The Battle of Algiers and One Eternal Principle

It was really amusing to see this Italian masterpiece, The Battle of Algiers (1966). It depicts, in an unbiased and quite an accurate manner, the independence struggle of the Algerian people against French Colonialism.  Same French, who were proudly and passionately involved in the anti-Nazi resistance movement during the 40s were brutally suppressing the resistance of the Algerian people in the 50s. Sometimes, I wonder if the Westerners started screaming about the human rights just because the lands occupied by them had slipped from their hands and they didn’t want to allow anyone else. They’ve developed new methods of economic colonialism and imperialism. When the rest of the world reaches at this level, they would start condemning this form of imperialism as well and proceed on to other innovative methods, that’s for sure.

In the end, it all boils down to one eternal, absolute and realistic principle of existence: “Might is Right!” – It’s the mighty who scribes down the laws and the weak and the meek are supposed to follow them willy nilly. Morality and Human Rights are pretty little farce to make them to fall in line. But only when they decide to utilize their human spirit and react in the language of the oppressor, is the oppressor forced to act upon justice.

Fate Of An Apostate.

Apostasy, or in other words the free choice of religion, is generally considered to be among the gravest sins among mainstream Islamic authorities and the punishment of it among general masses is execution, thanks to shameful ignorance and blind prejudice. Recently, I’ve talked about it to my several friends and non of them could come up with sound arguments in surpport of this horrendous belief. I had already decided not to inquire about this in person from some clergyman, lest my head be chopped off.

Anyways, I’ve personally inquired into the situation and some important points have come to my observation, of which I wasn’t aware earlier. I’d examine the issue from two aspects.

1- The nature of orders/laws about the fate of an apostate.

2- The rational aspect of the treatment with an spostate.

Talking about the canonical source of guidence in Islam, Qur’aan does not declare any clear-cut punishment for an apostate. Some scholars have used a few verses in favour of their claim but those verse remain to be vague at best. When we turn out attention towards hadiths, we find that there are hadiths that support both the proponents and opponents of death penalty for an apostate. Another source of confusion for those who want to know and a golden chance of manipulation for those who know! (I’ve again discussed the matter of such hadiths in the end).
I recently read an influential modern text on the subject, “THE PUNISHMENT OF THE APOSTATE ACCORDING TO ISLAMIC LAW”, by one of the most influential scholars of 20th century, Sayyed Abul’aala Maodudi. Skipping the arguments that he presented form the quraanic verses and hadiths, I would discuss his rational arguments that he presented in favour of his stance. While going through them I came upon the following noteworthy points:

1- According to Maodudi, the punishment of an apostste is basically due to the breach of his promise that he attains by embracing Islam. This promise not only includes the acceptance of the basic tenats and rituals of religion but the entire social, political and economic code of life. It’s like accepting the citizenship of a modern state. If after becoming a citizen of a particular state, he later on, not only renounces the citizenship but conspires against the state, his punishment is death by any moral and legal aspect. He writes:

“But the sole treatment for the person whose hard heart, once transformed, has again hardened and who demonstrates no capacity whatever to assimilate into society’s order is to cast him out. In any case, the value of the individual, however great it be, cannot be great enough to allow the whole order of society to be corrupted because of it.”
-Section C. The Natural Requirement of an Organized Society.

No doubt, for an organized society, a traitor/conspirator is unacceptable and if he conspires against that society, he should be executed, but if some person peacefully renounces the citizenship of that state or society and decides to lead his life peacefully in some other society, what is to become of him? Maodudi tries to tackle with this problem as:

“When such a person finds this foundation on which society and the state are constructed to be unacceptable to himself, it will be appropriate for him to move outside its borders. But when he fails to do this, only two ways of dealing with him are possible. Either he should be stripped of all his rights of citizenship and allowed to remain alive or else his life should be terminated. In fact the first form of punishment is worse than the second since in this terrible state “he will neither die nor live” (Qur’an 20:74).“
- Section D. Response to Criticisms.

Now, he suggests that “it will be appropriate for him to move outside it’s borders”. Does doing so discards his penalty of death? That’s what Maodudi seems to suggest from this pessage. Besides, any rational being would hardly agree with the last line that the punishment of peaceful exile is worse than death!

