Joesoef
22-08-10, 18:34
<nyt_headline version="1.0" type=" ">Parsing the Record of Feisal Abdul Rauf</nyt_headline>
<nyt_byline> By ANNE BARNARD (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/anne_barnard/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
</nyt_byline> <nyt_correction_top> </nyt_correction_top> The Internet is crowded with claims and counterclaims about Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the proposed Muslim community center and mosque two blocks from ground zero. The following is a sampling of some of the most often quoted complaints, combined with writings and statements from Mr. Abdul Rauf and his Cordoba Initiative, which has posted a frequently asked questions page (http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/frequently-asked-questions) on its Web site about the proposed project and the planners’ views.
Terrorism
In his book “What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America,” Mr. Abdul Rauf writes:
“The truth is that killing innocent people is always wrong — and no argument or excuse, no matter how deeply believed, can ever make it right. No religion on earth condones the killing of innocent people, no faith tradition tolerates the random killing of our brothers and sisters on this earth. ... Islamic law is clearly against terrorism, against any kind of deliberate killing of civilians or similar ‘collateral damage.’ ”
The book also includes a copy of the fatwa, a religious ruling, issued by senior Middle Eastern Muslim clerics that called the 9/11 attacks un-Islamic. The ruling, requested by the United States military’s top Muslim chaplain, gave permission to Muslims in the United States armed forces to fight in the war in Afghanistan.
In the book, the imam also elaborates on an argument that may make some Americans uncomfortable but has been put forward by many mainstream American analysts: that terrorism is viewed differently by different populations and that understanding those various views, whether or not one agrees with them, is central to resolving disputes.
“In the West,” he writes:
“Terrorism is usually defined by the acting party’s intent to harm innocent people. If a suicide bomber intentionally takes the lives of innocent people, he is obviously guilty of terrorism. By contrast, if the United States and its coalition forces drop bombs on the wrong buildings in Baghdad (or any other city) and the bombs kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people, including many women and children, we define this as collateral damage, not terrorism. We draw this distinction because we had no intent to kill civilians. ...“By contrast, however, many Muslims in the Middle East look primarily at the result of our actions. ... The result is a common view in the Middle East that the U.S. is perfectly willing to kill innocent civilians when it suits America’s goals.”
The imam applies the same analysis to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
“Israel points to the intentional repeated killing of innocent civilians as obvious proof that the Palestinians (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/p/palestinians/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) are guilty of terrorism — and the horrible images of bomb victims cannot be denied. Palestinians, however, counter that the overall number of civilians killed is higher on their side, and they rage with equal passion against Israeli terrorism.’ ”
United States Policies
Perhaps the most often quoted statement used to portray Mr. Abdul Rauf as a “terrorist sympathizer,” as the New York gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/rick_a_lazio/index.html?inline=nyt-per) calls him in a campaign advertisement, is this, from “60 Minutes” on Sept. 30, 2001:
“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”
Mr. Abdul Rauf’s supporters say he was expressing a view common among American policy advisers: that dissatisfaction with American policies is one, if not the only, driver of anti-American sentiment and attacks.
Following are portions of a transcript dealing with this issue:
ED BRADLEY (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/ed_bradley/index.html?inline=nyt-per): How — how do you feel as a Muslim knowing that people of your faith committed this act that resulted in the loss of probably 6,000 lives?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: It’s painful. But when this thing first happened, everybody in the community said, “Oh, God, let this not be a person from our faith, tradition or from our background.”
MR. BRADLEY: What would you say to — to people in this country, who, looking at what happens in the Middle East, would associate Islam with fanaticism, with terrorism?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam. That’s — that’s just as absurd as associating Hitler (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/adolf_hitler/index.html?inline=nyt-per) with Christianity or — or David Koresh (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/david_koresh/index.html?inline=nyt-per) with Christianity. There are always people who will — who will do peculiar things and think that they are doing things in the name of their religion. But — but the Koran — you know, God says in the Koran that they think that they’re doing right, but they’re doing wrong. ...
MR. BRADLEY (voiceover): And throughout the Muslim world, there is also strong opposition to America’s foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, because of its support of Israel and economic sanctions against Iraq.
MR. ABDUL RAUF: It is a reaction against the policies of the U.S. government, politically, where we espouse principles of democracy and human rights and where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.
MR. BRADLEY: Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.
MR. BRADLEY: O.K. You say that we’re an accessory?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: Yes.
