Taliban's Coercion Betrays Qur'an

[IndianaGreen]

Taliban's Coercion Betrays Qur'an

By Aloysious Mowe
Visiting Fellow, Woodstock Theological Center

Sufi Mohammed and the Taliban betray a studied ignorance of Islamic scripture, law, and history, in the claims that they make for the imposition of Shari'a in Pakistan. In his repudiation of Pakistan's democratic institutions, Mohammed is quoted as saying that "the Qur'an says supporting an infidel system is a great sin." He does not substantiate this because he cannot do so: the Qur'an makes no mention of an Islamic state, does not prescribe any system of government, and is silent even about the structure and nature of religious authority in Islam (hence the enduring divide between the Sunni and the Shia branches of Islam, which began with a disagreement about who should succeed the Prophet Muhammad, and how this succession should be managed). That a democratic political system that makes room for a plurality of views and beliefs is un-Islamic has yet to be demonstrated. It is because they cannot convince that the Taliban resort to violence and intimidation.

<snip>

Punishment lies not in the hands of these representatives of God. They are sent "only to warn", and every person must bear his own burden and be responsible for his own destiny. Coercion has no place in religious belief. The Qur'an says this forcefully in 2:256: "There is no compulsion in religion."

This recurring theme of personal responsibility and non-coercion is consistent with the Qur'an's attitude towards apostates. Despite the fact that some radical Muslims insist that death is the only proper penalty for those who apostatize from Islam, the fact is that the Qur'an, while bemoaning those who leave the true faith, never prescribes a penalty for apostasy in this life. In fact, it is clear from 4:137, which refers to those who leave the faith, then return to it, but then leave again, that apostates are assumed to be living peacefully and unmolested in the community of believers. How else could they have the opportunity to apostatize a second time?

The Muslim scholar, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, writes in "Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari'a," that religious observance can only be genuine if it is not subject to coercion via the State's imposition of Islamic law: "In order to be a Muslim by conviction and free choice, which is the only way one can be a Muslim, I need a secular state." Compliance with God's law cannot be coerced by fear of state institutions, nor should there be a possibility that it be faked simply to appease the state's officials. "Belief in Islam," says An-Na'im, "or any other religion, logically requires the possibility of disbelief, because belief has no value if it is coerced."

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2009/04/talibans_coercion_betrays_quran.html?hpid=talkbox1

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. Sounds like the same tactics as our very own Moral Majority and

family values cults.

[burning rain]

2. Mr. Mowe seems like a nice man...

but I'm sure he knows very well Islam isn't based merely on the Koran, but also the hadiths, sayings traditionally attributed to the Prophet. A well-accepted hadith states, "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." This establishes the death penalty for apostasy from Islam (leaving another religion for Islam is of course laudable). Whatever the meaning of the Koranic verse "There is no compulsion in religion," it yields to clarification where penalties for proscribed acts are specified elsewhere. Very liberal Muslims who deny this are fine people, but they stand on shaky theological ground and harsher mainstream scholars hold the upper hand over them.

I've seen liberals Muslims interpret "change his religion" as refrring not to apostasy, but rather introducing impermissible innovations in Islam, but while this may help the apostate, it leaves heretics subject to execution, and isn't really a better alternative. As for 4:137, "Verily, those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe (again), and (again) disbelieve, and go on increasing in disbelief, Allah will not forgive them, nor guide them on the (Right) Way" does not seem to specify that the temporal authorities should tolerate them, but that God will not. In any case, depite the fact that mainstream Muslim jurists specify provisions for repentance, thereby saving one's life, and how many times one may apostasize before being condemned regardless of repentance, the death penalty remains in effect for the obstinate apostate.

Of course, most majority-Muslim states do not have or enforce a death penalty for apostasy, but this is a departure from rather than a fulfillment of shariah, and even there Muslims who apostasize remain in peril from vigilantism and even worse, impunity for it.

Also, in touting An-Na'im's work, Mowe does his reader a disservice by failing to point out that advocacy of a secular state is at best eccentric in Islam, and more often considered impious as well.

[bemildred]

3. These are all opinions.

If you get into the various theological opinions that are considered part of "Islam", it's at least as messy as "Christianity", and just as unclear. The real issue is control freaks and people who are comfortable letting others follow their own views. But that's not a particularly Islamic issue, you can find it anywhere.

[burning rain]

4. True, but in Islam fundamentalism has a stronger position....

than it does in Christianity, where it is more of an aberration -- though not so much, unfortunately, in the US as other well-off countries where the majority is at least nominally Christian.

By fundamentalism I mean specifically textual literalism plus demand for a theocratic state.

[bemildred]

5. Well, I disagree. That's how it is with opinions.

Fundamentalists are fucked anywhere you go, because they long for a non-existent utopian past. Fighting to stave off the future is a stupid enterprise anywhere you go. But in muslim countries, speaking generally, the fundies do not have the tools of surveillance and coercion that are present in "more advanced" cultures. In the more general area of repressive theological systems, it doesn't appear to me that muslim fundies are any better or worse than anybody else is or has been.