Islamists - Your opinion on this?

Sykk

Can the Muslim posters give their opinions of this?

CNN Link

The parents of a 17-year-old girl will spend at least 25 years in a British prison for the death of their daughter after the couple's conviction Friday for killing her over her desire to live a Westernized lifestyle and become an attorney, a court spokeswoman said Friday.
Chester Crown Court Judge Roderick Evans sentenced Iftikhar and Farzana Ahmed to life in prison. He said the couple, who were originally from Pakistan, must be imprisoned for at least 25 years before being eligible for parole.

The death was the final act in a long-running effort by the couple to get their daughter to conform to their beliefs

Another of the couple's children, Alesha, testified last month that she saw her parents kill her sister.
Alesha said her parents were angry that Shafilea was wearing a short-sleeved, V-neck top, and no sweater, on the night she was killed.

After reading the Woman in IslamI'd just like to know do you think this was deserved? Do you feel sorry for this girl? Do you feel sorry for the parents? Is what the parents done right or wrong in your eyes?

hivizman

We had another thread on this forum about this issue last year (click here), and I can do no better than quote the comment of my fellow moderator irishconvert: "so called 'honour killings' are not allowed in Islam."

I don't want to close down debate, as I think that this is a reasonable question to explore: to what extent do the authoritative texts of Islam support a "patriarchal" society where women are regarded as less valuable than men, or is it rather that societies that are already patriarchal have been allowed to interpret Islam in ways that appear to support their views of women?

Sykk

hivizman wrote: »

We had another thread on this forum about this issue last year (click here), and I can do no better than quote the comment of my fellow moderator irishconvert: "so called 'honour killings' are not allowed in Islam."

I don't want to close down debate, as I think that this is a reasonable question to explore: to what extent do the authoritative texts of Islam support a "patriarchal" society where women are regarded as less valuable than men, or is it rather that societies that are already patriarchal have been allowed to interpret Islam in ways that appear to support their views of women?

That isn't giving an opinion on the matter though - and that isn't really correct. The Quran contradicts itself (similarly to the bible): I'm sure it probably does say somewhere that honor killings aren't allowed, but read below.. Which one takes precedence?

YUSUFALI 004.089: They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks;

hivizman

Sykk wrote: »

That isn't giving an opinion on the matter though - and that isn't really correct. The Quran contradicts itself (similarly to the bible): I'm sure it probably does say somewhere that honor killings aren't allowed, but read below.. Which one takes precedence?

One of the privileges of being a moderator is that I don't always have to express an opinion.

The verse you quote makes sense only in the context of the previous verse (Surat an-Nisaa 4:88). I'll use the Yusuf Ali translation for this, as you have already chosen the same translation:

"Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way."

The reference to the "hypocrites" (al-munafiqin) relates to a particular group who professed belief in Islam but then returned to idol worship. It is not a general obligation to kill non-believers.

Verse 92 of the same surah makes it clear that believers are not permitted to kill other believers, and goes on to make provisions for the consequences if a believer kills another believer through some mistake. This verse would certainly be enough to outlaw so-called "honour killing".

Mark Hamill

hivizman wrote: »

The verse you quote makes sense only in the context of the previous verse (Surat an-Nisaa 4:88). I'll use the Yusuf Ali translation for this, as you have already chosen the same translation:

"Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way."

The reference to the "hypocrites" (al-munafiqin) relates to a particular group who professed belief in Islam but then returned to idol worship. It is not a general obligation to kill non-believers.

Verse 92 of the same surah makes it clear that believers are not permitted to kill other believers, and goes on to make provisions for the consequences if a believer kills another believer through some mistake. This verse would certainly be enough to outlaw so-called "honour killing"

The article in the OP says: "The death was the final act in a long-running effort by the couple to get their daughter to conform to their beliefs", so she would have been a "hypocrite" and non-believer in her parents eyes.

There

Listen guys what do you want us to say? I will sum up the situation for you in the best way I can. It takes some sick twisted person to murder anyone never mind your own flesh and blood. Tribal rubbish from some village in Pakistan somehow ends up being mingled with “Islam”.



