Apostasy and Disbelief as Thought Control in the Muslim Experience
First, while on the subject of apostasy, let me point out that the last section lacks a bit of nuance that you might be able to pick up in the comments (courtesy of Professor March) if you want to explore the matter further. I think it's hard to translate terms like blasphemy, or heresy, into Islamic equivalents and I think that sort of caused a bit of reductiveness, as did my rather incomplete rendition of the crime of insulting the Prophet. But perfection is impossible in blog formats I think, I strive for 95% and no real glaring errors, may have fallen short though that time.
In racking my conscience about that post and going back to some classical sources on it, another thing that strikes me, however, is how incomplete even the term "apostasy" is for the scriptural crime (hadd) of ridda. And this actually does have some relevance for our times, in a rather indirect way.
The standard English definition of apostasy is "renunciation of faith". Clearly, ridda in the classical world means much more. If you, for example, say that wines are actually lawful to consume in Islam, you are committing apostasy. That's not really a renunciation of faith, I know Muslims who say the verse that forbids them uses the term "avoid" (ijtanabu) and that's what God wants us to do. Now you can call that self serving, you can call it poorly reasoned, I don't think you can really call that a "renunciation of faith". Certainly, though, there is ample authority to call it ridda. Not the actual drinking, that's sinning, that's different, but to call it a non-sin is considered ridda. In other words, there are things in the Qur'an that are not subject to discussion, and if you try to so subject them, you are engaged in apostasy. Included in this too by the way is buying slave girls and requring punitive taxes on Christians and Jews for their religion. Argue against these things, even while professing Islam, and you are an apostate.
Why do I think this is relevant now? Well in the modern world there are in particular groups of Sunnis known as takfiris who sort of run around calling anyone who doesn't believe every little thing they describe as absolutely certain (qat'i) as being what is known as kufr, or disbelief. Now disbelief is obviously different from apostasy, as we discussed yesterday but the tie between the two, in modernity, is unmistakable. In both cases, you are looking for a denial of the qat'i. Thus, supposedly "moderate" Islamist movements take someone like Nasser Abu Zaid and get an Egyptian Court to declare him an apostate for believing something that is supposedly absolutely clear, qat'i, like the idea that God doesn't actually have a body and sits on an actual throne based on Quranic verse that says this. Call that a metaphor, and you are engaged in apostasy. The slave girl and tax crap above comes from this Court too.
But why bring in kufr? Why not just stick to the classical, scriptual crime of ridda? Certainly that worked in Abu Zaid's case, but it won't always, for the reasons I raised in the last post, you can't get groups like the Shi'a, or even more far out groups like the Ahmadis then. See if you decide it's absolutely clear that there are no Imams who are Infallible following Muhammad, to get a guy for the crime ridda what you have to show is he didn't believe in Imams, and then he started believing it. Not the case for your average Shi'i like me. I never knew Islam without the Imams. And so we expand. And you are not an apostate, you are an infidel, a kafir, someone who has pronounced disbelief. You are then not guilty of a crime of ridda, but you have no recognition or rights of any kind (not life, not liberty, not property) in the House of Islam. Which basically is the same thing.
That said, modernity has reared its head too in the opposite direction, thankfully. As a result, I think the takfiri movement has reached its apotheosis as people realized it's getting too easy to deligitimize through the takfir process. And you get this idea, pronounced by scholars at a Jordan conference sponsored by King Abdullah, that if you believe in Islam as professed by any of the major Sunni or Shi'i branches (not Ahmadis, not Baha'is) then you are a Muslim, period. That doesn't quite pull you away from the ridda problem, in that you might still be an apostate if you say wines are permitted, since none of those schools take that position, but it does lessen it to some degree. For example, if you said whiskey is allowed, that's okay because Hanafi. Or if you said God had no body, that's Shi'i, clearly okay (and classical Sunni, according to Fadel). Or there are Imams, etc.
And so, as with all law, both sides are using the classical doctrine as a club, one to narrow differences, the other to exacerbate them. Stay tuned, we'll see how it all twists and turns in the years to come.
HAH
In racking my conscience about that post and going back to some classical sources on it, another thing that strikes me, however, is how incomplete even the term "apostasy" is for the scriptural crime (hadd) of ridda. And this actually does have some relevance for our times, in a rather indirect way.
The standard English definition of apostasy is "renunciation of faith". Clearly, ridda in the classical world means much more. If you, for example, say that wines are actually lawful to consume in Islam, you are committing apostasy. That's not really a renunciation of faith, I know Muslims who say the verse that forbids them uses the term "avoid" (ijtanabu) and that's what God wants us to do. Now you can call that self serving, you can call it poorly reasoned, I don't think you can really call that a "renunciation of faith". Certainly, though, there is ample authority to call it ridda. Not the actual drinking, that's sinning, that's different, but to call it a non-sin is considered ridda. In other words, there are things in the Qur'an that are not subject to discussion, and if you try to so subject them, you are engaged in apostasy. Included in this too by the way is buying slave girls and requring punitive taxes on Christians and Jews for their religion. Argue against these things, even while professing Islam, and you are an apostate.
