Defending Islam against Muslims

There is a strange tendency among Westerners to defend Islam against Muslims.  So, when Muslims do horrific things, the Westerners, who themselves know nothing of Islam, will instantly rise to the defense insisting, "Oh, this is not the correct interpretation of Islam."  Or, they will say there are many interpretations of Islam and this is not the canonical one.  As if they would recognize the canonical interpretation when they see it (it will look remarkably like Methodism, in their eyes).  Essentially, they claim to know Islam better than the Muslims.

Specifically, they know Islam better than Osama bin Laden knew Islam.  They know Islam better than the Caliph Abu Bakr al Baghdadi or even the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.  And better than the millions and millions of Muslims who see things just the way these gentlemen saw them and whose lived experience of Islam comports entirely with their views.

The enormity of this claim still leaves me speechless.  Recently, however, my discussion with a friend centered on one specific point:  apostasy in Islam.  It is widely understood that apostates from Islam must be killed by Muslims, but my friend was certain---certain, you understand---that this could not possibly be true.

It's true.

As with every religion, much of Islam remains debatable.  Even the apostate is debatable in Islam, but not in the way naive Westerners might imagine.  The doctors of Muslim law (the "ulema") dedicate much thought to apostasy and the issue is discussed all over the ahadith (the words and deeds of Muhammad) and fiqh (Muslim jurisprudence).  In several verses, the Koran is highly suggestive, but the definitive ruling comes from the ahadith,

Sahih Bukhari (52:260) "The Prophet said, 'If somebody discards his religion, kill him.' "

There are several other such verses that specifically state that a person who leaves Islam must be killed.  But Sahih Bukhari (52:260) is the verse that introduces uncertainty.  This verse does not restrict apostasy to Islam.  So, there is no doubt about what must happen to a Muslim apostate, but the gravamen of the debate among the ulema is whether a Christian should be killed, by the Muslim authorities, for leaving Christianity or if a Jew should be killed, by the Muslim authorities, for leaving Judaism.

The conclusion is a tad complicated.  After all, Islam invites converts, so it would be strange indeed if a Christian were to accept the invitation to Islam and then be killed for leaving Christianity.  Furthermore, while Christians and Jews have Koranic standing as "People of The Book" and are tolerated (under certain social and legal disabilities) in Muslim society, most other religions, especially polytheistic religions like Hinduism, are intolerable.

So, the basic Muslim position on apostasy is this.  A Muslim who leaves Islam must die.  Polytheists must convert to Islam or die.  Christians and Jews who convert to any religion other than Islam should probably die, but Muslims may not care enough about that.  That is, Muslims can't get too exercised if a Christian converts to Judaism or a Jew converts to Christianity.  I.e., in most times and most places, Muslims saw that as merely a pointless act and nothing more, but sometimes it would have been a dangerous act.

The discussion necessarily continues.  How do you know when a person is a Muslim and how do you know he has apostasized?  Must there be an official adjudication?  Is there a process?  Who is obliged to take action?  And so on.

These are not questions I will explore to any length, but I leave you with an outline.  In most cases, it is easy to know if a person is an apostate from Islam.  He can declare his apostasy in words or reveal his apostasy in actions.  An apostate must be invited back to the sharia (the righteous path) three times.  If he declines a third time, his life is forfeited.

Responsibility is a matter of debate as we might understand the concept.  In matters of religious law, Islam separates personal responsibility and communal responsibility.  For example, offensive Jihad is strictly a communal responsibility while defensive jihad, while certainly a communal responsibility, is also a personal responsibility.

In the matter of apostasy, one tradition places the responsibility squarely on the individual.  If you believe I am an apostate, you must make a definitive judgement and invite me back to the faith three times.  If I decline a third time, it is your personal responsibility to cut my throat.  A more liberal interpretation prefers the involvement of the state in this matter.

I hope you agree all these issues are mere quibbles.  In Islam, in one way or another, an apostate's life is in danger.  Apostates are going to be secretive, and that is why it is hard to know just how many Muslim apostates there are.  There are reasons to believe the numbers are much larger than is generally acknowledged.  And that is why death is the answer in Islam.  Islam is such an obviously perverse ideology it is widely believed, even among Muslims themselves, that if death were not the punishment, Islam would have long since evaporated.  Islam is the original "bucket of crabs."

In other words, these people are not just gratuitously crazy.  Death for apostates is one of the earliest, most persistent, and clearest tenets of Islam.  And it is one---and only one--of the several reasons I believe Islam is a fragile religion.  If the West, itself, were not so culturally weak at this moment in our historical development, we might have seen the end of Islam as we know it, in our lifetimes.