Ask the chaplain
Talk Islam obligingly posted the whole of Chaplain Taha Abdul-Basser’s email message on apostasy. He starts off by laying down some ground rules.
While I understand that will happen and that there is some benefit in them, in the main, it would be better if people were to withhold from debating such things, since they tend not to have the requisite familiarity with issues and competence to deal with them. Debating about religious matter is impermissible, in general, and people rarely observe the etiquette of disagreements.
But this is an issue that necessarily is of pressing interest to all Muslims. They have a natural desire to know if they are to be killed or not if they should ever decide to leave Islam. Therefore it is only natural that they should want to know about it, and if they learn something they don’t altogether like, to argue about it. It seems more than a little unfair to say that that is impermissible. It would be like telling Americans that it is impermissible for us to debate about capital punishment, when we could be subject to it. In the US it is not impermissible to debate about capital punishment.
The preponderant position in all of the 4 sunni madhahib (and apparently others of the remaining eight according to one contemporary `alim) is that the verdict is capital punishment. Of concern for us is that this can only occur in the domain and under supervision of Muslim governmental authority and can not be performed by non-state, private actors.
Of concern for us? Meaning that capital punishment for leaving Islam is not of concern if it is in the domain and under supervision of Muslim governmental authority? Why’s that then? Because Abdul-Basser and the people he’s talking to are all outside that domain and supervision and thus don’t have to worry about it? Well, if so, that’s rather callous. In fact it’s worse than callous: it’s complicit and callous. What it means is that Abdul-Basser is adhering to a religion that kills people who leave it when it has state power, while staying out of reach of such power himself. If he in fact is happy to be safe while still defending the religion that executes other, distant people simply for changing their religion – he’s a nasty man.
Maybe that’s not what he meant. But that is what it looks like.
I would finally note that there is great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand. The formal consideration of excuses for the accused and the absence of Muslim governmental authority in our case here in the North/West is for dealing with the issue practically. And Allah knows best.
Ah; well that’s consoling. As long as Allah knows best, and everybody knows what Allah wants (but do they? how? how do we know? how do they know? how does anyone know? if everybody knows why does anybody have to ask Abdul-Basser? if anyone doesn’t know then how does everyone know that someone knows and who that is and how to know who it is?) then being killed for changing your religion is no problem. That’s a relief.
I suppose the charitable interpretation is that he’s trying to downplay things and say, “Look, the most relevant point for us is that none of this applies here at Harvard; it only applies to actions by a Muslim state somewhere else or some time in the future. In other words, please don’t go around killing people.”
I’m willing to assume that that is what he was getting at in the “of concern to us” bit. He meant “of direct relevance to us …”, and the rest then follows.
But it’s still a bit of a shock that this educated and cultured Muslim leader thinks that it’s a good thing to have Muslim theocracies that impose capital punishment for apostasy. You have to wonder what else he thinks. Does he want the whole world to be controlled by such theocratic states? Is he fundamentally opposed to a framework that allows for individual liberty?
Anyone who was hoping that Islam could find the resources to accommodate itself to a liberal framework should be taken aback by this. It’s only the view of one Muslim leader, of course, but this is presumably one of the more “liberal” or “moderate” Muslim leaders. It’s one more datum that casts doubt on whether it’s possible to be seriously committed to both Islam and modernity.
Of course it is possible to be seriously committed to both Islam and modernity. Actually, scratch that. While I suspect I know what you mean by “modernity,” it’s an awfully vague word. Start over.
It is possible to be seriously committed to both Islam and Enlightenment moral and political values, and this strange state can be accomplished by exactly the same path that makes it possible to be seriously committed to both Christianity and Enlightenment moral and political values: All it takes is completely redefining what is meant by “Islam,” as many (but by no means all) modern Christians have done for “Christianity.” That, and some dedicated compartmentalization. And a fairly high tolerance for cognitive dissonance.
In that way, it’s much like being a scientist and a religious believer: No, when you get down to brass tacks, science – as a process, as a social activity, and as an epistemological approach – is in no way compatible with faith-based religion. But that doesn’t mean individual people can’t be scientists and religious believers; it just makes their rows particularly difficult to hoe.
Taha Abdul-Basser, however, is not interested in achieving that compatibility. He prefers the easier path of blind, rigid adherence to religious authority. After all, Enlightenment moral and political values — such as the idea that there are many, many things states simply ought not have the power to do (like murdering people for changing their minds about their religious beliefs) — are just part of “the hegemonic modern human rights discourse” which is blind to the “great wisdom” of Islam, which mustn’t ever be dismissed out of hand – or even debated. “Debating about religious matter is impermissible, in general, and people rarely observe the etiquette of disagreements,” or so Abdul-Basser informs his flock.