MR. BRADLEY: How?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/osama_bin_laden/index.html?inline=nyt-per) is made in the U.S.A. ...
The Cordoba Initiative elaborates: “The ‘60 Minutes’ piece was completely incorrect, as the statement was edited out of context. In the full interview, Imam Feisal describes the mistake the C.I.A. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) made in the 1980s by financing Osama bin Laden and strengthening the Taliban (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/taliban/index.html?inline=nyt-org). This view is widely shared within the U.S. and the U.S. government today, and Imam Feisal underlines the importance of not supporting ‘friends of convenience’ who may in the future become our enemies.
“Imam Feisal is an American who takes his role as a citizen-ambassador very seriously. He is frequently requested by the U.S. State Department (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/state_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org) to tour Muslim majority and Western countries to speak about the merits of American ideals and Muslim integration into Western society. At the request of the F.B.I. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_bureau_of_investigation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) after 9/11, he provided cultural training to hundreds of F.B.I. agents.”
Hamas (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/hamas/index.html?inline=nyt-org)
Mr. Abdul Rauf is often described as having refused to call Hamas — the Palestinian group that pioneered suicide bombings in Israel, prevailed in Palestinian elections in 2006 and now controls the Gaza Strip — a terrorist organization.
On 77 WABC radio on June 18, the talk radio host Aaron Klein asked him, “Do you believe that the State Department is correct in designating Hamas as a terrorist organization?”
There ensued a long conversation (http://www.wabcradio.com/Blog.asp?id=34994&m=6&y=2010) with many interruptions, in which Mr. Abdul Rauf said:
“Well, I’m not a politician. ... The issue of terrorism is a very complex question. ... I am a bridge builder. My work is ... I do not want to be placed nor will I accept a position where I am the target of one side or another. My attempt is to see a peace in Israel. ... Targeting of civilians is wrong. It’s a sin in our religion, whoever does it. ... I am a supporter of the State of Israel.”
The Cordoba Initiative’s Web site elaborates:
“Imam Feisal has always condemned terrorism (see his ... hundreds of speeches). Hamas is both a political movement and a terrorist organization. Hamas commits atrocious acts of terror. Imam Feisal has forcefully and consistently condemned all forms of terrorism, including those committed by Hamas, as un-Islamic.”
Muslim Brotherhood
Opponents have claimed that Mr. Abdul Rauf or his father, Muhammad Abdul Rauf, had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group that pioneered religious militancy in Egypt starting in the 1930s, attacking government officials and influencing the founders of Hamas. In recent decades, the group has renounced violence.
Some have claimed that the son’s book was published in Arabic by a publisher with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Cordoba Initiative’s list of frequently asked questions says, “The Arabic translation rights to his book were arranged by the Arabic book program at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, United States of America.”
A post by Alyssa Lappen (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ground-zero-mosque-developer-muslim-brotherhood-roots-radical-dreams/?singlepage=true) on the Web site Pajamas Media, declares, “Feisal Rauf’s Muslim Brotherhood provenance, radical by definition, is as authentic as it gets.”
But the only evidence she offers is this:
“Rauf’s father, Dr. Muhammad Abdul Rauf (1917-2004) — an Egyptian contemporary of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna — conveyed to Feisal his family’s long tradition of radicalism, which he acquired at Islam’s closest equivalent to the Vatican (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/roman_catholic_church/index.html?inline=nyt-org), Al-Azhar University.”
In other words, he was the same age as the Brotherhood’s founder and attended Al-Azhar University, a leading educational institution of mainstream Islam. Mr. Abdul Rauf’s father worked at the behest of the Egyptian government during decades in which the Muslim Brotherhood was a greater threat to Egyptian security than it is now, and Egypt’s secular government was working hard to root them out.
At Al-Azhar last week, Abdel Moety Bayoumi, the former dean of a department studying Islamic law, said of Muhammad Abdul Rauf: “He is well known in Azhar and he is known for his moderation. During his time, there wasn’t this battle between moderation and terrorism. ... The general picture of Islam and its scholars was one of moderation. The extremists at that time were a minority and they were in isolated pockets in the Muslim world. Extremism had not entered the mainstream.”