Islam does not allow “Honour Killings” as the previous poster has said.


@ Sykk: First I would like to point out to understand the exact and fullest measure of this verse you have to be fluent in Arabic and not to mention know all the history, context, time of revelation of each and every verse in the Quran. So sometimes the true meaning of the verses are lost in translation. I like when people post verses and Muslims have the opportunity to tell you the correct meaning and the history behind the verse, etc so if you have any more questions ask away thanks.


@Mark: Going by this “”The death was the final act in a long-running effort by the couple to get their daughter to conform to their beliefs””. Those beliefs are not Islamic their tribal.

Frank Grimes

hivizman wrote: »

I don't want to close down debate, as I think that this is a reasonable question to explore: to what extent do the authoritative texts of Islam support a "patriarchal" society where women are regarded as less valuable than men, or is it rather that societies that are already patriarchal have been allowed to interpret Islam in ways that appear to support their views of women?

I think it is the latter; despite the lengths I've seen people (both Muslim and non-Muslim) go to justify 'honour' killings based on the Qur'an etc. the evidence shows that it is simply not an 'Islamic' thing. It happens in (or the crimes are committed by individuals originating from) certain parts of the world where Islam is the predominant religion (or, in the case of India contains a very large Muslims minority) so numerically it may be higher amongst Muslims, and it certainly seems to attract more media attention when Muslims are involved which may be creating a certain perception, but to say that Islam the sole criterion which explains why people commit these crimes cannot explain instances such as these:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1991195,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/03/geeta-aulakh-murder-background-story
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/30/honour-killings-spreading-alarming-rate
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/10/honour-killings-caste-love-commandos

Mark Hamill

There wrote: »

@Mark: Going by this “”The death was the final act in a long-running effort by the couple to get their daughter to conform to their beliefs””. Those beliefs are not Islamic their tribal.

They seem to agree somewhat with Islamic beliefs though, they seem to agree with the verses hivizman quoted. Maybe the "hypocrites", the al-munafiqin, mentioned where a very specific group at the time, as opposed to just general apostates? (Although doesn't Islam have specific things to say about apostates?)

There

@Mark you can’t be serious putting forward that argument like really? Now think about it with a bit a common sense now I am after telling you this ain’t a Muslim belief its probably more revolting in our eyes then yours because we know the significance of the crime they committed taking in to consideration our belief and what murder means to Muslims. True the parents may be Muslim in name but doesn’t mean there practising. This was cold blooded murder based on tribal politics and not to lose face amongst there people.

Oh on the argument of apostasies seriously why do you guys never do your research and dwell a bit in history take the time to actually go learn a bit more on Islam then from the hundreds of sites dedicated to out of context verses. You should look again behind the history of the verses and do some homework before you speak. Don’t get me some examples from modern history as there is no real Islamic state but go back in time to when the verse was revealed learn the history and the significance of the revelations.

Mark Hamill

There wrote: »

Now think about it with a bit a common sense now I am after telling you this ain’t a Muslim belief its probably more revolting in our eyes then yours because we know the significance of the crime they committed taking in to consideration our belief and what murder means to Muslims.

Are you saying that murder means less to non muslims?

There wrote: »

@Mark you can’t be serious putting forward that argument like really?
...
True the parents may be Muslim in name but doesn’t mean there practising. This was cold blooded murder based on tribal politics and not to lose face amongst there people.

I am only going by the verses presented here in this thread, by hivizman, as I already explained in my first post. Their tribal politics seem to be supported by those verses. And I am sure they would claim that muslims who disagree with them are not really muslim. Can you explain, with specific reference to the verses being discussed on this thread, why they are wrong?

There wrote: »

Oh on the argument of apostasies seriously why do you guys never do your research and dwell a bit in history take the time to actually go learn a bit more on Islam then from the hundreds of sites dedicated to out of context verses. You should look again behind the history of the verses and do some homework before you speak. Don’t get me some examples from modern history as there is no real Islamic state but go back in time to when the verse was revealed learn the history and the significance of the revelations.

