« Beyond the veil | Main | Why Whyte is Right to Be Down on Brown »
March 23, 2006
Faith, Hope and Santa Claus
Today’s Times carries a report about Abdul Rahman, the 41 year-old Afghani facing trial in his home country for what still remains there the capital offence of having converted from Islam to Christianity, something he did some fourteen years ago whilst residing in Pakistan. Apparently, it is reported, he might be able to avoid the death penalty by pleading being unfit to stand trial by virtue of insanity.
One need not be a follower of the libertarian anti-psychiatrist, Thomas Szasz, who rejected the very notion of mental illness, to be disinclined to pin one's hopes for this poor man’s future on faith in any such a sanity clause.
The reason the man should not be having to face trial or the death penalty for having done what he is alleged to is not that he is unfit to plead by virtue of insanity. It is, rather, that he has no case to answer, having done nothing for which he deserves to stand trial or be punished in having left his previous faith for another.
What is truly insane is the notion that has brought him to be facing trial-- viz. that apostasy from Islam should be a legally recognised offence, save a purely religious one, for which, at worst, ostracism by Muslims should be the only penalty allowable by law. Indeed, the legal practice of punishing it by death should not just be considered insane, but the most flagrant breach of human rights, if there be any such rights at all. Any country which has instituted such a practice should be subject to the severest possible sanctions by the international community.
The story about this man first broke in the English press on Tuesday of this week which was the same day as the Prince of Wales delivered a speech in Egypt, which he is currently visiting as part of an official tour of the Muslim world, in which he will have, reportedly, quite correctly told his audience that: ‘It’s tolerance, it’s understanding of what other people hold sacred which … is so vital’.
The trouble with espousing this sentiment in that part of the world, however, is that, in all too many parts of it today, what is held sacred is intolerance of what others hold sacred. And, when and where it is, anyone who wishes to practice tolerance faces the question of how much religious intolerance may and should be to tolerated.
The Times, which on Tuesday carried reports both about the Prince of Wales’ speech as well as the plight of the poor Afghani, devoted a leader to this subject, which bore the promising title, ‘Faith and Respect: Why religious intolerance must not be tolerated’. Despite its condemning apostasy from Islam, or from any other religion, being anywhere in the world a criminal offence, the newspaper can be condemned for having ducked the serious issue posed by Islam in having asserted that nowhere in the Koran is apostasy prescribed a capital offence. This allowed it to claim that Islam was as tolerant of Christianity and Judaism as these two other religions were of each other and it. ‘The Prince rightly underlines the importance of respect by one religion for another – especially the three Abrahamic religions’ the editorial ran, before adding that: ‘All three religions commend such tolerance.’
This latter claim is most tendentious, and one wonders why on earth it was ever made. It is all too easy for westerners to avoid having to face up to the very harsh and uncomfortable question about how genuinely tolerant a religion Islam truly is and can be by their denying to be integral to it, as the Times leader does, any morally objectionable tenets such as those of its adherents do who think it prescribes and who as a result impose a death penalty upon apostates from it.
It is all very well for the Times, in support of its claim that Islam is as tolerant a religion as Judaism and Christianity, to cite the apparent extreme moderation of Sheikh Tantawi, rector of the University at which the Prince was due to give his speech. But why should his tolerance prove by itself his religion to be a genuinely and inherently tolerant one, any more than Osama bin Laden’s invoking his religion to preach and practice the most despicable form of intolerance establishes the opposite? They cannot both be right in their interpretations of their religion, and maybe there is no such thing as a definitively correct interpretation of it or of any other religion for that matter. What, surely, matters is not whether ‘Islam’ is or is not as tolerant of other faiths as are the other two ‘Abrahamic faiths’: only that all those who purport to practice any or none of them practice tolerance towards all others who are willing to be tolerant of others who are tolerant of others who are tolerant …. ad infinitum.