Apostasy
Bloggers have asserted (http://www.israpundit.com/archives/24900) that the American Society for Muslim Advancement, an organization led by Mr. Abdul Rauf’s wife, Daisy Khan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/daisy_khan/index.html?inline=nyt-per), “refuse to sign” a pledge rejecting punishment by death for apostasy sent to its office by Former Muslims United. The pledge read, “We now pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to achieve for former Muslims their unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We claim these rights as the foundation for our right to freedom from Shariah (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/sharia_islamic_law/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier). We urge you to join us.”
Ms. Khan said that she was unaware of the letter but that both she and her husband rejected punishment by death for apostasy. She said they did not reject Shariah per se, as it was a body of religious law subject to many interpretations that governs the ritual practices of Muslims and prescribes social and legal ideals. She said the Cordoba Initiative’s Shariah Index Project aimed to hold governments accountable that claim hypocritically to be implementing Islamic law and attempted to dispel beliefs among some Muslims that the proper practice of Shariah includes human rights violations like stoning women and cutting off people’s hands.
In his book, Mr. Abdul Rauf describes the struggles that religions face trying to bridge the gap between their best ideals and the realities of practice and the surrounding society. In the years after the Prophet Muhammad’s death, he writes, a series of “pre-Islamic ideas” combined “to erode human liberty and freedom.” One of them, he says, was “the ruling that apostasy, being equivalent to treason, was punishable by death.”
In a May 14, 2008, post on the “On Faith” blog in The Washington Post (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ground-zero-mosque-developer-muslim-brotherhood-roots-radical-dreams/?singlepage=true), Ms. Khan argued that there was no consensus among Muslim scholars about apostasy:
“More significantly, innumerable contemporary Muslim jurists understand the issue of apostasy differently from their predecessors. This includes even prominent conservative scholars like Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, rector of the world’s most important Islamic university, Al-Azhar. They contend that the injunctions upon Muslims to fight apostates always occurred within the context of the latter’s active rebellion against the Muslim community, not the changing of religion alone. Whereas in the past, rejecting Islam constituted a political act of treason and a serious threat to the state, today’s circumstances have fundamentally changed. Consequently, these scholars are revisiting Islam’s primary sources to offer cogent interpretations of this contentious issue.”
<nyt_author_id> Mona El-Naggar contributed reporting from Cairo.
www.nyt.com
</nyt_author_id>
<nyt_byline> By ANNE BARNARD (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/anne_barnard/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
</nyt_byline> <nyt_correction_top> </nyt_correction_top> The Internet is crowded with claims and counterclaims about Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the proposed Muslim community center and mosque two blocks from ground zero. The following is a sampling of some of the most often quoted complaints, combined with writings and statements from Mr. Abdul Rauf and his Cordoba Initiative, which has posted a frequently asked questions page (http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content/frequently-asked-questions) on its Web site about the proposed project and the planners’ views.
Terrorism
In his book “What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America,” Mr. Abdul Rauf writes:
“The truth is that killing innocent people is always wrong — and no argument or excuse, no matter how deeply believed, can ever make it right. No religion on earth condones the killing of innocent people, no faith tradition tolerates the random killing of our brothers and sisters on this earth. ... Islamic law is clearly against terrorism, against any kind of deliberate killing of civilians or similar ‘collateral damage.’ ”
The book also includes a copy of the fatwa, a religious ruling, issued by senior Middle Eastern Muslim clerics that called the 9/11 attacks un-Islamic. The ruling, requested by the United States military’s top Muslim chaplain, gave permission to Muslims in the United States armed forces to fight in the war in Afghanistan.
In the book, the imam also elaborates on an argument that may make some Americans uncomfortable but has been put forward by many mainstream American analysts: that terrorism is viewed differently by different populations and that understanding those various views, whether or not one agrees with them, is central to resolving disputes.
“In the West,” he writes:
“Terrorism is usually defined by the acting party’s intent to harm innocent people. If a suicide bomber intentionally takes the lives of innocent people, he is obviously guilty of terrorism. By contrast, if the United States and its coalition forces drop bombs on the wrong buildings in Baghdad (or any other city) and the bombs kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people, including many women and children, we define this as collateral damage, not terrorism. We draw this distinction because we had no intent to kill civilians. ...“By contrast, however, many Muslims in the Middle East look primarily at the result of our actions. ... The result is a common view in the Middle East that the U.S. is perfectly willing to kill innocent civilians when it suits America’s goals.”