Isn't it more modern muslim states and scholars that reject punishment for apostasy, than historical ones?
Aren't the revelations in the quran timeless and consistent, like allah is supposed to be? I don't see anything in the verses quoted in this thread that comes across as specific to some time in the past.

There wrote: »

there is no real Islamic state

If there are no real islamic states, and this implies that modern muslims beliefs are flawed, then how do you know what to believe? How do you know which beliefs are accurate and which aren't?

There

Quote:
Originally Posted by There
Now think about it with a bit a common sense now I am after telling you this ain’t a Muslim belief its probably more revolting in our eyes then yours because we know the significance of the crime they committed taking in to consideration our belief and what murder means to Muslims.

Are you saying that murder means less to non muslims?

Nope my apologies if it came off that way but let me explain it to you a bit better. In Islam it’s described that murdering a single person is like you have murdered everyone in the world that’s the significance I am trying to highlight on how we regard it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by There
@Mark you can’t be serious putting forward that argument like really?
...
True the parents may be Muslim in name but doesn’t mean there practising. This was cold blooded murder based on tribal politics and not to lose face amongst there people.

I am only going by the verses presented here in this thread, by hivizman, as I already explained in my first post. Their tribal politics seem to be supported by those verses. And I am sure they would claim that muslims who disagree with them are not really muslim. Can you explain, with specific reference to the verses being discussed on this thread, why they are wrong?

Come on Mark I think I have explained it enough on the whole importance of Arabic. Now said little village in Pakistan I would be very surprised if they can even read and write using their own language never mind speaking Arabic. If you’re trying to make an excuse to say Islam is responsible for these killings then you’re entitled to your opinion because at the end of the day that’s all you can have. Although Muslims would disagree with you and if they were the teaching of Islam why are people not being killed left right and centre for not adhering to their beliefs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by There
Oh on the argument of apostasies seriously why do you guys never do your research and dwell a bit in history take the time to actually go learn a bit more on Islam then from the hundreds of sites dedicated to out of context verses. You should look again behind the history of the verses and do some homework before you speak. Don’t get me some examples from modern history as there is no real Islamic state but go back in time to when the verse was revealed learn the history and the significance of the revelations.

Isn't it more modern muslim states and scholars that reject punishment for apostasy, than historical ones?
Aren't the revelations in the quran timeless and consistent, like allah is supposed to be? I don't see anything in the verses quoted in this thread that comes across as specific to some time in the past.

Read the verses before and after the verses mentioned above or even better read the surah in its entirety.

Originally Posted by There
there is no real Islamic state
If there are no real islamic states, and this implies that modern muslims beliefs are flawed, then how do you know what to believe? How do you know which beliefs are accurate and which aren't?

How are our beliefs flawed? They have never changed but the Islamic Ummah is weak at present if people actually adhered more to their religion we wouldn’t have the problems we have today pure and simple all you have to do is look at history.

donaghs

There wrote: »

How are our beliefs flawed? They have never changed but the Islamic Ummah is weak at present if people actually adhered more to their religion we wouldn’t have the problems we have today pure and simple all you have to do is look at history.

I don't think more religion is the best answer. There is lot in relgious texts like the Old Testament or the Koran which can be used to excuse horrible behaviour. Just look at Saudi Arabia.
Why not simply obey the civil law, and be a decent person who doesn't mean or do harm to others?

Mark Hamill

There wrote: »

Nope my apologies if it came off that way but let me explain it to you a bit better. In Islam it’s described that murdering a single person is like you have murdered everyone in the world that’s the significance I am trying to highlight on how we regard it.

Ok.

There wrote: »

Come on Mark I think I have explained it enough on the whole importance of Arabic. Now said little village in Pakistan I would be very surprised if they can even read and write using their own language never mind speaking Arabic. If you’re trying to make an excuse to say Islam is responsible for these killings then you’re entitled to your opinion because at the end of the day that’s all you can have.

