Dare to Speak: Islam vs Free Democracy and Free Enterprise (I)
Section 3.
The treatment of secular Muslims and liberal Muslims
As discussed previously, Muslims have full rights in the House of Islam while non-Muslims do not. This explains the phenomenon of “secular Muslims,” who call themselves Muslims for reasons that have nothing to do with belief. Secular Muslims want to avoid being penalized for Apostasy, and they want the legal advantages of being Muslim. Similarly, liberal Muslims try to pick and choose only the Koranic verses that conform to their own personal beliefs. This allows them to claim to be Muslim, and enjoy Islam’s legal benefits, even though they violate their obligation to submit to the entire Koran.
While non-Muslims will find similar people within their own faiths, the motivation is much weaker. For example, “Non-practicing Jews” and “non-practicing Catholics” retain their religious affiliations for family and social reasons, rather than to preserve legal rights. Liberal Jews and liberal Christians pick and choose their beliefs, just like liberal Muslims. For example, there are many American Catholics who condone abortion even though Catholicism opposes it. They choose to remain Catholics, but call themselves liberal, knowing that they could readily switch to a more liberal version of Christianity if they want to.
While Jewish and Catholic leaders may be dismayed by their unorthodox brethren, the stakes are much higher for Islamic leaders. For example, Islamic leaders wonder how unenthusiastic or unconventional Muslims will respond when Islam calls for jihad, because jihad requires all Muslims to be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, and desertions could be disastrous. Muhammad faced this problem from the beginning of his reign, and he handled it by calling such Muslims Hypocrites and punishing them harshly. Islam’s religious leaders have maintained this policy ever since.
To get an idea of Islam’s intolerance of Hypocrites, consider this excerpt from the January 1999 edition of Atlantic Monthly Magazine, which describes the plight of Abu Zaid, an Islamic scholar with liberal views on the Koran:
“The Koran is a text, a literary (rather than literal) text, and the only way to understand, explain, and analyze it is through a literary approach,” Abu Zaid says…
…for challenging the idea that the Koran must be read literally as the absolute and unchanging Word of God — Abu Zaid was in 1995 officially branded an apostate…The [Egyptian] court then proceeded, on the grounds of an Islamic law forbidding the marriage of an apostate to a Muslim, to order Abu Zaid to divorce his wife…
Abu Zaid steadfastly maintains that he is a pious Muslim…
For a while, Abu Zaid remained in Egypt and sought to refute the charges of apostasy, but in the face of death threats and relentless public harassment he fled with his wife from Cairo to Holland…
Sheikh Youssef al-Badri, the cleric whose preachings inspired much of the opposition to Abu Zaid, was exultant. “We are not terrorists; we have not used bullets or machine guns, but we have stopped an enemy of Islam from poking fun at our religion….No one will even dare to think about harming Islam again. ”
When reading about Abu Zaid, keep in mind that many people consider Egypt to be one of the more westernized Islamic nations. Other Islamic nations may take a harder-line approach, as Iran did when Ayatollah Khomeini ordered the murder of Salman Rushdie, an Apostate Muslim, for writing The Satanic Verses.
The underlying issue that liberal Muslims, like liberal Christians, recognize is that their holy scriptures contain contradictions, either within themselves or with common sense. For example, with Christianity, nearly all Christians ignore, or work very hard to explain away, Paul’s declaration that: [1]
…women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
– 1 Corinthians 12:34-35
Christians also work overtime to reconcile the conflicting stories of Judas Iscariot’s death found in the books of Matthew and Acts. To see why, read these excerpts: [2]
When Judas…saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders…Then he went away and hanged himself…So they [the chief priests and the elders] decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.
– Matthew 27:3-8
With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood. – Acts 1:18-19
Who bought the field? How did Judas die? While it is possible to explain these differences as the understandable results of two different eye-witness accounts (impalement may have also been referred to as “hanging”), it is not possible to claim that both versions are 100% clear and accurate.
Christians handle these issues by claiming that the Bible is the divinely inspired writings of men. As such, Christians grant that the Bible may contain some imperfections, but this admission doesn’t shatter its underlying credibility. Instead, it gives people the freedom to downplay some passages without being accused of Apostasy. Muslims, on the other hand, have no such escape hatch. For them, there are only two options: either the Koran is the complete, literal, and unaltered word of Allah, or it is not. If it is not, then Islam’s primary claim to legitimacy is false. From Islam’s perspective, any free thought or criticism regarding the Koran is viewed as a very deep threat. It amounts to Apostasy, a crime punishable by death.
Dire consequences await those who disagree with authorities on the nature or message of the Koran. This repression destroys free thought, and kills those who think freely.