When they are not, then all those who uphold tolerance as a value, should be united in their common intolerance of such intolerance. The sad fact is that, even if Islam is as inherently and genuinely tolerant at its core as the Times and Sheikh Tantawi avowedly consider it to be, much of the Muslim world is currently anything but, and it derives its authority for being so intolerant from its religion as it understands and practises it. Until that intolerant part of it becomes tolerant, the idea that Islam is ‘a religion of peace’, rather than something far less benign, remains as much of a fairy-tale as the notion of Santa Claus -- and one in which we would do well to place as little faith as that poor Afghani should find himself having to do who currently finds himself in a jail in Kabul, facing execution, for the in-offence of having placed his faith in Jesus.
Posted by David Conway at March 23, 2006 12:31 PM
Comments
Thanks for raising this important issue and taking a critical look at the bland approach of the Times to it.
Rather than taking so much on trust, the people of the West who value democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc should hurry up and buy themselves a copy of the Koran and find out what it actually says. On page after page they will find threats of hell for unbelievers and clear statements on the duty of muslims to be anything but tolerant. This is why fear, terror, intimidation, brutality, tribalism, deceit, tyranny are so widespread in the Islamic world - the teachings of the Koran lead to these outcomes.
If we are not very careful and we allow Islam (which means 'submission' not 'peace' - Remember Tacitus? "And where they have made a desert, they call it peace.") to have more and more influence on our society we will succumb to the same fate. First we will have the anarchy of the muslim mob, so well exemplified by the cartoon row, then tyranny will look like an attractive alternative.
Tolerance is such an important principle in democratic life and tolerance is not part of Islam. Easy-going westerners are ill-equipped to see this. They want to roll over and go back to sleep and pretend that it will all work out for the best because Muslims will come to adopt our values. Given the kind of checks in place to prevent muslims from escaping their faith this seems unlikely.
As Ernest Renan once observed: "Muslims were the first victims of Islam. Many times I have observed in my travels that fanaticism comes from a small number of dangerous men who maintain others in the practice of this religion by terror. To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render him."
I hope Abdul Rahman gets out alive.
Posted by: hijabs_get_stuffed ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 24, 2006 12:54 PM
The statement about the Koran and apostasy in The Times story is patently FALSE.
"By tradition, Muslims insist on the death penalty, although this is nowhere prescribed in the Koran."
Three translations of Koran 4:89
004.089
YUSUFALI: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;-
PICKTHAL: They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,
SHAKIR: They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
One of the most pre-eminent Koranic commentators, Baydawi (d. 1315/16) interprets this passage thus: "Whosoever turns back from belief (irtada), openly or secretly, take him and kill him wheresoever ye find him, like any other infidel. Separate yourself from him altogether. Do not accept intercession in his regard" (cited in Zwemer, The Law of Apostasy in Islam, 1924, pp. 33-34). Ibn Kathir's (d. 1373) venerated commentary on Koran 4:89 concurs, maintaining that as the unbelievers have manifested their unbelief they merit punishment by death.
Andrew G. Bostom, MD, MS
Author, "The Legacy of Jihad" www.andrewbostom.org
Posted by: Andrew Boston at March 24, 2006 02:38 PM
Just to say,
please don't be too hard on Muslims, folks - most of them do not know the Koran very well. They are born muslims as englishmen were born catholics before the reformation. And we all know how long it has taken some of us to conquer our religious prejudices. At least we have now stopped burning people. Most muslims live their lives according to very limited lights. They want to be good muslims, but - perhaps mercifully - don't know the extremes of the Koranic teaching.
To my mind the problem most of us have is our own lack of historical perspective. We are still taking splinters out of other peoples' eyes when our plank is only just out of our own eye. I am not advocating neutrality in the matter of islamic bigotry, just an approach where our common humanity is at the centre, rather than the panic about the death of Western culture as we know it. Western culture has been through many deaths in the last few hundred years. the peace we have enjoyed for 2 centuries was hard won, and has never been that secure; remember the mining riots of the 80's?
Peace,
David
Posted by: David Titley at April 3, 2006 04:33 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(Because we are bombarded by huge amounts of spam, if you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site moderator before your comment will appear. Thank you very much for waiting.)