2- Maodudi compares the Islamic punishment of an apostate with the punishment of a traitor in British law and comments:

“And as British law is ready to give rights, such as aliens have, to those who have chosen to give up British nationality for a nationality of a nation at peace with England, similarly Islamic law also treats apostates, who have left the House of Islam to join an infidel nation which has a treaty with a Muslim government, in the same way it treats the kafirs of that nation.”
-Section G. The Example of England, point 6.

Accordingly, if a person denounces Islam and converts to some other religion non-violently and chooses to live in some state other than Islamic state, any state which is at peace with the Islamic state, that person would not be harmed.

3- Now to the most important point. It’s the concensus of eminent scholars that non of the penal laws of Islam can be imposed in a state which is not completely Islamic. By an Islamic state is meant a state in which all social, economic, political and moral laws are as per the Qur’aanic guidence and the instructions of Sunnah. Maodudi writes:

“Wherever and in whatever circumstances Islam actually assumes that character of a religion which the critics understand religion to have, there we ourselves also reject punishing the apostate by execution. Islamic jurisprudence is not confined to the punishment of apostasy. None of Islam’s penal laws can be applied when the Islamic state (or, in terms of the shariah, the “sultan”) is not existing.”
-Section E. The Basic Difference between a Mere Religion and a Religious State.

That means that unless and untill a complete Islamic state is not in existence, ANY penal law cannot be applied, let alone the punishment of execution of an apostate. During the age we live in, one can safely state that no such state exists and thus the application of penal laws of Islam in any state which happens to run on the basis of a ridiculous mixture of pseudo-Islamic and pseudo-rest is NOT allowed as per Qur’aan and hadith. Application of these laws under such situations would only result in further mayhem and chaos.

Now the points that derives from the fact that “an apostate cannot be punished unless an Islamic state exists because this punishment is a penance for his betrayal to Islamic society and state”, is that the punishment actually stands for the threat of an apostate to an Islamic state and society and not for his personal religious bliefs.

The above interpretation is further supported by another famous scholar of 20th century, Dr. Muhammad Hamid Ullah. In response to a question “Why should an apostate be executed?”, his contention was:

“My personal opinion about this matter is that an apostate is not punished regarding his religion but due to the breach of his political affiliations i.e betrayal to the state. No state in the world forgives a traitor. As in Islam there is no distinction of state and religion, thus it appears that this punishment is NOT due to the rejection of religion. We do not force anyone to accept Islam and enter in the Islamic Community, but if he rebels against that collective system after embracing Islam then he would be punished, according to the political laws and requirements, as a traitor.”
- “The Best Writings of Dr. Hamid Ullah”, edited by Sayyed Qasim Mehmud (originally in Urdu), page 338, question 38.

Thus, following two important points emerge from the above discussion. Any person who:

1- Chooses to leave Islam peacefully and leads his life outside the borders of an Islamic state cannot be executed! (In case an Islamic state exists)

2- Leaves Islam and lives among Muslims and interacts with them in the absence of an Islamic state cannot be executed. In the absense of an Islamic state, such laws are rendered null and void and that’s what they are in our today’s world.

Besides, even if a person leaves Islam and continues his peaceful and non-violent existence within an ISLAMIC STATE, there is no evidence and that he SHOULD BE executed, as per Islamic law and legislation. It is clearly manifested that even if the Prophet of Islam ordered to kill someone who left Islam in his time, it was because Madina was an Islamic state and any person who left Islam was considered (and there was very less probability that actually didn’t prove him to be) a traitor and a conspirator against Islam. Any person who peacefully rejected Islam and showed no signs of violence against the state and society was not harmed. Here’s an authentic hadith to support this claim:

“A bedouin gave the Pledge of allegiance to Allah’s Apostle for Islam. Then the bedouin got fever at Medina, came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Cancel my Pledge,” But Allah’s Apostle refused. Then he came to him (again) and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Cancel my Pledge.” But the Prophet refused Then he came to him (again) and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Cancel my Pledge.” But the Prophet refused. The bedouin finally went out (of Medina) whereupon Allah’s Apostle said, “Medina is like a pair of bellows (furnace): It expels its impurities and brightens and clears its good.”
- [Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, #319]