I asked for specific reference to the verses quoted on this thread, not, well, semi-racist remarks.
I am not saying Islam is responsible for these killings, even if there was a very clear verse that said "kill all non-believers" it would still be the people doing the killing that are in the wrong. I am simply questioning why the specific verses quoted in thsi thread can't be read as supporting them.

There wrote: »

if they were the teaching of Islam why are people not being killed left right and centre for not adhering to their beliefs?

Because Islam, like all religions is very open to interpretation. While most islamic nations don't specifically proscribe death for apostasy, some do and some almost don't recognise the right of a person to convert away from islam at all.
Incidentally, a 2010 pew poll seems to show many muslims from different muslim countries in support the death penalty for apostasy (page 14):
(percentages of those polled who support "Death penalty for people who leave the Muslim religion")
Turkey 5
Egypt 84
Jordan 86
Lebanon 6
Indonesia 30
Pakistan 76
Nigeria 51

There wrote: »

Read the verses before and after the verses mentioned above or even better read the surah in its entirety.

Well here are the surrounding suras (82-94, not quoting the lot, it would take up too much space), care to point out the part that makes it specific to some group in the past? It looks very general to me, eg sura 92 and 93 seem to be describing genera rules and outcomes for killing believers.

There wrote: »

How are our beliefs flawed? They have never changed but the Islamic Ummah is weak at present if people actually adhered more to their religion we wouldn’t have the problems we have today pure and simple all you have to do is look at history.

You don't want modern examples of punished apostates because you believe there is no real modern islamic states. This implies that modern islamic states are flawed in how they practise islam, which implies they are flawed in how they teach it too. If they are flawed, where are you getting your information on islam from? How do you know you are right and they are wrong?
How long ago was the last real islamic state?

confusedquark

Here's my two cents on the topic,

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well here are the surrounding suras (82-94, not quoting the lot, it would take up too much space), care to point out the part that makes it specific to some group in the past? It looks very general to me, eg sura 92 and 93 seem to be describing genera rules and outcomes for killing believers.

You're right it looks very general, however, here's the full context of these verses.

Much of Surah An-Nisa was revealed shortly after the Battle of Uhud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Uhud, and deals with the problems the Muslim community faced at the time (not to say that the verses still aren't relevant today).

Here's some of the commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali relating to the verses you quoted, which accompany his translation of The Quran.

"When the desertion of the Hypocrites at Uhud nearly caused a disaster to the Muslim cause there was great feeling among the Muslims of Madinah against them. One party wanted to put them to the sword: another to leave them alone.

The actual policy pursued avoided both extremes, and was determined by these verses. It was clear that they were a danger to the Muslim community if they were admitted into its counsels, and in any case they were a source of demoralization.

But while every caution was used, no extreme measures were taken against them. On the contrary, they were given a chance of making good. If they made a sacrifice for the cause ("flee from what is forbidden," see next verse), their conduct purged their previous cowardice, and their sincerity entitled them to be taken back.

But if they deserted the Muslim community again, they were treated as enemies, with the additional penalty of desertion which is enforced by all nations actually at war. Even so, a humane exception was made in the two cases specified in 4:90."

So whilst on initial observation, it looks like the verses refer to simple apostasy, digging deeper reveals they actually refer to desertion.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You don't want modern examples of punished apostates because you believe there is no real modern islamic states. This implies that modern islamic states are flawed in how they practise islam...

Yes

Mark Hamill wrote: »

... which implies they are flawed in how they teach it too.

No. States don't teach Islam. Islam is taught to children mostly by their parents and local community/mosques - sure Islam might be on the syllabus in certain countries, but the main foundations of the religion are taught at home.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If they are flawed, where are you getting your information on islam from? How do you know you are right and they are wrong?

In practical terms, everyday Islam isn't what the ruling on apostasy or desertion is. Yes, there are many issues which scholars disagree on. But there's little disagreement on the core foundations of Islam that Muslims need to live good lives. Specifically to believe in Allah and his Messenger, to pray, to fast during Ramadan, to give to charity and to perform Hajj (aka the five pillars).

