|
A response to those who consider the laws of apostasy barbaric
Muslims are often accused of following an
outdated system which has not yielded to the realities of modern
times. We are told that all major systems of thought and religious
practices have modernised to meet the changing values and the
challenges of modernity. Our response to this is often defensive at
best and more realistically apologetic. Whenever the ideas of Islam
are placed under the microscope by non-Muslims, they are subjecting
its value system in a dock based upon the criteria of their systems.
Why should we as Muslims not react to this approach in a manner that
behoves a people who resolutely accept that Islam is correct and
does not need justifying? How often do we subject their systems to
the same scrutiny and demand they justify their position. They
demand a reform for Islam which we reject, but we must demand a
radical change in the systems they adopt and carry to the world as
the only model for any 'civilised' people. The intellectual fight
back starts here; from this day on we cannot and will not allow for
the attacks of the Western Capitalist nations to go unheeded. Our
response will be forthright and unequivocal, not from the position
of equality of our civilisations nor the acceptance of the premise
that there is no absolute truth. It must be in a manner that
recognises that the corrupted roots of any system which is
formulated by man is prone to contradiction and vagueness. Such a
system elevates values which conform to the basest of instincts and
adopts positions which are diametrically opposed, as well as flawed
criteria which benefit those who are able to wield power over the
impoverished and weak.
One idea that requires a response is the attack on aspects of the
Shar'iah as barbaric. They claim that the standards for
acceptability over 1400 years ago are different from the acceptable
norms today. Therefore they say it is barbaric to stone the
adulterer and lash the fornicator and cut the hand of the thief and
- most controversially in their eyes – to kill the apostate. There
we've said it. We can just imagine the human rights organisations
rallying their capitalist brethren and the defeatist Muslims
cringing. Yet it is an irrevocable command from the Creator, without
distortion, abrogation or capitulation. The Messenger of Allah
SalAllahu alaihi wasallam said:
''Whoever changes his religion, kill him''.
(Bukhari)
This goes against the Capitalist grain. How can someone be killed
for choosing to reject Islam, does this not go against the concept
of Freedom of Religion? And what about the Qur'anic injunction,
''Let there be no compulsion in religion:
Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects Taghut and
believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that
never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.''
[ Al-Baqarah: 256]
Doesn't this safeguard the right of Freedom of religion? The simple
answer to this is it doesn't. This verse relates to the rejection of
forcibly converting someone to Islam against their will not to a
Muslim who rejects Islam and becomes an apostate (Murtad).
Instead of defending or sidelining this command, we must take the
fight back to the Capitalist West.
In Britain for example the death penalty for Murder was only
abolished in 1965, but few even know that it remained on the statute
books for killing a member of the British Royal family and for acts
of treason including military offences until 1998. Therefore
theoretically up until 1998, a person could be executed for an act
against the state.
Aside from the states which carry the death penalty for civilian
crimes, the US also has a stipulation for execution of military
servicemen during wartime. There are 15 offences which carry the
death penalty in wartime, they include desertion and disobeying the
orders of an officer.
What this tells us is that there is an acceptance in the US and
until recently in the UK that the one who betrays his country ought
to be killed.
Therefore there is an actual acceptance in the US
and a wide base of opinion in British society as a result of the
sensationalist press that the one who betrays 'his country' ought to
be punished severely, whilst the one who breaks the covenant with
his Creator ought to be allowed to practice his personal freedom.
Why does there exist such a disparity in their thinking, surely if
they believe in freedom it must extend to all cases and not only to
those that suit their views.
They adopt these disparate positions and are not ashamed despite
there originating from the fallible (man made basis), how can we
disregard or be ashamed of the ahkaam of Allah subhanahu wa
ta'aala despite the fact that they are divine in origin. How dare we
argue on the position of weakness? We must be forthright and
unflinchingly adhere to Islam when we engage in discussion.
