booke

political islam 363stream views. People get called apostates only because they dare tochallenge the opinion of our noble scholars who deem themselves tobe a kind of thought police who control and censor everything peoplesay and do. Such zealousness has nothing to do with either al-isl§mor al-Êm§n. In our eyes, it is an unfortunate return to the medievalinquisition where lists of heretics and apostates were circulated duringthe reigns of Abå Ja#far al-Manßår and al-Ma"mån b. al-RashÊd.Under the pretext that they must uphold religious orthodoxy for thewill of God they had their (political) opponents’ heads cut off becausethese people dared to differ on sensitive issues. Under the same pretexttoday hundreds of innocent elderly people, women, and childrenare killed simply because they are in the wrong place at the wrongtime when a suicide bomber strikes in the name of religious orthodoxy.And still, no one seems to dare a complete revision of the oldfiqh concept of apostasy that has imported the ancient values of inquisitionistfanaticism into our current times.Why can we not have, like in France or Canada, the freedom toopenly express our religious beliefs (or disbeliefs) without someonebeing allowed to harm them? Provided that the ethical and socialbehaviour of apostates does not undermine public order and thegeneral norms of moral decency, why can people not choose thereligious creed they want (in particular if they are born into a communitythey did not choose themselves)? As long as their loyalty totheir home nation cannot be questioned, what harm would there bein allowing a Muslim-Believer to leave MuÈammad’s (ß) communityand join the followers of Jesus (r)? Given that the Book prohibits ‘compulsionin religion’ (2:256), can we force people to stay in a religiouscommunity they have not chosen? We are told that ‘if it had beenyour Lord’s will, they would all have believed—all who are on earth!Will you then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!’ (Yånus10:99). People should be permitted to differ in their opinions andpractices, and as long as they do not undermine the general consensuson human rights and the highest moral ideals that the Bookdescribes, they should be allowed to apostacize. It is vital that theyshould enjoy the same rights as those who apostacized during thetime of the Prophet (ß): they were left entirely unharmed becauseMuÈammad (ß) strictly adhered to the Book’s prescription of religioustolerance.After the death of the Prophet (ß), his followers became dividedinto several different political blocs that later turned into different