The imam applies the same analysis to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
“Israel points to the intentional repeated killing of innocent civilians as obvious proof that the Palestinians (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/p/palestinians/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) are guilty of terrorism — and the horrible images of bomb victims cannot be denied. Palestinians, however, counter that the overall number of civilians killed is higher on their side, and they rage with equal passion against Israeli terrorism.’ ”
United States Policies
Perhaps the most often quoted statement used to portray Mr. Abdul Rauf as a “terrorist sympathizer,” as the New York gubernatorial candidate Rick Lazio (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/rick_a_lazio/index.html?inline=nyt-per) calls him in a campaign advertisement, is this, from “60 Minutes” on Sept. 30, 2001:
“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”
Mr. Abdul Rauf’s supporters say he was expressing a view common among American policy advisers: that dissatisfaction with American policies is one, if not the only, driver of anti-American sentiment and attacks.
Following are portions of a transcript dealing with this issue:
ED BRADLEY (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/ed_bradley/index.html?inline=nyt-per): How — how do you feel as a Muslim knowing that people of your faith committed this act that resulted in the loss of probably 6,000 lives?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: It’s painful. But when this thing first happened, everybody in the community said, “Oh, God, let this not be a person from our faith, tradition or from our background.”
MR. BRADLEY: What would you say to — to people in this country, who, looking at what happens in the Middle East, would associate Islam with fanaticism, with terrorism?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam. That’s — that’s just as absurd as associating Hitler (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/adolf_hitler/index.html?inline=nyt-per) with Christianity or — or David Koresh (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/david_koresh/index.html?inline=nyt-per) with Christianity. There are always people who will — who will do peculiar things and think that they are doing things in the name of their religion. But — but the Koran — you know, God says in the Koran that they think that they’re doing right, but they’re doing wrong. ...
MR. BRADLEY (voiceover): And throughout the Muslim world, there is also strong opposition to America’s foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, because of its support of Israel and economic sanctions against Iraq.
MR. ABDUL RAUF: It is a reaction against the policies of the U.S. government, politically, where we espouse principles of democracy and human rights and where we ally ourselves with oppressive regimes in many of these countries.
MR. BRADLEY: Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.
MR. BRADLEY: O.K. You say that we’re an accessory?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: Yes.
MR. BRADLEY: How?
MR. ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/osama_bin_laden/index.html?inline=nyt-per) is made in the U.S.A. ...
The Cordoba Initiative elaborates: “The ‘60 Minutes’ piece was completely incorrect, as the statement was edited out of context. In the full interview, Imam Feisal describes the mistake the C.I.A. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) made in the 1980s by financing Osama bin Laden and strengthening the Taliban (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/taliban/index.html?inline=nyt-org). This view is widely shared within the U.S. and the U.S. government today, and Imam Feisal underlines the importance of not supporting ‘friends of convenience’ who may in the future become our enemies.
“Imam Feisal is an American who takes his role as a citizen-ambassador very seriously. He is frequently requested by the U.S. State Department (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/state_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org) to tour Muslim majority and Western countries to speak about the merits of American ideals and Muslim integration into Western society. At the request of the F.B.I. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_bureau_of_investigation/index.html?inline=nyt-org) after 9/11, he provided cultural training to hundreds of F.B.I. agents.”
Hamas (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/hamas/index.html?inline=nyt-org)
Mr. Abdul Rauf is often described as having refused to call Hamas — the Palestinian group that pioneered suicide bombings in Israel, prevailed in Palestinian elections in 2006 and now controls the Gaza Strip — a terrorist organization.
On 77 WABC radio on June 18, the talk radio host Aaron Klein asked him, “Do you believe that the State Department is correct in designating Hamas as a terrorist organization?”
There ensued a long conversation (http://www.wabcradio.com/Blog.asp?id=34994&m=6&y=2010) with many interruptions, in which Mr. Abdul Rauf said:
“Well, I’m not a politician. ... The issue of terrorism is a very complex question. ... I am a bridge builder. My work is ... I do not want to be placed nor will I accept a position where I am the target of one side or another. My attempt is to see a peace in Israel. ... Targeting of civilians is wrong. It’s a sin in our religion, whoever does it. ... I am a supporter of the State of Israel.”
The Cordoba Initiative’s Web site elaborates:
“Imam Feisal has always condemned terrorism (see his ... hundreds of speeches). Hamas is both a political movement and a terrorist organization. Hamas commits atrocious acts of terror. Imam Feisal has forcefully and consistently condemned all forms of terrorism, including those committed by Hamas, as un-Islamic.”
