Both extremist fundamentalists and Islamaphobes like to use this passage to prove that the Koran requires that apostates should be killed.
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. (4:89)
This is not, however, the only interpretation accepted by orthodox Muslims. Osama Abdallah attacks this interpretation at great length on his website www.answering-christianity.com and also cites several orthodox Islamic scholars as rejecting this interpretation. His response is based partly on Dr. Munir Munsey’s translation, which clarifies that the quote refers, not to apostates, but to hypocrites.
The hypocrites wish that you would reject faith just like they have. Then, you will (descend down to their level and) be equal to them. Therefore, do not choose them as friends unless they (emigrate and) leave their homes in the path of Allah. If they revert (to open hostility), then seize and slay them wherever you see them. Do not take them as friends or protectors, nor as helpers. (4:89)
The hypocrites are explicitly mentioned in the previous sura, so there is no question that they are the ones being discussed here. According to Abdallah, the hypocrites referred to in the quote were Jewish and Christian Arabs who pretended to convert to Islam for a while, then left and rejoined their own tribes. This would mean the people being discussed are not people who changed their minds and decided to leave Islam, but rather people who PRETENDED to convert to Islam. At the very least, this means that the injunction cannot apply people who were born Muslims and decided to convert to another religion. But more importantly, it does not refer to anyone who sincerely believes that they should convert to another religion. Consequently, this verse is fully consistent with the famous passage that says “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”
Abdallah says that these Jewish and Christian Arabs pretended to convert to Islam so they could make the religion look bad when they left. But I think a more likely explanation is that they were spies trying to gather military information. It is important to remember that the word ‘Muslim’ in the Koran refers to a small community under constant aggressive military attack. At that time, leaving Islam didn’t mean going down the street to another place of worship. It meant joining another army that was actively trying to kill Muhammad’s people. How would an American general in World War II respond to a soldier in his battalion who had joined the Nazis? Wouldn’t the most likely response be to have him shot?
However, Muhammad’s response was in fact much more lenient that my hypothetical general. The two passages that come immediately after this one show that this quote has been taken radically out of context.
Except for those (hypocrites) who find refuge with a nation with whom you have a treaty! Or unless they come to you such that their hearts cringe and neither allow them to fight you, nor their own people. Had Allah willed, He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. Therefore, if they stay aloof and do not fight you, or if they make overtures of peace, then Allah has given you no reason to commit aggression against them. (4:90) (My emphasis)
You will find other hypocrites who seek to stay safe from you, as well as from their people. But, (as soon) as they are tempted with a lure, they plunge headlong into mischief. If they do not stay neutral, and do not make overtures of peace towards you, and do not restrain their hands, then seize and slay them wherever you see them. In their case, we have given you a clear sanction. (4:91)
The first passage gives exceptions to the rule for killing hypocrites, which clearly show that if the hypocrites don’t cause trouble, they should not be hunted down and killed. If they are far away in another non-aggressive country, or if they have surrendered, or if they are not aggressively attacking Muhammad’s community, they should be ignored. The second passage does advise caution in dealing with the hypocrites who are still living within that community. But it also reiterates (in the contrapositive) the previous passage’s admonition that the hypocrites should be killed only if they are actively aiding the community’s enemies.
Thus the so-called “death to apostates” sura does not refer to sincere apostates at all, and does not advocate death except as a response to violent aggression. It’s amazing what taking a quote out of context can do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
from the impression I got from looking into this issue is that Muslims seem to think that there are allusions to the punishment for apostasy in the Quran, for example Dr Yusuf Al-Qaradawi writes:
ReplyDeleteThird, some early Muslim scholars are of the opinion that the following verse refers to how to deal with apostates, [The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution] (Al-Ma'idah 5:33). Of those scholars are Abu Qulabah and others.12
see more in link:
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah/LSELayout&cid=1178724001992
but the main evidence for the punishment associated with apostasy is from the hadiths [sayings of the Prophet Muhammad [saw] ...]:
here is a view of the grand Mufti of Egypt; Shaykh Ali Goma'a:
I published an article in the Washington Post-Newsweek On Faith forum discussing the Islamic perspective on apostasy. I affirmed the freedom that God has afforded all of humanity in their right to choose their own religion without it being imposed upon them from the outside. Choice means freedom, and freedom includes the freedom to commit grave sins as long as their harm does not extend to others. This is why I discussed the fact that throughout history the worldly punishment for apostasy in Islam has been applied only to those who, in addition to their apostasy, actively engaged in the subversion of society.
These two points sum up a greater religious principle: with freedom comes responsibility. My remarks on the On Faith forum were picked up in local Egyptian papers, but they only focused on the question of freedom giving the impression that leaving Islam is a light matter. Nothing could be more serious. In order to maintain the balance of the original article my press team sent out a statement emphasizing the aspect of responsibility, mainly that apostasy is a grave sin and, when combined with sedition, is punishable in both this world and the next.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/muslims_speak_out/2007/07/gomaas_statement_on_apostasy.html
There may be references to punishment of apostasy elsewhere. My only point was that this passage in the Koran, which is the usual source for this claim, does not support it at all. I note also that the quote from the grand Mufti of Egypt says that Apostasy is punishable only when combined with sedition.
ReplyDeleteI think it's disingenuous to slip 'to open hostility' before revert. It's quite plainly talking about reverting back to disbelief. It says "until they fly in Allah's way. But if they turn back" to kill them etc.
ReplyDeleteAnd even if you can somehow square that circle, that it's okay to kill someone for their beliefs, it's still saying we can't even be friends. To not take allies, to take not from them a friend or helper.
How is that a good thing?
This page still comes up high in Google search results on sura 489 in 2020 soI assume people still read this.
ReplyDeleteEven if we grant everything in this post this is still incredibly disgusting and inhumane. It grants huge unilateral power to a leader to murder people and this apologetic is disgusting that it drives people to defend this.
Even if we grant EVERYTHING you say in this post who gets to decide which Muslims are pretending? If I'm Christian or an Athiest and I convert to Islam and then decide to speak out against the religion, the government, or a specific leader can those in power simply not say I am PRETENDING? How do you know if I am pretending?
The same problem exists when defining being peaceful or raising your hand against the power. Who defines, once I'm declared a hypocrite, whether I am causing a problem sufficient of being slayed wherever I am? There is no way to interpret this sura as acting in self-defense.
Finally, if a god wrote this knowing that a large portion of his followers could use an interpretation of this to murder dissidents or apostates isn't that my fault anyway? How do we know your interpretation of the sura is accurate?
I think you should own up to the fact that your book, like nearly all holy books written hundreds to thousands of years ago, contain things we think are horrifying today. At least then you'd be honest even if you chalk it up to errant humans misinterpreting the word of Allah.
Apologetics like this shows how religion can poison good people. Most Muslims are better than their book, but you can't argue that a very large portion of Muslims use the same texts to justify horrifying actions and we have no way of knowing who is right.