While doing a little background research on a WashPost article on conservative Muslims trying to segregate themselves from a corrupting American society, I came across this Wikipedia entry on “Apostasy in Islam”:
Apostasy in Islam (Arabic: ??????, irtid?d or ridda) is commonly defined as the rejection of Islam in word or deed by a person who has been a Muslim.So, essentially, if you’re a Muslim in America you have no freedom of religion. You may choose another religion besides Islam, but you’re sure going to be deprived of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It seems to me the First Amendment provides protection for religion as an extension of free speech; that is, an American is free to believe, and express his or her personal or religious beliefs, without fear of reprisal. I’m no legal scholar, but the Hobson’s choice of Islam or death is tantamount to a negation of these First Amendment rights.
All five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that a sane male apostate must be executed. A female apostate may be put to death, according to some schools, or imprisoned, according to others.
Anybody with a law degree want to weigh in here? Thanks.
3 comments:
I am 3 months away from a law degree, but if think I can answer your question with this anecdote.
Back when Britian ruled India, a British officer was discussing the Indian tradition of widows being thrown on the funeral pyres of their husbands. He told an Indian male that he would have the gallows waiting for him, and said something like this, "Once you are finished with your traditions, you will then take part in ours." [getting hanged for murder]
They are free to believe whatever they want. Once it deprives women of their American constitutional rights, their freedom of religion ends.
Yeah, and two years ago, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) sent out an order to American bishops to deny communion to American politicians who support abortion. Or in the words of Ratzinger's decree, those who show "obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin."
It seems self-evident that having the eucharist taken away isn't nearly as serious as a death sentence, but there are Catholics out there who wouldn't agree.
The problem isn't merely what the five schools of Islamic jurisprudence think. Religion is incompatible with the fullest expression of American freedoms.
It is the state's job to protect its citizens from physical harm at the hands of others. Thus religions that call for the killings of those who leave the faith who those who won't convert will find themselves at odds with the state.
It is not the state's job to protect its citizens from spiritual discomfort or anguish that a religion might cause.
It is not, as Nord states simply that it is "self-evident that having the eucharist taken away isn't nearly as serious as a death sentence." Rather, it is that having your physical existence involves one sphere, and a sphere that concerns the state and having your spiritual state threatened involves another sphere, one that does not concern the state.
Religions in the West generally acknowledge this separation. Islam, at least on paper, does not.
It has always struck me as curious that those most concerned about maintaining the separation of church and state seem to be the most unfamiliar with just how important and unique the Reformation and the Enlightenment were in allowing such attitudes to become the standard in the West.
Post a Comment