There will always be grey areas, and it's up to people with a deeper knowledge of Islam to guide us common folk - and very important for us to know our limits and appreciate that we can't just take the odd verse out of context and make our own interpretation on it.

Regarding apostasy itself, scholars have different views on it, e.g. this article makes a strong argument against capital punishment http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_251_300/is_killing_an_apostate_in_the_is.htm, whereas others support it in some circumstances. Either way, an individual can't just take it upon themselves to carry out what they consider justice - it must come from an Islamic court or ruler. Which makes these horrific "honour killings" we hear about completely and utterly wrong. And they're not perpetrated because parents convince themselves that they are following Islamic teachings, but more so because they can't tolerate being disobeyed and having their names tarnished in their local communities. It's sad, but that's how people in some cultures think.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

The actual policy pursued avoided both extremes, and was determined by these verses.

Just a small point, but it didn't really avoid the extremes of killing vs leaving them alone, it just left it in the hands of the deserters. Repent and be left alone, don't repent and die.

confusedquark wrote: »

So whilst on initial observation, it looks like the verses refer to simple apostasy, digging deeper reveals they actually refer to desertion.

So would you say that the verses only apply on a war time scale then, not on a family scale?

confusedquark wrote: »

No. States don't teach Islam. Islam is taught to children mostly by their parents and local community/mosques - sure Islam might be on the syllabus in certain countries, but the main foundations of the religion are taught at home.

Well, a lot of muslim countries have compulsory state sponsored religion classes, so its not like the state is uninvolved in religious teaching. There are also states that are essentially run by religious leaders, so they would, in theory, be acting based on what they teach.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Just a small point, but it didn't really avoid the extremes of killing vs leaving them alone, it just left it in the hands of the deserters. Repent and be left alone, don't repent and die.

Yeah, I see where you're coming from on that. I'll quote the next little bit of commentary from Yusuf Ali:

C608. "Except: the exception refers to "seize them and slay them", the death penalty for repeated desertion.
Even after such desertion, exemption is granted in two cases.
- One is where the deserter took asylum with a tribe with whom there was a treaty of peace and amity. Presumably such a tribe (even though outside the pale of Islam) might be trusted to keep the man from fighting against the forces of Islam -in the modern phrase, to disarm him and render him harmless.
- The second case for exemption is where the man from his own heart desires never to take up arms against Islam, though he does not wish to join the forces of Islam, to fight against a hostile tribe (perhaps his own) fighting against Islam. But he must make a real approach, giving guarantees of his sincerity. In the modern phrase he would be "on parole".
But this provision is much milder than that in modern military codes, which grant the privilege only to enemy prisoners, not to those who have deserted from the army granting them parole.
The Hypocrites were in that position, but humanity as well as policy treated them with great leniency."

So, to slightly modify your comment, a deserter's options are to:
1) Repent, and be left alone
2) Take asylum with a tribe who is at peace with Islam
3) Go "on parole", as it were
4) Don't repent, Don't take asylum, Don't go on parole, And Die

I suppose what Yusuf Ali means by "avoiding extremes", is that the policy avoids the blanket killing of all deserters, and the big thing is, as you say yourself, it leaves it in their hands - giving them the opportunity to make amends (something which modern-day deserters don't get), and the policy also avoids the other extreme of unconditionally setting them free, where they could potentially fight against Islam again.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So would you say that the verses only apply on a war time scale then, not on a family scale?

Yeah, from my limited knowledge, I'd agree with you on that. But I'll stress that I'm no scholar, so can't give you a 100% resounding yes.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well, a lot of muslim countries have compulsory state sponsored religion classes, so its not like the state is uninvolved in religious teaching. There are also states that are essentially run by religious leaders, so they would, in theory, be acting based on what they teach.