Muslim Brotherhood
Opponents have claimed that Mr. Abdul Rauf or his father, Muhammad Abdul Rauf, had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group that pioneered religious militancy in Egypt starting in the 1930s, attacking government officials and influencing the founders of Hamas. In recent decades, the group has renounced violence.
Some have claimed that the son’s book was published in Arabic by a publisher with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Cordoba Initiative’s list of frequently asked questions says, “The Arabic translation rights to his book were arranged by the Arabic book program at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, United States of America.”
A post by Alyssa Lappen (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ground-zero-mosque-developer-muslim-brotherhood-roots-radical-dreams/?singlepage=true) on the Web site Pajamas Media, declares, “Feisal Rauf’s Muslim Brotherhood provenance, radical by definition, is as authentic as it gets.”
But the only evidence she offers is this:
“Rauf’s father, Dr. Muhammad Abdul Rauf (1917-2004) — an Egyptian contemporary of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna — conveyed to Feisal his family’s long tradition of radicalism, which he acquired at Islam’s closest equivalent to the Vatican (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/r/roman_catholic_church/index.html?inline=nyt-org), Al-Azhar University.”
In other words, he was the same age as the Brotherhood’s founder and attended Al-Azhar University, a leading educational institution of mainstream Islam. Mr. Abdul Rauf’s father worked at the behest of the Egyptian government during decades in which the Muslim Brotherhood was a greater threat to Egyptian security than it is now, and Egypt’s secular government was working hard to root them out.
At Al-Azhar last week, Abdel Moety Bayoumi, the former dean of a department studying Islamic law, said of Muhammad Abdul Rauf: “He is well known in Azhar and he is known for his moderation. During his time, there wasn’t this battle between moderation and terrorism. ... The general picture of Islam and its scholars was one of moderation. The extremists at that time were a minority and they were in isolated pockets in the Muslim world. Extremism had not entered the mainstream.”
Apostasy
Bloggers have asserted (http://www.israpundit.com/archives/24900) that the American Society for Muslim Advancement, an organization led by Mr. Abdul Rauf’s wife, Daisy Khan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/daisy_khan/index.html?inline=nyt-per), “refuse to sign” a pledge rejecting punishment by death for apostasy sent to its office by Former Muslims United. The pledge read, “We now pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to achieve for former Muslims their unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We claim these rights as the foundation for our right to freedom from Shariah (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/sharia_islamic_law/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier). We urge you to join us.”
Ms. Khan said that she was unaware of the letter but that both she and her husband rejected punishment by death for apostasy. She said they did not reject Shariah per se, as it was a body of religious law subject to many interpretations that governs the ritual practices of Muslims and prescribes social and legal ideals. She said the Cordoba Initiative’s Shariah Index Project aimed to hold governments accountable that claim hypocritically to be implementing Islamic law and attempted to dispel beliefs among some Muslims that the proper practice of Shariah includes human rights violations like stoning women and cutting off people’s hands.
In his book, Mr. Abdul Rauf describes the struggles that religions face trying to bridge the gap between their best ideals and the realities of practice and the surrounding society. In the years after the Prophet Muhammad’s death, he writes, a series of “pre-Islamic ideas” combined “to erode human liberty and freedom.” One of them, he says, was “the ruling that apostasy, being equivalent to treason, was punishable by death.”
In a May 14, 2008, post on the “On Faith” blog in The Washington Post (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ground-zero-mosque-developer-muslim-brotherhood-roots-radical-dreams/?singlepage=true), Ms. Khan argued that there was no consensus among Muslim scholars about apostasy:
“More significantly, innumerable contemporary Muslim jurists understand the issue of apostasy differently from their predecessors. This includes even prominent conservative scholars like Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, rector of the world’s most important Islamic university, Al-Azhar. They contend that the injunctions upon Muslims to fight apostates always occurred within the context of the latter’s active rebellion against the Muslim community, not the changing of religion alone. Whereas in the past, rejecting Islam constituted a political act of treason and a serious threat to the state, today’s circumstances have fundamentally changed. Consequently, these scholars are revisiting Islam’s primary sources to offer cogent interpretations of this contentious issue.”
<nyt_author_id> Mona El-Naggar contributed reporting from Cairo.
www.nyt.com
</nyt_author_id>