Why do I think this is relevant now? Well in the modern world there are in particular groups of Sunnis known as takfiris who sort of run around calling anyone who doesn't believe every little thing they describe as absolutely certain (qat'i) as being what is known as kufr, or disbelief. Now disbelief is obviously different from apostasy, as we discussed yesterday but the tie between the two, in modernity, is unmistakable. In both cases, you are looking for a denial of the qat'i. Thus, supposedly "moderate" Islamist movements take someone like Nasser Abu Zaid and get an Egyptian Court to declare him an apostate for believing something that is supposedly absolutely clear, qat'i, like the idea that God doesn't actually have a body and sits on an actual throne based on Quranic verse that says this. Call that a metaphor, and you are engaged in apostasy. The slave girl and tax crap above comes from this Court too.
But why bring in kufr? Why not just stick to the classical, scriptual crime of ridda? Certainly that worked in Abu Zaid's case, but it won't always, for the reasons I raised in the last post, you can't get groups like the Shi'a, or even more far out groups like the Ahmadis then. See if you decide it's absolutely clear that there are no Imams who are Infallible following Muhammad, to get a guy for the crime ridda what you have to show is he didn't believe in Imams, and then he started believing it. Not the case for your average Shi'i like me. I never knew Islam without the Imams. And so we expand. And you are not an apostate, you are an infidel, a kafir, someone who has pronounced disbelief. You are then not guilty of a crime of ridda, but you have no recognition or rights of any kind (not life, not liberty, not property) in the House of Islam. Which basically is the same thing.
That said, modernity has reared its head too in the opposite direction, thankfully. As a result, I think the takfiri movement has reached its apotheosis as people realized it's getting too easy to deligitimize through the takfir process. And you get this idea, pronounced by scholars at a Jordan conference sponsored by King Abdullah, that if you believe in Islam as professed by any of the major Sunni or Shi'i branches (not Ahmadis, not Baha'is) then you are a Muslim, period. That doesn't quite pull you away from the ridda problem, in that you might still be an apostate if you say wines are permitted, since none of those schools take that position, but it does lessen it to some degree. For example, if you said whiskey is allowed, that's okay because Hanafi. Or if you said God had no body, that's Shi'i, clearly okay (and classical Sunni, according to Fadel). Or there are Imams, etc.
And so, as with all law, both sides are using the classical doctrine as a club, one to narrow differences, the other to exacerbate them. Stay tuned, we'll see how it all twists and turns in the years to come.
HAH
"avoid" (ijtanabu) and that's what God wants us to do. Now you can call that self serving, you can call it poorly reasoned, I don't think you can really call that a "renunciation of faith". Certainly,
I think there is a lot of talk in arabic about this subject most it tell (ijtanabu)word in Koran meant not allowed at all this in arabic language.
I think you mieght be lost your mother language (the soul of Arabic) and the problem here is taking the world as its without the context and out of sentence structure will destroy all the mean and here the difference in Arabic and mayb any other language here.
ridda
Means some one who was believed in Islam and he is no longer a believer in the basic believes here not Imam Dr. its the basic that Allah The great and Mohammad the last prophet send to us, and rest of five major Islamic believe.
Reply to this
First of all, I think it's pretty clear that I did NOT say that the interpretation of "avoid" as being "allowed but better not to use" was my own, so I'm not sure what your point is when you say it is wrong, I never said it was right. Those who do say it is right, however, who I know are overwhelmingly native Arabic speakers. I hope you have something more analytically sound to dispute them (not me) with than the "soul of Arabic." I also don't know who you are, I've never met you or spoken to you, so I don't know how you have cause to speculate on my Arabic, but personally I think I'm okay, even if there is always room for improvement, of course, for everyone, including native speakers.
Anyway, I did not say this interpretation or definition of ijtanabu is right, or wrong. What I said was that denying that khamur is haram is NOT a "renunciation of faith". But IT IS RIDDA. Meaning the term ridda means more than "renunciation of faith." If you say khamur is halal to drink, you are committing ridda, translated (badly) as apostasy, at least according to some key classical sources. You can accept the five major Islamic beliefs, you can say you believe in angels, and prophets, and the afterlife, and God, and the books of Revelation and you can practice prayer, and zakat, and do the Hajj and recite the Shahada and fast every Ramadan. You will still called guilty of ridda just for saying you think khamur is halal.
Now if you dispute that conclusion, and tell me that ridda doesn't mean saying khamur is halal, and this is obvious from the Arabic, then I am perfectly happy to send you classical sources, all written by Arabic speaking jurists, that will take the opposite position. I can also dig up for you the decision by the Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court, all Arabic speakers, against Nasr Abu Zayd, where he was declared a murtad, guilty of ridda, for denying qati' verses, NONE of which had to do with the five major Islamic beliefs, or the five pillars of worship. Abu Zaid said that God does not have a physical body,and this made him murtad to that court. He said he didn't think it was halal to buy slave girls for sex, and this made him a murtad. He said Christians and Jews shouldn't pay the jizya, and for this he was a murtad. The question, I emphasize, is NOT whether or not his interpretations are right, or khamur is halal. The ONLY QUESTION is whether or not these make a person guilty of ridda. This court, an Arab court, said they do. so your definition of ridda, about which you seem so certain, is MUCH MUCH NARROWER than a lot of Arab experts seem to think.
You are perfectly free to dispute these scholars and judges, I certainly do. However, what you cannot do is parade yourself as "Truth", categorize everything as easy and dismiss widely accepted opinions as being those of people who just don't know Arabic very well. You are up against classical jurists and the Egyptian courts, not me. I like your definition of ridda, I just think it's not one that's as widely accepted as you seem to think.
HAH
Reply to this