True, the state may indeed be involved in Islamic teaching (as opposed to being the sole teacher). Now, I know very little of what actually is on the various syllabuses - is it the learning of Arabic grammar, is it Islamic history, is it teachings of the Quran and Hadith, is it how to pray, each nation probably does its own thing and there's probably lots of variation. Your point is valid to an extent - i.e. how can they teach it if they don't practice is properly. However, you can only judge that on a case by case basis and lesson by lesson - just because a state doesn't practice some things properly, it doesn't mean that every single lesson in Islam in every class is flawed, a select few lessons might be, so there needs to be some quality control system in place to filter those out, preferably led by Islamic scholars. But i'll reiterate again, the core foundations of Islam are easily taught and learned - and whilst all of us should continually strive to further our knowledge of Islam, the five pillars form the essence of our faith and are the most important practices needed to live good and responsible lives.

confusedquark

donaghs wrote: »

I don't think more religion is the best answer. There is lot in relgious texts like the Old Testament or the Koran which can be used to excuse horrible behaviour. Just look at Saudi Arabia.
Why not simply obey the civil law, and be a decent person who doesn't mean or do harm to others?

It is unfortunate that a minority of people (who get the majority of airtime time on tv) misuse religion today for political reasons. However, religion, be it Judaism, Christianity or Islam, brought order to many nations, which were barbaric beforehand. For example, In pre-Islamic Arabia, female infants were often buried alive, women were ill-treated, had no rights to inheritance - or much else, slaves were ill-treated, tribal retaliation and mass murder were commonplace. The introduction of Islam put an end to these practices.

Much of modern civil law and what we consider "decent" in modern society is derived from the teachings of these religions. You can't dismiss all of a religion on the basis of what a minority of its followers do.

Mark Hamill

confusedquark wrote: »

However, you can only judge that on a case by case basis and lesson by lesson - just because a state doesn't practice some things properly, it doesn't mean that every single lesson in Islam in every class is flawed, a select few lessons might be, so there needs to be some quality control system in place to filter those out, preferably led by Islamic scholars.

Well, my point was not every lesson is flawed (as you say, the five pillars is consistent across all of islam teaching ), it was that if no islamic state imparts them all correctly, and each state makes different mistakes (states can be different in different ways) then it becomes hard to tell how to interpret lessons (besides the five pillars). The problem with leaving it the scholars, is that each state has its own scholars who interpret things in such a way that leads to the state way of doing things. There are states who prescribe e.g. general punishments for apostasy that we on this thread have seen don't apply outside of a specific situation, and these states will have scholars supporting those punishments (and therefore states with different views on e.g. apostasy, will have conflicting views from different scholars).

I guess the question becomes "how do you know which scholars to follow?"

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There are states who prescribe e.g. general punishments for apostasy that we on this thread have seen don't apply outside of a specific situation, and these states will have scholars supporting those punishments

Well, that one verse maybe doesn't apply to apostasy, but there are other verses in The Quran which do. The general ruling on capital punishment is that it can (but isn't the only available option) be used for 1) murder and 2) "spreading mischief in the land". The definition of the latter and specific punishment for the crime are where interpretations can vary, i.e. some might consider apostasy as "spreading mischief" whilst others wouldn't (alternate punishments include exiling a person, and cutting of hands/feet). That was an aside, your overall point still stands.

As regards the relationship between states and scholars, the state shouldn't have any influence over the scholars, and equally, the scholars shouldn't have any motive other that genuinely preaching what they truly believe the Islamic ruling to be. If there's any compromise there (which might be happening in some places, I wouldn't know), or if the scholars aren't qualified enough to be making the rulings (see below), then of course you run into trouble.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I guess the question becomes "how do you know which scholars to follow?"

You seek the best of the best. There's a Council of Senior Ulema (Scholars) in Saudi Arabia who have been given the responsibility of researching and making fatwas (or Islamic rulings) on questions that are put to them from all over the world - I'm not sure exactly how the hierarchy works, but I would assume (and hope) that people selected onto the council are the most capable for the job.

