Apostasy in Islam and the Quran

May 20, 2014 at 12:20am

I'm writing this post to keep a promise.

In my recent HuffPost article, The Phobia of Being Called Islamophobic, I linked to a verse in the
Quran, 8:12, that invites believers to behead and mutilate disbelievers, as God "casts terror" in their
hearts.

This prompted the inevitable "Out of context!" refrain from the never-ending pool of apologist
"interpreters" who insist:

(i) That we should pay more attention to their words than to Allah's;
(ii) That they can explain Allah's words better than he can himself; and
(iii) That without their explanations, Allah's words run the risk of being read exactly as he wrote/said
them, that is, "literally".

I received many responses from these increasingly bumbling mental gymnasts, trying everything
they could to make the verse sound peaceful.

The responses were entertaining (if unfortunate), and all you need to understand them is
this paraphrasing by Alishba:

"I know the Quran says green.

But what it actually means is that you need to get a yellow paint tube and put it in a glacier at
the North Pole, and take a blue paint tube and put it in a glacier at the South Pole. So when
the glaciers melt in some 50,000 years, you'll see that the color green will appear,
inshaallah.

THAT is what the Quran is saying about seeing the green. Not the green that we
ACTUALLY see all the time."

My column prompted several people to write responses, none of which really gained enough traction
to merit a counter-response. One of the authors, however, was doggedly persistent in his defense of
his scripture. He is a Muslim-American physician, a cardiology fellow practicing in the United States.
It intrigued me, so I thought I'd try something.


Myth or Medicine?

There is a passage in the Quran saying man is created from a "fluid, ejected, emerging between the
backbone and the ribs."

Now, this is clearly false, whether you're talking about the fluid in question, or man himself. (To say
nothing of woman, who has her own association with rib-driven creation in other equally asinine
Abrahamic scriptures).

To me, this passage - verses 86:5-7, in a chapter astonishingly titled "The Night Comer" - is the
quintessential litmus test for how far an apologist will go to defend his beliefs. In my experience, the
majority who come across (please excuse the pun) this passage either back off after a few attempts
to rationalize it, confess that they don't understand it, or admit that it is anatomically inaccurate.

So bringing it up (again, pun not intended) to "moderates" helps separate those who are genuinely
interested in following evidence to reach a conclusion from those who start with a fixed conclusion
and work backwards.

I wanted to assess which side of this fence of intellectual dignity my cardiologist friend fell on. So I
proposed that if he posted a defense of the passage, explaining why he believes it to be correct, I
would give him his rebuttal on the apostasy verses.

In all honesty, I didn't think it would happen. But to my friend's credit, the post came, and it was
glorious. (I'm not even going to point out the puns anymore).

Here it was: a grown adult, an educated cardiology fellow, a practicing US physician, addressing the
great, contentious 21st century controversy: "Where does sperm come from?"


A Good Muslim or a Good Doctor - You Can't Always be Both

In his post (read it here), the doctor tried to go with the minority view among "scholars" that the
passage should be translated to "the loins and the ribs," implying that Allah had successfully
localized the testes (or prostate/seminal vesicles) to somewhere in the abdomen/pelvis area.

This, of course, is a feat of wonder no less impressive than localizing Chicago to somewhere in the
northern hemisphere.

He also posted an Urdu translation from a khalifa he follows - unaware that this revered leader's
Urdu also read, "between the back and the ribs." And he topped it off with a giant diagram of a
pregnant woman with a full-term fetus. (Note to the layman: Neither women nor fetuses produce
sperm or semen.)

He didn't explain why God didn't just simply say, "You were created from sperm produced in the
testes." To be fair, though, if God was as articulate as even the most minimally competent writers, it
would leave his explainers (who He seems to need way more than they need him) with nothing to
do.

Anyway, a deal's a deal. My colleague had just openly and courageously debated - in 2014 - the
anatomic origin of sperm - at my prompting - despite the risk to his intellectual and professional
integrity.

It's only fair that I respond and give him what he's asking for. This won't take long.


How the Quran Supports Death for Apostates

If you remember the Salman Rushdie affair, there was very little disagreement among Muslims
about what the punishment for apostasy should be until very recently. After the advent of the
internet, and particularly 9/11, easily searchable scripture was available in countless translations and
languages at the click of a button, and more people became aware of the violent nature of much of
Islam (as defined by its canonical texts - not, thankfully, by the actions of most Muslims). This
triggered its adherents to boost their PR campaign to maintain its image as a "religion of peace."

I'm ecstatic at the news from my friend that apostasy is not punishable by death.

However, if he has it right, and the majority of the Muslim world has it wrong, I implore him to
communicate his rare knowledge on this topic to the scholars who are implementing these
punishments, not to me.

