Once a Muslim always a Muslim!
The recent attempts by Afghani authorities to put Abdul Rahman, a 41 year old Christian convert on charges of rejecting Islam has further called in question the compatibility of Islam, the Sharia Law and modern day democracy.
In Islam, it is forbidden to convert to different faiths. The idea is that God slowly provided the world with his divine words progressively through the Bible, the Torah and lastly the Koran. Islam is the faith which EVERYBODY should follow because it is God’s final words. Thus, it is completely blasphemous to revert back to the ‘old’ and ‘outdated’ faiths – in essence one should keep with the trend and if it isn’t fashion then it should certainly be their spiritual connection to God.
As much as this could be a source of mockery and tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, this is truly the situation. It is very rare for Muslims to revert to other faiths and if that is the case, it is usually kept under wraps. In Egypt, the most common situations revolve around Christian women converting to Islam for purposes of marriage. However the opposite is rarely heard about.
Why is that the case?
For the exact same reason Abdul Rahman is going through. Even if Abdul Rahman manages to flee persecution (under the auspices of the United States), he will still face incredible social scrutiny if he stays in Afghanistan. He will be looked down upon and be considered an outcast, a heretic and a complete anti-Christ of Islam.
The Muslims, who have the urge to convert to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or any of the plethoras of religions available today, don’t dare. This is why the case of Abdul Rahman is gaining incredible attention from the media – the situation is very rare.
Moreover, the fact that the ‘Christian US army’ was the prime protagonist in overthrowing the tyrannical Taliban from power has further called in to question on whether the Afghanis have truly appreciated the work of the Americans. Ironically, it was a Christian (and only with Muslim help) jihad against the Taliban which led to the enemy’s demise. Now, the Afghanis are trying Abdul Rahman, someone who seeks to follow the same faith which helped overthrow the Taliban.
This will cause an interesting moral, ethical, judicial conundrum.
Most important of all, Rahman’s case has painted the split in Afghani society on how to interpret the constitution which in an incredibly contradicting manner has called for religious freedom while also claiming that any Muslim which renounces Islam should be punished by death.
Is this democracy?
Obviously not.
Sharia Law advocates the latter point (i.e. punishes heretics and those renouncing Islam) and thus by default (in its current state), it cannot be compatible with modern day democracy.
As I argued in my previous post ‘Democracy: Does It and Will It Work in The Middle East?’ Arab and Muslim countries have a long way to go before they should officially introduce the ideas of democracy in their respective societies. Afghanistan is no different. The US tried to introduce democracy but this ended up in a hybrid of Sharia Law garnished an ‘essence’ of constitutionalism.
This is a disaster which is slowly surfacing and Westerners are starting to realize the futility of their intervention in such seemingly archaic and ‘middle-age-like’ societies. It is difficult for Americans to understand the cultural idiosyncrasies of complicated societies such as that of Iraq of Afghanistan and the result is an utter mess.
Internal change needs to take place – Arab and Muslim countries need to educate their populations. They also need to have moderates in power which would be able potentially appease the majority of the sects in their societies and most importantly create a pragmatic solution to bringing Islam in to the 21st century.
In Islam, it is forbidden to convert to different faiths. The idea is that God slowly provided the world with his divine words progressively through the Bible, the Torah and lastly the Koran. Islam is the faith which EVERYBODY should follow because it is God’s final words. Thus, it is completely blasphemous to revert back to the ‘old’ and ‘outdated’ faiths – in essence one should keep with the trend and if it isn’t fashion then it should certainly be their spiritual connection to God.
As much as this could be a source of mockery and tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, this is truly the situation. It is very rare for Muslims to revert to other faiths and if that is the case, it is usually kept under wraps. In Egypt, the most common situations revolve around Christian women converting to Islam for purposes of marriage. However the opposite is rarely heard about.
Why is that the case?
For the exact same reason Abdul Rahman is going through. Even if Abdul Rahman manages to flee persecution (under the auspices of the United States), he will still face incredible social scrutiny if he stays in Afghanistan. He will be looked down upon and be considered an outcast, a heretic and a complete anti-Christ of Islam.
The Muslims, who have the urge to convert to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or any of the plethoras of religions available today, don’t dare. This is why the case of Abdul Rahman is gaining incredible attention from the media – the situation is very rare.
Moreover, the fact that the ‘Christian US army’ was the prime protagonist in overthrowing the tyrannical Taliban from power has further called in to question on whether the Afghanis have truly appreciated the work of the Americans. Ironically, it was a Christian (and only with Muslim help) jihad against the Taliban which led to the enemy’s demise. Now, the Afghanis are trying Abdul Rahman, someone who seeks to follow the same faith which helped overthrow the Taliban.
This will cause an interesting moral, ethical, judicial conundrum.
Most important of all, Rahman’s case has painted the split in Afghani society on how to interpret the constitution which in an incredibly contradicting manner has called for religious freedom while also claiming that any Muslim which renounces Islam should be punished by death.