Now, there has been little regulation of other scholars going ahead and issuing their own fatwas in their own areas (or TV shows!), but there are moves now to restrict fatwa-making so that only the Council of Senior Scholars can issue them, which is sensible, but I'm not sure if that applies to Saudi Arabia only, or more globally. Either way, I guess they could be seen as the gold standard, and you'd have to question any fatwa that is in disagreement with them.

Mark Hamill

Well, that one verse maybe doesn't apply to apostasy, but there are other verses in The Quran which do. The general ruling on capital punishment is that it can (but isn't the only available option) be used for 1) murder and 2) "spreading mischief in the land". The definition of the latter and specific punishment for the crime are where interpretations can vary, i.e. some might consider apostasy as "spreading mischief" whilst others wouldn't (alternate punishments include exiling a person, and cutting of hands/feet).

Interesting. I suppose a better question from the OP is then, given that the parents were wrong to act out any punishments themselves, what punishments (if any) would muslims here think the daughter should have received for being apostate, assuming there was an appropriate way to enact them?

confusedquark wrote: »

As regards the relationship between states and scholars, the state shouldn't have any influence over the scholars,
...
There's a Council of Senior Ulema (Scholars) in Saudi Arabia

From what I can tell, this council is appointed by the state, so the state would have influence over it. Also, the state would listen to the councils fatwas, so how it runs itself would be a measure of the quality of the fatwas.

hivizman

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Interesting. I suppose a better question from the OP is then, given that the parents were wrong to act out any punishments themselves, what punishments (if any) would muslims here think the daughter should have received for being apostate, assuming there was an appropriate way to enact them?

I've found an old thread where punishments for apostasy were discussed in a bit more detail.

But is the case raised by the OP really one of apostasy? This concept in Islam is stronger than simply disagreeing with particular beliefs or practices at the margin - there is a notion that the apostate is actively rebelling against the Muslim state. Do all actions or inactions that take someone outside Islam constitute apostasy? Not necessarily - I am sure that, around the world, there are many Muslims who, for one reason or another, are not observing the fast during Ramadan, and who are neither entitled to any of the available exemptions from fasting nor are making the required compensation through feeding poor people. Does that make them apostates? I don't think so. So deviating from the prescribed dress code (and there's no agreement within Islam as to what is actually prescribed and what is simply praiseworthy without being prescribed) is unlikely, in itself, to constitute apostasy.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

From what I can tell, this council is appointed by the state, so the state would have influence over it. Also, the state would listen to the councils fatwas, so how it runs itself would be a measure of the quality of the fatwas.

I agree - the Saudi body appears to be state-appointed. That doesn't mean that it's state-influenced - indeed, it may work the other way round, in that the fatwa council may have an influence on other aspects of the Saudi state. Also, it's likely that the fatwa council will reflect the teachings of the Hanbali school, which is often considered to be the most strict of the four Sunni schools of fiqh.

There is a European Council for Fatwa and Research, located in Dublin, whose chair is the Qatari-based scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi. I've quoted him a lot in this forum. His fatwas are often relatively liberal (though they are so normally because they recognise that Muslims are in a minority in most of Europe and hence need to work within existing, usually secular, systems - this approach, sometimes referred to as "fiqh of minorities", means that certain practices that might be forbidden in a Muslim country are permitted through necessity in a non-Muslim country).

In the area that I am particularly interested in, Islamic Banking and Finance, there is sometimes a tendency to go "fatwa shopping", where those wishing to promote a particular financial product will apply to several different scholars for opinions, and choose the one that approves their product. If the scholar issuing the fatwa is considered to have a high reputation, then the fatwa is likely to carry a lot of weight.

confusedquark

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Interesting. I suppose a better question from the OP is then, given that the parents were wrong to act out any punishments themselves, what punishments (if any) would muslims here think the daughter should have received for being apostate, assuming there was an appropriate way to enact them?