It is not allowed for the Muslims to dilute the pristine Islamic
thinking, believing it will contribute to the acceptance of Islam by
the masses. Allah subhanahu wa ta'aala revealed this Deen as it is
and as guardians of the prophetic message we are obliged to deliver
it as it was intended. The manner by which we present Islam will
either be a source of happiness or dread when we meet our Rabb for
accountability. Surely changing Islam to suit the whims of the
people angers Allah and pits us against Him. We need to turn the
tables and put Capitalism, not Islam, in the dock.
Comments In any ideology
or system, there are ''vital issues,'' or issues that are considered
a matter of life and death for the nation. For example, in America,
a vital issue is that the power of the States relative to the
Federal Government must be at a certain balance. In the mid-19th
Century, that balance was disrupted when the Southern states
separated from the union. In order to resolve this issue, the US was
willing to endure a 5-year civil war that left over a million
dead and massive destruction to large parts of the country.
However, what was at stake was the future of the US and its very
survival, and had the US not resolved that issue (i.e., there would
be ''two Americas'' - one in the north and one in the south), the US
would look like Africa today.
Islam, as an ideology and system of life, also has certain issues
that have been deemed ''vital issue.'' The difference between Islam
and other ideologies and systems is that Islam is the system from
Allah (swt). Thus, the vital issues are set by the revelation;
whatever Allah (swt) has made a vital issue remains as such until
the Day of Judgment, and nobody can make a non-vital issue into a
vital issue in Islam. The mistake that we made
(and we continue to make) is that we try to present Islam the way
other people want, rather than simply presenting Islam as it is.
When we present to the people that Islam is the truth, along with
the conclusive, irrefutable evidences that prove that Islam is
correct, then the others will be on the defensive and the burden
will placed upon them to either accept or reject the truth. However,
by assuming an apologetic stance, the standard became how the West
perceives Islam. As a result, we began to evaluate the correctness
of Islam based upon how the West perceives Islam, and not based upon
the correctness of Islam as an idea established upon irrefutable,
conclusive proofs that no objective mind can deny. And by doing so,
the West maintains a firm intellectual grip upon us; all they need
to do to change our behavior and outlook is to change their
perception of Islam, and we would scramble for apologies and
loopholes in order to reshape Islam to fit their new perception!!
Therefore, we need to realize that all of these attacks have no
merit, and they will not change the fact that Islam is the truth.
Let them believe that the Islamic penal code is oppression and let
them launch all the attacks they want. This will not change the fact
that Allah exists, this will not change the fact that the Qur'an is
the Word of Allah or that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, or
that Islam is the system from Allah the Creator and is therefore
correct, and part of this system is the punishment system(hudood).
What WOULD change this is if they actually prove that ISLAM IS WRONG
(i.e., that Allah DOES NOT EXIST or that the Qur'an IS NOT FROM
ALLAH). However, the Enemies of Islam do not have the guts to
approach us directly because they know that Islam is the truth and
they have nothing to stand upon. As a result, they have to attack us
using more discrete means, one of which is to attack certain rules
based on logic and ''scare'' us into a defensive position. And we
should be clever enough not to fall into this trap.
Quotes ''It is a hard choice, but I think, we,
think, it’s worth it.'' Her response to a May 11, 1996 60 Minutes
question about the over half a million children killed by the
[Iraqi] sanctions. Madeleine Albright 64th U.S. Secretary
of State
''It is really not a number I'm terribly interested in.'' [When
asked about the number of Iraqi people who were slaughtered by
Americans in the 1991 ''Desert Storm'' terror campaign (200,000
people!)] - General US General Colin Powell
''I will never apologize for the United States of America. I don't
care what the facts are.'' - After the US destroyer Vincennes
in Iranian territorial waters, shoots down an Iranian commercial
flight (Iran Air 654) in Iranian airspace killing all 286
passengers.
George Bush is quoted in the magazine, Newsweek, 1985
|
