Islamic Scholars Debate If and When Apostates Should Die

Let both [believers and unbelievers] grow together until the harvest and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.

Matthew 13:30

            According to a recent news article^[i], on Wednesday of this week the International Islamic Fiqh Academy, a group within the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), appointed a committee of six to study if and when apostates should be executed for abandoning their Islamic faith.   Speaking in favor of religious liberty, Egyptian government minister Mahmood Zaqzouq maintained, "Religious freedom is a right that should be guaranteed to every human being."  Saudi religious law professor Muhammad al-Zujaimi, acknowledging the long standing tradition of killing apostates, rebutted, "[Human rights organizations] will never stop attacking Islam even if we were to agree to all their demands...We will never allow others to dictate our religion to us."

            The problem, of course, is that Muhammad's words are clear on this matter:  "If a Muslim changes his Islamic religion, kill him" (Bukhari Hadith 9.57).  And, the very next verses after his dictate describe the slaughter of an apostate Jew.  Additionally, Islamic history has, with few exceptions, supported the death penalty for apostates.  Presently, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and a host of other Islamic countries apply Muhammad's words on a weekly basis.  Muhammad, the "excellent exemplar" for Muslims (surah 33:21), was no democrat - he was a theocratic dictator who demanded strict conformity.

Just over a decade ago, Supreme Court justice nominee Robert Bork wrote a book entitled Slouching Towards Gomorrah:  Modern Liberalism and American Decline, an eye-opening piece that articulated the dangers of radical liberalism (a redundant term) which interprets much of the Constitution through the lenses of European socialism and United Nations morality (an oxymoronic term). 

 Bork, then portrayed as a cynic, has proven to be a prophet among false prophets.  But even Bork must be surprised at the rapidity of the hard left turn in American politics over the past four months.   Moreover, Judge Bork could not have predicted the swashbuckling friendship Western liberals initiated with militant Islamic groups.  That friendship became a marriage 100 days ago through the inauguration of President Barrack Hussein Obama.  Consider the prenuptials that this administration has seemingly signed:

 The "war on terror" will be outlawed and then the Department of Homeland Security will overtly attack veterans as one of the greatest dangers to our safety.

•  Christian symbols must be removed at Georgetown University during a presidential address but bowing to a Saudi king will be encouraged (I know, Obama claims ignorance; after all, what would a man who was trained in Saudi schools know about Saudi protocol?)

•  Israel, the only democracy in that part of the world, must capitulate to countless Palestinian redresses while Hamas, the kinder and gentler version of Al Qaeda, is now considered a legitimate political party and encouraged to take part in the "solution."

In July of this year, The Truth About Islam and Jesus (Harvest House Publishers), the third book in the Truth About Islam series, will be released.  Co-authored with world-renowned apologist John Ankerberg, this book will tackle many of the controversial issues that differentiate Christianity and Islam.  And there is no more controversial subject between the two faiths than the nature of God.  Muslims base their entire belief system on a strict monotheism in which Allah can have no partners (surah 112:3) while Christianity is based on the confession that Jesus is the "Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). The question posed below, this week's blog article, tackles the crucial doctrine of God's essential character.

Is the Trinity an Unreasonable Doctrine?

Foundational to Christianity is the belief in the Triune nature of God.  From the inception of Christianity, Christians have defended the belief of One God (Deut. 6:4) in Three Persons (Matthew 28:19-20).  Indeed, any denial of the Trinity is a rejection of God's character and compromises every crucial doctrine within the Christian faith.  Millard Erickson, a premier contemporary Evangelical scholar, explains the uniqueness of Christian beliefs in comparison to other faiths:

Christianity also has been emphatically monotheistic, creating a barrier to positive relationships with other religions.  Here the thrust of the argument is not that its monotheism conflicts with the polytheism of other religions.  Rather, its monotheism prevents it from absorbing other religions, since it either must reject their god(s) or accept the other god as being the same as its God (which it does, in the case of Judaism).  Christianity cannot, without modifying its basic character, accept gods of other religions as different than its God and yet valid.ⁱ

Thus, the uniqueness of the Trinity when adhered to devoutly prevents believers from falling into idolatry and losing the very essence of who they are as Christians.  Knowing who God is allows us to know who we are called to be in Him.