Firstly, there isn't any mention of the daughter in this case being apostate - her "desire to live a westernised lifestyle" could have been how late she stayed out and what clothes she wore, which although might not be best Islamic practice, it doesn't make you apostate. And certainly as far as I'm aware becoming an attorney isn't against Islam. Which goes back to the argument that her parents' beliefs might not have all been Islam-inspired, and now that I go over the article again, there isn't a single mention of religion in the article. But for argument's sake, let's suppose she was apostate, and her parents did the right thing by seeking Islamic opinion to deal with the matter, and they were living in a country where Sharia law was properly enforced, in that case it would be up the senior scholars/judges to review the case and the facts and make a judgement accordingly. So you essentially get back to the interpretation of the seniors in charge, and in a proper Islamic country, the people in charge would be the most knowledgeable, sincere to Islam, and uncompromised. My opinion doesn't really matter (and I don't really have one either) because I have nowhere near the knowledge required to make a call on it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

From what I can tell, this council is appointed by the state, so the state would have influence over it. Also, the state would listen to the councils fatwas, so how it runs itself would be a measure of the quality of the fatwas.

How well that system works therefore depends on the sincerity of both the state and scholars. If the state doesn't have it's own agenda, and uses unbiased criteria by which the scholars are selected (of which, once again, I have little idea) with the intention of having proper Islamic law, and then doesn't interfere with how the scholars operate after selection and leaves them be, then it can work. Also, if the scholars feel they're being compromised by the state, then they have a duty to do something about it. Otherwise, it's not a true Islamic state.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Also, the state would listen to the councils fatwas, so how it runs itself would be a measure of the quality of the fatwas.

That's the idea. If the fatwas are indeed accurate, then the states runs how it should.

Mark Hamill

hivizman wrote: »

But is the case raised by the OP really one of apostasy?

Looking up the wikipedia page only adds that the girl rejected an arranged marriage partner in Pakistan. Nothing about any rejection of Islam in general, so you seem to be right, not apostasy at all.

confusedquark

Sorry, I hadn't seen hivizman's post when I submitted mine, ending up repeating a lot of what he said - interesting re "fiqh of minorities", hadn't come across that before.

confusedquark

hivizman wrote: »

In the area that I am particularly interested in, Islamic Banking and Finance, there is sometimes a tendency to go "fatwa shopping", where those wishing to promote a particular financial product will apply to several different scholars for opinions, and choose the one that approves their product. If the scholar issuing the fatwa is considered to have a high reputation, then the fatwa is likely to carry a lot of weight.

Surely then the fault there is in a lack of consistency among scholars? All those with a high reputation should be reaching the same conclusions most of the time, if they're interpreting from the same texts? If they're not, shouldn't they be discussing such matters at global gatherings/conferences and reaching a consensus there?

hivizman

confusedquark wrote: »

Surely then the fault there is in a lack of consistency among scholars? All those with a high reputation should be reaching the same conclusions most of the time, if they're interpreting from the same texts? If they're not, shouldn't they be discussing such matters at global gatherings/conferences and reaching a consensus there?

To be fair, this happens to some extent, and there's the Islamic Financial Services Board and the Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions (AAOIFI) to provide standards and guidelines. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (formerly the Organisation of the Islamic Conference) sponsors the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Jeddah, which has regular conferences on financial matters and issues fatwas.

But there are still some issues with different interpretations by different scholars. For example, scholars advising Malaysian banks tend to be more liberal than those advising banks in the Gulf. This may partly be due to the effect of different schools of fiqh, but some Islamic financial products reflect a degree of eclecticism, with elements from different schools being combined. For example, the structure known as "murabaha to purchase orderer" (sometimes referred to as "mark-up sale"), which is a form of sale where the ultimate purchaser asks a bank or other financial intermediary to purchase items from the supplier and then to sell them on to the purchaser at a higher price, with the purchaser's payment being deferred to a later date, draws on both Hanafi and Shafi'i fiqh.

I've been told by people in the Islamic finance industry that they get to be able to predict fairly well how different scholars are likely to assess particular products, and that this influences how they present the documentation about the products to the scholars.

For anyone interested, this link takes you to a paper by the Islamic economist Dr Monzer Kahf on shari'ah scholars and Islamic finance.