one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan
Monday, September 27, 2004 | Yusuf Islam (nee Cat Stevens), Blasphemy, Terror and Truth
As part of my inexplicable affinity for the futile exercise of confusing issues with facts, in the unlikely event that anyone is interested in such party-pooping when myths are so much more profitable and fun, I will now have the kindness to terrorize you with the following quote from Yusuf Islam (nee Cat Stevens):
back in February 1989 I was delivering a
talk about my journey to Islam at Kingston University in London, when somebody
(probably a disguised journalist) mischievously posed a question about Islam’s
view on apostates and blasphemers. As a student who had studied the issue for
the first time, I simply did my best by answering direct from legal texts which
I had read. Instead of reporting my response in context,
which I naively expected, suddenly the headline in next day’s paper read “Cat
Says Kill Rushdie!” Well, needless to say, all hell then broke loose and my
political education had really begun. Thank God the newspaper responsible,
Today, has since folded and is now out of circulation; unfortunately the
monstrous myth it created still survives.
Yusuf did not then and does not now claim to be an authority on Islamic Jurisprudence, based as it is on mathematical formulae applied to the massive labyrinth of hadith, the reported sayings of the Prophet, who for those who are unaware, died some time before the availability of videotape.
It is no more required of Muslims that they become experts on hadith any more than it is required of Catholics that they become experts on Canon Law, which though tangled and complicated enough to make Benedictines flee, Jesuits tremble and Franciscans curse, when compared to Sharia on the intellectual headache scale, comes off looking like a Letterman top ten list.
As any serious religious student will tell you, the interpretation of ancient sacred texts, whether Torah, Koran, or Granth, requires more than simply choosing a religion. People who dedicate their lives to the historic, linguistic, and socio-anthropological studies necessary to claim more than a superficial layman's understanding of the preferred interpretation of one's priest, rabbi, imam, etc. still sit up till dawn engaged in lively debate over the possible interpretations of one word, sometimes even part of a word, consuming such substances as permitted by their own interpretations, and boring anyone within hearing distance to tears. If you should see such a group, RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!
A few weeks ago, Bishop Desmond Tutu shocked a CNN infobabe by stating that A) God is not a Christian, and B) He is not finished with us, we are a work in progress.
Interpretation of scripture is also a work in progress, and it is difficult to find two scholars who will agree on a whole hell of a lot regarding it, whichever scripture you prefer to watch them argue about.
Thus, while Ayatollah Khomeini may have been acting according to his own interpretation of a particular hadith (note that hadith are NOT part of the Koran, if you have somehow missed that), his was not and is not the only game in town:
Our thesis that Islam imposes no secular penalty for
simple apostasy having been conclusively established on the basis of the Holy
Quran and the practice of the Holy Prophet, it is not necessary to have recourse
to any juristic opinion on the subject. We are aware that a misunderstanding on
this question arose in the midst of a certain section of the jurists on this
subject. Yet it is of interest that the Hanafi jurists at the very start were
firmly of the view that simple apostacy was not subject to any secular penalty. http://www.alislam.org/books/apostacy/17.html
Surah An-Nisa', 4:137, states that "those
who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then
increase in their disbelief - Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to
the path." If indeed it was Allah's intention to impose the death penalty for
apostasy, then such occasion of repeated apostasy could have provoked such a
punishment. But neither the first instance of apostasy, nor repeated apostasy
brought about capital punishment. Those who advocate the death penalty for
apostasy based their reasoning on a hadith which proclaims, "kill whoever
changes his religion". But this hadith is open to varying interpretations on
several grounds. First, this hadith is considered a weak
hadith with just a single isnad (this means there is only one chain of
transmission or narration) and thus according to the rules of Islamic
jurisprudence, it is not enough to validate the death penalty. Second, this hadith is also considered a
general ('amm) hadith in that it is in need of specification (takhsis); for it
would otherwise convey a meaning that is not within its purpose. The obvious
reading of the hadith would, for example, make liable the death punishment on a
Hindu or Christian who converts to Islam. This is obviously not the intention of
the hadith. According to the rules of Islamic jurisprudence, when a text is
interpreted once, it becomes open to further interpretation and specification.
Therefore, many scholars interpret this hadith to apply only to cases of high
treason (hirabah), which means declaring war against Islam, the Prophet, or God
or the legitimate leadership of the ummah.
Those interested can do as much further study on this subject as they wish, for those who consider facts a most insidious and heinous kind of blasphemy and who are offended by this particular blogrant, take comfort in the fact that yours is the majority view, with all that company, you do not need me to apologize for having muddied your waters.
And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:11-16
Actions like Sep 11 do not happen in a vaccuum.
Long before those hijackers ever stepped foot on the planes the damage
had been done. They were brainwashed with the same type of garbage
propaganda that is spewed from Fatwa's weblog.
Middle Eastern countries are so much more barbaric today and preAmercia than America can ever hope to be...America has only been around 230 years...who did you blame for everything before that Ductape? I am calling a Fatwa on your bullshit!
IMO - terrorist plain and simple. He is an Al queda operative who
should be put in a cage on gitmo Skinner
My favorite..."In Defense of Holocaust Deniers"
I always thought that "The Enemy Within" was just a metaphore for liberalism, that is, until I encountered Ductape Fatwa. He should be in an orange jumpsuit for sure.
peopleforchange.netductape is either a commie, al queda, or a deep cover mole
Tells you something about this asshole doesn't it. He's really serious.
I believe that DF is nothing but a Republican plant...
Ductape is a commie, a terrorist, and he drinks blood too. He drinks
Capitalist blood. He eats unborn babies too
Give me your address and I'll send you $20 and a thank-you note for taking your hatred elsewhere.
A terrorist with a sense of humor!
He ain't nuthin' but shit
inadequate, halfway house bullshit
You are a dumbass. Fuck you and your condescension about us "benighted sheeple." hamletta
Untruthful, damaging bullshit
no better than the neocons and no different than Timothy McVeigh
dailykos.coma turd in the punchbowl...if DF were Joe Hill he probably would have killed himself rather than get put to death.
A compost pile of fecundity
dailykos.comdespicable and literally mentally ill