates or Heretics in Islam or even sinners when their sin does not interfere with other people’s lives. Only a reasoning like Dr. Jasser’s can allow Islam to co-exist peacefully with others, as it removes the basis for applying it in shared civil space. The liberal rhetoric that rejects any criticism of Islam is a hindrance to reform- it pretends that that there’s no problem with Islam when everyone can see that there is.

Such discussions such as: How can we really trust application of religious law in society by government when the government (and religious courts) are made up of sinful, even corrupt, very fallible men? Is a society ruled by shariah really good when when ruled by fallible creatures who impose it with the force of divine law? Shouldn’t that be restricted to the realm of personal law? Shouldn’t the civil space be based on reason and common sense for the sole purpose of achieving peaceful co-existence and maximum freedom to pursue prosperity and personal faith & piety?

Such debates are what in the long run lead to the kind of society everyone hopes would eventually exist in the Islamic world.

 

[carn]

As far as i understand the position of the muslim leaders, who supposedly have not read the Quran, they solve it this way:

Quran prescibes killing apostates and it says "there shall be no coercion in matters of faith” (Q 2:256) => killing people because they changed their faith is no coercion otherwise it would not be in the Quran, so one is free to apply force and threat against those who leave islam, its not coercion.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Which parts?

The parts quoted in the original post, of course.

 

[Izdaari]

As far as i understand the position of the muslim leaders, who supposedly have not read the Quran, they solve it this way:

Quran prescibes killing apostates and it says "there shall be no coercion in matters of faith” (Q 2:256) => killing people because they changed their faith is no coercion otherwise it would not be in the Quran, so one is free to apply force and threat against those who leave islam, its not coercion.

Seems logical, except for being Orwellian doublethink.

 

[Contarini]

As far as i understand the position of the muslim leaders, who supposedly have not read the Quran, they solve it this way:

Quran prescibes killing apostates and it says "there shall be no coercion in matters of faith” (Q 2:256) => killing people because they changed their faith is no coercion otherwise it would not be in the Quran, so one is free to apply force and threat against those who leave islam, its not coercion.

I don’t know for sure how those who support this penalty actually argue, but I know how Aquinas argued: he claimed that people who have never accepted Christianity should not be compelled, but that heretics and apostates should be compelled to keep their baptismal vows. I believe–though I am not certain–that a similar interpretation prevails in traditional Islam. Certainly such a position would make sense without any such silly reasoning as you attribute to them.

Edwin