Hmm. He’s probably right. I seriously doubt that this “etiquette” of which he speaks would allow me to express my sincere, honest opinion of the learned Taha Abdul-Basser’s character and opinions – which is that he’s a loathsome pimple on humanity’s ass whose character and opinions deserve nothing but contempt and derision. The only cosmically fitting punishment for Abdul-Basser and his ilk would be to enjoy the full fruits of their wisdom: If I believed in that sort of thing, I would wish that he should be speedily find himself in his next life – born a girl in Afghanistan. If there were a just God, such would be his fate. But if there were a just God, there wouldn’t be people loathsome enough to deserve such a fate, nor such horrible fates to befall anyone in the first place.
(I suppose the charitable interpretation is that he’s trying to downplay things and say, “Look, the most relevant point for us is that none of this applies here at Harvard; it only applies to actions by a Muslim state somewhere else or some time in the future. In other words, please don’t go around killing people.”) Russell Iam reminded of Samuel Johnston,s veiw of second marriages by that comment?
Most people would be unhappy if some Nazi said Jews should be killed, but added that
‘this can only occur in the domain and under supervision of Nazi governmental authority and can not be performed by non-state, private actors’. This seems rather similar.
“The hegemonic modern human rights discourse” means some unreasonable authority stopping me doing what I would really like to have the power to do.
Eg “the hegemonic parental discourse” doesn’t let a teenager borrow the car for the weekend so s/he can do a drugs run with his/her mates.
I was thinking about this on Friday and would have posted a comment but the hegemonic employer discourse prevents me from doing that in work time.
(Good stuff, G, as always.)
Russell: “I suppose the charitable interpretation is that he’s trying to downplay things and say, ‘Look, the most relevant point for us is that none of this applies here at Harvard; it only applies to actions by a Muslim state somewhere else or some time in the future. In other words, please don’t go around killing people.'”
Alternatively, if his Islam was a car and he was not all fetishist about it, he might say “perhaps its time I traded this thing in on a newer model.”
One can only hope.
Btw, I hope no one thinks I’m trying to defend his view. I’m just trying to interpret it. Even on the most charitable possible reading it’s pretty horrendous, for the reasons people are saying.
I tend to assume that readers will understand where I’m coming from with things like this, but some incidents lately have brought home to me how easy it is for misunderstandings to develop.
Well I got it Russell (she said smugly), and I think you could be right. He could be rather horribly torn – and that even seems quite likely, given where he is, and given what the 3 quoted (anonymous) students said about his views.
I’m reminded of Tariq Ramadan – who (there is always the temptation to think) surely must know better, and yet goes on defending the indefensible, year in year out. It’s so depressing, these guys who probably at least glimpse the truth (about the horror of what they’re defending) and yet can’t embrace it.
I keep asking friends who try and defend a so-called moderate Islam to explain what that means exactly and point me in the direction of the relevant resources. To date I have received nothing.
I’m convinced moderate Islam is a chimera, a mere act of faith on the part of fellow liberals and leftists who simply need to do their homework prior to hopping into bed with Hamas.
Thankfully, The Obama Administration, Canada, the Netherlands and others have understood and decided to boycott the real agenda of the UN conference on racism in Geneva: anti-semitism and free speech as it is threatened by attempts to introduce “incitement to religious hatred” (translate: make criticism of religion a violation of human rights) into the conference statement.
Well I think in practice a moderate Islam is possible provided the ‘Islam’ is purely notional, or nominal. I think that’s probably Gina Khan’s Islam, for instance, and perhaps Irshad Manji’s. Intellectually it makes no sense, but emotionally etc it does. But if people are under the illusion that the Harvard chaplain, for instance, is a moderate…well clearly some people have been disabused of that illusion. So the question becomes, why have Islamic chaplains at all? And then the discussion becomes very awkward.
Sigh.
I like the bit about the hegemonic human rights discourse. Yeah, human rights are so powerful and hegemonic, which is why nobody’s ever killed for leaving Islam…oh, wait.
Also like the “uncomfortable”–yes, it’s just a little quirk of mine that I don’t like murder for apostasy, sort of like the way I don’t like the air-conditioning on full-blast.
Apologies for the spam, but I just had another thought. Even from the point of view of a religious person, surely this POV impedes this guy’s ability to do his job as chaplain? How could ambivalent Muslim students come to him with doubts about their faith, if he thinks like this?
That’s an interesting question. Very good point.
There is an interesting article by Amal Mohammed Al-Malki at http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/culture/?id=31502 entitled ‘Islamic Feminists distinguish Islam from Muslims’. I got to it by googling ‘muslim feminists’, and an interesting result there, too.
It strikes me that the odd thesis is being nailed to the front door of the Grand Mosque these days, and it is mainly Muslim women who are doing the nailing. Mind you, the path they are on is the one already pioneered by women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It wends its way eventually straight to the back door of the mosque, where the choice becomes one of staying in or getting out.