Also, in addition to focusing on my column, I'd ask him to:

1. Suggest a re-writing of the teachings of the founders of all four schools of thought in Sunni Islam -
Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi, and Hanbal. Read about their views here, as well as Al Ghazali's.

2. Disown and condemn the hadith that say apostates should be executed: Sahih al-Bukhari,
9:83:17, 4:52:260, and 9:84:57; Sahih Muslim, 16:4152, 16:4154, and 20:4490; and more.

3. Re-write and modify to make clearer the following Quranic verses - used by both Khomeini (the
most influential Shia scholar in recent times, who put the fatwa on Rushdie's head) and Al Maududi
(the most influential Sunni scholar in recent times) to support death for apostates who openly
reject/abandon Islam. Some say the Quran doesn't explicitly support death for apostasy, but I
disagree. I think Khomeini, Al Maududi, and countless other scholars with tremendous influence who
used the following verses to justify executing apostates have a point that cannot be denied.

Here, read the words of the Quran:

Verse 4:89:
They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from
among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize
them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.

To be fair, the next verse (4:90) does give them a way to avoid the punishment: by converting,
submitting to you, and contractually giving you power over them. Sounds fair.

Another:

Verses 9:11-12
But if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, then they are your brothers in religion; and We
detail the verses for a people who know. And if they break their oaths after their treaty and
defame your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief, for indeed, there are no oaths
[sacred] to them; [fight them that] they might cease.

In other words, if they convert to your religion, it's cool. But if they then change their mind and speak
against your faith, fight them until they stop.

And then there's the contentious one that started it all - the one I cited in my column that says to
behead disbelievers and mutilate them:

Verse 8:12-13
[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have
believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the
necks and strike from them every fingertip." That is because they opposed Allah and His
Messenger. And whoever opposes Allah and His Messenger - indeed, Allah is severe in penalty.

The incident of the Battle of Badr, the time at which Muhammad wrote this verse, is used as an
example for all future transgressions of this kind. It's not just for those from that time, but for
"whoever opposes Allah..." like those disbelievers did.

This last one below I almost didn't include because it targets those who "wage war" against Allah. To
my surprise, it turns out that many very influential "scholars" think that speaking out openly against
religion or influencing others against it is part of a war on Islam, with the verse applying to it. Who
knew words and reason could dismantle irrationality more powerfully than swords and guns?

Verse 5:33
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth
[to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be
cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this
world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.


The Excuse Brigade

Expect the excuses to come soon: I've taken it out of context. Or I've read the wrong translation. Or
I've got the wrong "interpretation". Or it's supposed to be "metaphor" (as everything proven wrong in
scripture turns out to be somehow). Or I haven't read enough. Or I need to read it in Arabic. Oh wait,
I did read it in Arabic? Okay, then the original classical Arabic. But what about the Syro-Aramaic
roots? Or I'm reading it too "literally".

That last one, especially. Please, do anything but read it "literally". An interpretation, alternate
translation, whatever - but please, please, do not read this book the way it's actually written. It's
scary that way.


Back to the Big Picture

I'm sure there will be responses to this as well, but I'm going back to the big picture. When I say,
"Unicorns don't exist," it's not fruitful to then engage in a debate with unicornologists about the length
of a unicorn's horn. But this was my part of the deal, and frankly, I enjoyed it.

I must stress that ideological differences aside, I unquestionably align myself with religious
progressives like Maajid Nawaz, or those from peaceful sects like Ismailis or the Ahmadiyya when it
comes to practical goals and purpose. If these people and communities represent the future of
Islam, I'm game.

However, the denial, twisting, and turning with scripture is dangerous. The idea of scriptural
inerrancy is becoming an indefensible problem. It inadvertently gives cover to fundamentalist Islamic
purists. It makes moderates look wishy-washy and inconsistent, while giving fundamentalists more
credibility as true representatives of Islam, because their actions are more closely consistent with the
sacred word. If moderates and progressives want to regain that credibility, they need to be more
honest about their scripture, and be open not just to clumsily "re-interpreting" it, but re-writing it
altogether.

They try, but it doesn't work. They cite 2:256 [There is no compulsion in religion...] while the very
next verse, 2:257, says those who choose not to believe will be tortured forever in hell.

They cite 18:29, which says everyone's free to believe - except for the part where it says those who
"choose" not to believe will have their faces scalded in hell.

Whatever your views on the Quran and apostasy, there is a lot of violence in the book (as there is in
other Abrahamic books) that isn't okay in any context.

As Ayaan Hirsi Ali has pointed out, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Boko Haram don't use Osama bin
Laden or Mullah Omar to recruit young men. They use the Quran and the Hadith of the Prophet
Muhammad. All they have to do it cite it verbatim. No "interpretation" needed.

Take from that what you can.