Is this democracy?
Obviously not.
Sharia Law advocates the latter point (i.e. punishes heretics and those renouncing Islam) and thus by default (in its current state), it cannot be compatible with modern day democracy.
As I argued in my previous post ‘Democracy: Does It and Will It Work in The Middle East?’ Arab and Muslim countries have a long way to go before they should officially introduce the ideas of democracy in their respective societies. Afghanistan is no different. The US tried to introduce democracy but this ended up in a hybrid of Sharia Law garnished an ‘essence’ of constitutionalism.
This is a disaster which is slowly surfacing and Westerners are starting to realize the futility of their intervention in such seemingly archaic and ‘middle-age-like’ societies. It is difficult for Americans to understand the cultural idiosyncrasies of complicated societies such as that of Iraq of Afghanistan and the result is an utter mess.
Internal change needs to take place – Arab and Muslim countries need to educate their populations. They also need to have moderates in power which would be able potentially appease the majority of the sects in their societies and most importantly create a pragmatic solution to bringing Islam in to the 21st century.
posted by The Egyptian Observer at 2:44 PM
3 Comments:
@Prup. I think Wafa Sultan's quote paints a clear picture of the current dilemma between Muslims and non-Muslims.
By juxtaposing the differences between the East and the West, the dichotomy is clear. Unfortunately the sad reality is the manifestations one sees today are not far off from Sultan's observations.
Where are the moderates?
This is a good question. My hunch is that the moderates do not care to change the image of Islam. They have found their own piece of mind (likely as immigrants in Western countries) and have happily stricken a balance between practicing their faith while enjoying civil liberties in a democratic society.
Why should they even bother coming back to their respective countries and try to instigate change?
Extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda and Islamism have tarnished the image of Islam - completely. Whether the damage is permanent is subject to discussion.
It seems to me that if you ask a non-Muslim what their first thought of a Muslim is, it would revolve around someone with a traditional galabeya, a headress, a huge beard and a grim, suspicious look on their face - i.e. someone who looks threatening and unapprochable in modern society.
Will this ever change? Will Islam be ever practiced progressively and be compatible with the modern world?
@omega. Certainly, there are Muslims converting but like your friend, you just don't hear about it at all and they are kept clandestine to avoid social scrutiny.
I am assuming your Saudi friend does not live in Saudi Arabia as this would be completely out of line. I would be interested to learn the rationale of those coverting from Islam to other faiths, I reckon they would be more for personal reasons than anything else.
@educsubnorm. I would have to disagree with you on several issues.
The Islam you are describing is unforunately what is being represented today through extremist factions such as Al-Qaeda per se.
However Islam does not advocate violence and seeks to embrace change and modernity - unfortunately these have not manifested in today's Muslim societies.
Your comment seems to be that of bitterness and repulsion. As I can comprehend the malice, it is also important to realize that there are 'liberal Muslims' (let's put aside the term moderates) who have been engrossed in Western cultures and have found a way to integrate both Islam and modern society in their day to day life. Moreover as I said in one of my other comments, those liberals care less about seeking power since they are satisfied with the compromises they've found as immigrants abroad. They are apathetic about instigating change.
It is certainly possible to mould Islam in to modern society.
The problem is the media represents those which give Islam a distorted image - backward, uncompromising, absolutist, dictatorship-style, archaic and resembling the Middle Ages.
Some of the current priests of Islam might be corrupt, old men jealous of youth, beauty and truth however if you read accounts of the Prophet Mohammad PBUH, he is far from any such description.
Islam is NOT death, I suggest you read translated versions of the Koran and see for yourself. It is a religion which advocates very simple ideas and asks men and women to be decent human beings.
The Koran like any other holy document is subject to interpretation and Islam IS open to interpretation. The best example is between the Shiia and Sunni sects. The Hadith (discussions) seek to provide supplemental information on how one practice their Muslim faith and that is wholly subjective.
Even today, various schools have differing opinions on a variety of issues such as women's hijab (headscarf) and whether women should be obliged to wear it. This is a great debate in Egyptian society at this point and there are still discussions in the Azhar as well as among society itself.
The Islam in Egypt is different than the Islam in Saudi Arabia which are both different than the Islam in Iran and that of the Shiia sect in Iraq - thus it is de facto open to interpretation.
The Islam you seem to see uncompromising is that which advocates Jihad (as done by Al-Qaeda) and which seeks to eliminate all infidels from the world - I can certainly understand your antagonism here since I too share the exact same feelings.
Islam cannot be eradicated from the world, it has become a global phenomenon which needs to be embraced fully and internalized.
I am hoping the new generation of Muslims (such as myself) will realize that apathy to instigating change will only exacerbate the problem. The moderates and liberals (if they do exist in large numbers) need to overcome this apathy and achieve positions of power.
I suggest you give your interpretation of Islam a more candid and non-parochial perspective.
Post a Comment
<< Home