Showing posts with label Islamic law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamic law. Show all posts

Thursday, February 23, 2012

The risks of faith-based politics to religious ideals

[caption id="attachment_14291" align="alignleft" width="242"] Thomas Jefferson, 1786[/caption]

Carol Forsloff - Recently Franklin Graham was interviewed on the topic of religion and politics.  He underlined the importance of faith, specifically Christianity, and when asked if Obama is Christian, answered he believed the President is but that Obama has given Muslims “a pass.”  How does that compare with the American view historically and how has it impacted social and political relationships?

In an MSNBC interview Graham spelled out his concerns that President Obama has been ignoring the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries.   Newsmax reports detailed the contents of the interview.

“Under Islamic law, under Shariah law, Islam sees him as a son of Islam, because his father was a Muslim, his grandfather was a Muslim, his great-grandfather was a Muslim,” Graham said.  He went on to explain, “So under Islamic law, the Muslim world sees President Obama as a Muslim, as a son of Islam. That's just the way it works. That's the way they see him.”

When asked if Graham believes Obama is “categorically not a Muslim,” Graham said,
I can't say categorically because Islam has gotten a free a pass under Obama.

Since the inception of American independence, religion and politics have been uncomfortable sleeping companions, especially during thorny times.    For Thomas Jefferson,  one of the founders of American democracy and a scholar on many subjects, religion was a serious matter, intimately related to individual freedom and belief.  He often spoke of religion and its importance in human experience; and although he didn’t claim to be regimentally involved in any one religious group, he did recognize the concept of God, creation, and man’s need to reach for the infinite.  But he too found the insertion of religion into political debate something that created consternation, controversy and division.  He also believed strongly in the right to question religious belief.
The scholar and statesman, Jefferson, was a man of the Enlightenment, recommending by letter to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787: Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.

Yet it is the fear expressed by politicians and their supporters that is aroused in many political debates about religion.

Religion has been part of the discussion referencing freedom as much as almost any other topic throughout U.S. history.  It remains part of the political debate in the 21st century.  It has, however, changed to a sectarian argument, and the issue of who is best, has the right set of beliefs and attitudes, is a major part of the dissension.

Jefferson recognized the fact that Christianity was not alone in its place in man’s array of religious beliefs.  His notion was to protect that individual freedom of belief, especially important given the fact so much persecution had occurred in the countries from which many people had fled.  It was also a part of the religious persecution that occurred in the colonies, to include the burning of “witches,” or those who seemed to hold what were considered heretical views by the majority.  For that reason, the protection of religion became critical in the creation of the Constitution.   Still the debate about that protection continues to be part of the political arguments raised throughout history.  Jefferson’s own views have also been argued, with one side taking the stance that Jefferson was specifically protecting Christianity as the principal religion of America while others believe he had a broader view.  In fact scholars tell us that Jefferson’s philosophy was not specifically Christian and that there is nothing in the Declaration specific to Christianity.

Jefferson’s writings to John Adams, his nemesis at times and later his friend,  reflect his specific view of how distorted the ideas can be of those who describe themselves as followers of Christ and most confidently maintain their specific beliefs referencing Jesus, especially with reference to politics.

“The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."

In the 1960’s, change came not just in technology and the development of advancements in science, medicine, and every domain of human life.  Religion, rather than dying as some predicted and others maintain created aberrations, was vibrant and important in America.  A bigger tent unfolded, however, allowing people to question traditional beliefs and to begin to explore new ways of worshipping that one God so many people believe central to faith itself.   That questioning in some ways reflected Jefferson’s admonition to his nephew, and in that sense became an echo of the value of religious freedom expressed by one of the great founders of the United States.  The 1960’s, according to historians,  represented the birth of new seekers.  But along with it came the renewal of Evangelism and the beginnings of the Religious Right.  Those divisions between those new seekers and the more traditional Christian groups remain today as part of the fabric of politics and faith.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Orator Zakir Naik shifts position on apostasy in Islam

Ernest Dempsey — Banned from entering the west as well as internally from addressing in some states in India on account of advocating fundamentalist, oppressive version of Islam, well-known Muslim orator Dr. Zakir Naik has changed his position on the punishment for apostasy in Islam. In his recent Q and A with Oxford students, conducted via satellite transmission, he claimed that Islam does not suggest death for a Muslim who leaves his faith and adopts another, unless for some other unforgivable wrong committed after conversion.

In a YouTube video of the question-answer session, an American doctoral student is shown posing before Naik the question (starting at 8:50 in the video) why a Muslim who leaves his/her faith and starts following a different faith is liable to be killed as dictated in Islamic law. The student mentions that he has a Muslim girlfriend in Turkey who has left Islam and accepted Christianity as the true faith, but is now worried for her safety, even life, due to her decision to say goodbye to Islam. Answering the student, Naik says he has been misrepresented with regard to his position on the matter and video clips shown of him on YouTube have been posted “out of context”.

Naik then says that earlier he had said that many Islamic scholars are of the opinion that former Muslims are punishable by death, but he did not approve it and instead has taught that death is not the “standard punishment” in Islam for ex-Muslims. He then gives the example of a person who was given death punishment by the prophet but upon the recommendation of his close associate Usman, the prophet forgave that man. Naik goes on to say that according to Islam and according to him (Naik), people leaving Islam are not punishable by death only for walking out of Islam.

This new position of Naik is radically different from his earlier video in which he was interviewed by Pakistani anchor Shahid Masood for a TV channel and was presented with the question why Islam punishes with death penalty those who quit it and adopt another faith. Answering the question, Naik at once claims that if a former Muslim starts propagating his new religion, then this act of his is “as good as treason” and is punishable by death just as treason is punishable by death in military in many countries. Naik never mentions any other scholars here nor does he quote any sources, speaking instead completely on his own and justifying death by trying to rationalize.

Most Muslim scholars do think and preach what Naik used to before the mind-shaking ban last year by UK—that Muslims rejecting Islam and adopting another religion are punishable by death. In a video of a debate between people of various faiths, including the world-famous scientist and atheist author Richard Dawkins kept asking a Muslim scholar about the punishment of an apostate in Islam. After trying to change topics, the hesitant scholar eventually gave his answer, i.e. death for the apostate in Islam.

Islam’s position on apostasy continues to face staunch criticism and usually the Muslim apologists try to avoid the question, though even the layman in Muslim countries is aware that Islam orders you to kill the one who leaves Islam and accepts another faith. Naik’s change of mind (or change of tongue and tone, to be more precise) is to be welcomed, and thanks are due to Britain, Canada, India, and all others whose ban has finally taught the orator to speak some sense. Whether other Muslim scholars agree with Naik or not is to be seen yet. For now, the big question is how to explain the clear Islamic orders in Hadith books encouraging killing of apostates.