As far as other hadiths that are generally cited in regard to apostasy (riddah), (a) there is not a single hadith that is authentic or without any problem as per the standards of usul (principles) of hadith, and (b) none of these hadiths pertain to solely for apostasy. After examining all the pertinent hadiths and classical commentaries on the issue of apostasy, former Chief Justice of Pakistan, S. A. Rahman, observes:

“It has been seen that even the strongest bulwark of the orthodox view, viz. the Sunnah, when subjected to critical examination in the light of history, does not fortify the stand of those who seek to establish that a Muslim who commits apostasy must be condemned to death for his change of belief alone. In instances in which apparently such a punishment was inflicted, other factors have been found to co-exist, which would have justified action in the interest of collective security. As against them, some positive instances of tolerance of defections from the Faith, with impunity for the renegades, suggest that the Prophet acted strictly in conformity with the letter and the spirit of the Qur’an and mere change of faith, if peaceful, cannot be visited with any punishment.”
-S. A. Rahman. Punishment of Apostasy in Islam [New Delhi, India: Kitab Bhaban, 1996], pp. 85-86.

Finally a friendly piece of advice to those emotional and imbecile Muslim friends who, falling in the trap of hypocrite clergy and thinking to do a huge service to their faith and Lord: It’s good to be sincere with what one believes to be true, but blind faith and unexamined confidence in authority results not in sincerity but fanaticism and extremism which ultimately approaches to severe intolerence and finally brutal terrorism, exactly what we are witnessing within the followers of Islam today.

On History!

Napoleon once said:
“History is a myth agreed upon!”.

Napoleon may be or may not be right in his assessment of history, but the fact remains that history is one of the most essential pillars of the firm colossal building of knowledge. The study of history is the most inevitable to acquire the membership of the intellectual community. But the dilemma is that, for each nation, the sole purpose of teaching history at schools is self-glorification and fulfillment of national vanity. The acquisition of pure wealth of knowledge is not the purpose and requirement of this education. Rather main attention and emphasis is put on preparing extremely patriotic and nationalistic generations, with feelings of contempt and despise towards other nations. Thus, schools have become institutions where ‘national’ and ‘patriotic’ versions of history are presented.

Throughout history, history has been manipulated and propagated to mould the minds of younger generation into stubborn adult patriots according to the demands of rigid national pride and religious norms. Our past leaders are depicted as impeccable beings, innocent of any vices and follies. We are not taught about the wrong-doings and fallacies of our forefathers, and consequently we are condemned to repeat them. For each war we fought, our opponents are the transgressors. For each nation we conquered, we are the redeemers and for each war we lost, we are the betrayed.

Such type of biased education taught in educational institutes may be termed as “Political Education”, as Bertrand Russell observed in “Principles of Social Reconstruction”:

“…Education as a political institution endeavors to form habits and to circumscribe knowledge in such a way as to make one set of opinion inevitable.”

One side of the coin, one facet of the reality – is what we are acquainted with in text books, and as they say that incomplete truth is far more harmful than complete lie. Our school text books tend to present an extremely manipulated and distorted version of historical events and personalities. This generally leads to narrowing down the intellectual horizons of students rather than blessing them with new dimensions, which should be the actual purpose of education, especially the education of history. Students after the school education remain either unaware of the true history and events of utmost importance or remember them in a way even more worse.

History, no doubt, whether one accepts or not, is not an utterly pure collection of the incidents that actually occurred. The course of events as it passed, had been and has been tempered, while being scribbled, according to the will of those in power or the desires of those with knowledge. Parallel to it’s use as knowledge or social science, history has been used as a psychological weapon. But still, negating history as a whole on the sheer basis of mere doubt would be an example of terrifying skepticism.

Eluding the discussion whether history is wholly true or not, it is a source of guidance for individuals and nations alike, and equally for present and future. Tempering with this asset to instill few patriotic feelings in the immature minds would result in nothing fruitful, the consequences would be rather devastating. The obscure foundations of lie and cheat can never generate the pinnacles of glory. Distortion of harsh realities into sugar-coated fairy fantasies would bring about nothing other than intellectual havoc and mental discomfort.

History is one of the very basic cornerstones in the fulfillment of the intellectual community. It is reflection of the past and the indication of the future – A lesson to be remembered at every milestone to eternity. It should be given and treated with due respect if we expect her to honor us to be remembered in the future books of history.