If there was any decent sort of liberal undercurrent emerging in Islam, as distinct from the Rector of Havard, Muslims in danger of being liquidated for apostasy would have no shortage of sincere and principled Muslim bodyguards. But they don’t.
Islam strikes me as being about where Christianity was in the 13th Century. There were signs at the time of something brewing that would eventually lead to reformation and overthrow of the self-serving fashion that had taken hold in the hierarchy. But the philosophical debates within Islam tend to be conducted more with bombs and bullets than mere reason.
And right on cue, enter Randel Abdel-Fattah, stage left.
“Last month, Afghan President Hamid Karzai approved a law effectively stipulating that Shiite women cannot refuse to have sex with their husbands, and can only seek work, education or a doctor’s visit with their husbands’ permission.
“The law is not the first instance of Islamic law being manipulated to dishonour women. One of America’s strongest Middle Eastern allies, Saudi Arabia, is a notorious example, banning women from driving and voting and controlling their dress. By all accounts, the contemporary landscape of Islam, law and women’s rights is depressing.
To comprehend the context in which this occurs, one must understand that Islam has no church; no person or institution embodies God’s divine authority. There is simply no authoritative centre other than God and Prophet Mohammed. Both are represented by texts, which must be interpreted: first, the Koran, and second, the documented sayings and traditions of Mohammed.”
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/rich-and-just-legacy-tainted-by-mcfatwas-20090419-abek.html?page=-1
“There is simply no authoritative centre other than God and Prophet Mohammed. Both are represented by texts”
clannnnnnggggggg
The prison door slams shut.
If Randel Abdel-Fattah thinks “which must be interpreted” is the escape key from that, she’s making a mistake.
OB, the question is ‘interpreted by whom?’ Her position reminds me of Luther’s in the sense that she is bucking the clerics.
I agree she’s not out of the woods yet, but she’s heading away from where the wolves are.
She adds further: “Insolence and arrogance characterise the appalling manipulation of Islamic texts in countries such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. On the one hand, Islam is clearly corrupted by tribalism and cultural traditions that contradict the ethical principles of justice, reasonableness, compassion and mercy at the heart of Islam’s legal system. Looking around the Muslim world today, one would scoff at such a claim about the true nature of Islam for there is very little justice, reasonableness, compassion or mercy displayed by those who hold themselves out as legitimately applying Islamic law.
“On the other hand, Muslims who care deeply about the deplorable manipulation of Islamic texts understand that the contemporary Muslim world is in crisis. This is a problem for Muslim countries and Muslims in the West whose leaders are often lacking in proper legal training and qualifications and who claim authority because they have memorised the entire Koran, something a child is capable of doing.
“I have been researching the Islamic legal heritage and my studies take me on an exhilarating journey in which my appreciation of the richness of Islamic legal philosophy is safe from those who seek to dumb down and belittle Islam’s extraordinarily sophisticated tradition of critical thought and analysis.”
‘Critical thought and analysis’ inside a religious context is hemmed in by the bans the religion inevitably makes on the questioning of itself. So the choice sooner or later comes between freedom of thought and obedience to the religion’s own claims to be beyond question. That is inevitably the case, in my view, and the current problems Catholic clerics in the west are having with getting obedience from their flocks is pertinent.
She might have come to that fork in the road regarding her idea of reconciling intellectual freedom and Islam, though somehow I doubt it.
I would be interested in Randel Abdel-Fattah’s opinion of Khomeini’s fatwa on Rushdie, though the title of her piece “Rich and just legacy tainted by ‘McFatwas'” gives a clue.
@Ian McD
I am a bit annoyed by the reference to “deplorable manipulation” (of the scripture). It is used by apologets of all religions, including christians.
The underlying assumption is platonic: that somhow, the original core of ……………(Fill in your favorite religion) is in its essence good (and divine), but that humans somehow has corruted it by faulty interpretation(s).
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
It’s kind of amusing how those of us hoping to find a moderate Islam taking hold across the Muslim world would finally react to it:
1. “Thank you for no longer killing us
2. and for the opportunity to tell you why you too are wrong.” (Vis-a-vis the on-going discussion on this site regarding what might be salvageable in religion.)
First things first, however.
Cassanders: If I quote something someone has said, it does not mean that I endorse it personally. I agree; those passages from Randel Abdel-Fattah are not universally true, but are I believe an accurate indicator of the present stage of her own thinking.
My good old apprenticeship as a Marxist has taught me to pay as much attention to the direction a person’s thought is taking them, as to what stage they are presently at. Islam, as I see it, is not congealing around a single proposition or fanatical leader, though of them there is no shortage, and they all would wish it otherwise. Rather, it is fragmenting, which IMHO is healthier.
Brian: Chicken or egg? [ ;-) ]
BTW, I see that the You Tube version of Susan Boyle’s performance on ‘Britain’s Got Talent’ is up to 60 million hits.
Now there is someone with spirit.
http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/allmenareliars/