Harsh intolerance has spawned bloody conflicts within the House of Submission ever since its earliest days. Muhammad himself set the stage for sectarian violence when he declared: [3]
Truly the people of the Book divided into seventy-two sects, and this [Muslim] Community shall divide into seventy-three sects, all of them in the Fire except one – the Congregation. There shall come out of my Community people in whom unspeakable lusts run amok, the way a dog drags its owner here and there. There shall be not one nook or cranny except they enter it.
In fact, according to Muhammad, bloody violence between Islamic sects is a requirement for bringing about the end-times, when Islam finally achieves its ultimate redemption and glory:
Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6902:…Allah’s Messenger [said:] The last Hour will not come until the two parties (of Muslims) confront each other and there is a large-scale massacre amongst them and the claim of both of them is the same.
Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6903:…Allah’s Messenger [said]: The last Hour will not come unless there is much bloodshed. They said: What is harj? Thereupon he said: Bloodshed. bloodshed.
With these graphic and damning words, Muhammad laid the groundwork for violent competition between the various sects of Islam. Each that arose claimed itself to be “the Congregation,” and strived to bring on the end-times through bloodshed, grabbing eternal glory for itself while sending the others to Hell. Muhammad’s words conditioned each Islamic sect to view every other Islamic sect with nearly the same contempt that they reserved for Infidels and Polytheists. Even today, each sect is quick to call every other sect “Hypocrite,” or even “Apostate,” for perverting the intents of Allah.
One may wonder whether Muslims of differing sects really are this hostile toward each other. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran provides a subtly-worded answer to this question when it says:
If any person takes part in activities, or expresses beliefs, that clearly go against the teachings of the Koran or the authentic Sunna, [4] then that person’s activities or doctrines are not Islamic.
Unfortunately, there is no universal agreement on which hadiths are authentic. Therefore, there can be no universal agreement on the authentic Sunnah (the life of Muhammad), which the hadiths record. What the authors of this “Idiot’s” book are subtly saying is that all Muslims who revere Hadiths other than their own are un-Islamic and have been misled by false testimonies about Muhammad’s life. This places them in the same category of misled believers as Christians and Jews. Unfortunately, every Muslim sect feels this way about every other Muslim sect.
Similarly, the Koran calls any Muslim who is not willing to fight for Islam, or who maintains friendships with Infidels, a Hypocrite, as revealed below:
[3.167] PICKTHAL: And that He might know the hypocrites, unto whom it was said: Come, fight in the way of Allah, or defend yourselves. They answered: If we knew aught of fighting we would follow you. On that day they were nearer disbelief than faith. They utter with their mouths a thing which is not in their hearts.
[4.88] PICKTHAL: What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the hypocrites…?
[4.89] 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 [that is, leave their homes to fight for Allah]; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them…
[4.138] YUSUF ALI: To the Hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them…a grievous penalty;-
[4.139] Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honor they seek among them? Nay, – all honor is with Allah.
[4.140] …Allah will collect the hypocrites and those who defy faith – all in Hell:-
[4.141] (These are) the ones who wait and watch about you: if ye do gain a victory from Allah, they say: “Were we not with you?” – but if the unbelievers gain a success, they say (to them): “Did…we not guard you from the believers?”
[4.145] The Hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire: no helper wilt thou find for them;-
[33.60] PICKTHAL: If the hypocrites…do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors…but a little while.
[33.61] Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter.
Thus, Islam does more than oppress non-Muslims. It also oppresses and terrorizes its own believers, threatening them with death and eternal torment if they are insufficiently faithful.
Beyond these threats, Islam also has financial laws that unwittingly bring hardship upon even the most devout Muslim. In the next section, which discusses Islam’s prohibitions on asset and risk management, we will see how Shari’ah cripples the ability of Muslims to engage in commerce, make large investments in speculative ventures, and cover risks through insurance.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3:
[1] Source: The NIV Study Bible, General Editor: Kenneth Barker, Zondervan Publishing House, 1985.
[2] Source: The NIV Study Bible, General Editor: Kenneth Barker, Zondervan Publishing House, 1985.
[3] Hadith narrated from Mu`awiya by Abu Dawud and al-Hakim (1:128=1990 ed. 1:218) with concurrence by al-Dhahabi. A similar hadith can be found in Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 40, Number 4579.
[4] The example or way of life of Muhammad, embracing his words and actions. The Sunna is revealed primarily through the Hadith, though the Koran and other historical references also reveal or confirm portions of it. Like the Hadith it is derived from, the Sunna is controversial; what one considers to be the Sunna depends upon what one considers to be the Hadith. Also referred to as Sunnah.
Recent Comments