Does Islam need a reformation? - iERA: Don't hate, debate!

---

This blog post has moved here

---

I recently attended a discussion in London hosted by iERA. It was entitled "Does Islam need a reformation?"  I was pleased that, as I expected, the iERA crew were very friendly with me.

The whole video can be watched here. If I recall correctly, the discussion basically went like this

1. Question about Islam
2. Answer: Islam is already great, if we did more of it then everything would be brilliant. PS, look at how bad the non-Islamic world is (a.k.a. "The West").

After lots of persistent hand waving I was finally granted permission to ask a question. At 1 hour 16 minutes and 45 seconds I got to make the following statement

On the question of modernity and reformation, isn't it more of a case of "Does Islam need to avoid stagnation?" For example, in Surat Al Baqara, chapter 2 verse 282, it talks about how [you should] get a man as a witness but if you can't then use two women so one may remind the other if she errs. Now, in modern times I can't really see how that's an issue because most people in society can read and write; they can recognise their own signature on a piece of paper; there's nothing for them to actually remember!"

Then on to my question

The four main schools of jurisprudence, and the founders; there's Maliki, Shafi, Hanbali, Hanifi all say that if someone openly admits that they no longer are a Muslim they should be killed. In a modern caliphate would that be an acceptable position, has that position already been reformed, or does Islam need reforming?

The first thing to note is how quickly the chair, Lauren Booth, decided to summarise the question, even though the question itself was actually very short. She said

I'm just going to summarise that before you come back. I think we want to keep it here in the UK. I just want these last few questions to remain about life in the UK rather than in a fantasy caliphate.

 I didn't ask about a fantasy caliphate. The purpose of my question was to establish whether the punishment is still considered to be valid, if it has already been reformed, or if the panel thinks it should be reformed. Which of these options would a "true Islam" caliphate choose? Yet as soon as I asked a question the principles of the political / legal side of Islam my question was somewhat ridiculed as a fantasy, something that isn't in the real world.

After some discussion about the comment I made before the question itself, Tom Holland brought the subject back to my question and asked if Muslims should be free to apostatise. I wish I had discussed my planned question with Tom at the start of the talk, because I deliberately avoided the word apostasy for a good reason. Having spoken to Abdullah Al Andalusi for a number of hours in the past I was already well aware of how slippery he is when it comes to this question. I knew there were two methods he uses to avoid having to answer this question:

1. Claim the word "Apostasy" is a western invention, and that Islam is actually talking about treason.
2. Claim that we are all free to think whatever we like because Muslims are not able to read our thoughts.

To prevent slippery escape #1 I used the words "no longer a Muslim", and to prevent slippery escape #2 I used the words "openly admits". The schools of jurisprudence I mentioned all say that someone who outwardly manifests behaviour of transitioning from Muslim to non-Muslim can be killed.

When Tom Holland used the word "apostasy" he left the gap in the door of opportunity slightly ajar and enabled Abdullah Al Andalusi to slither his way out of it. But, just to make sure the truth of the situation wasn't accidentally told, Lauren Booth (who probably hasn't heard Andalusi wriggle out of this before) decided to change the question for a second time.

So I think actually, putting it in the context about the reformation of Islam...if we are living in Britain do the rules about apostasy apply and do they need changing...

Britain is not an Islamic country and Muslims have to abide by our British law system on the death penalty regardless of what their Islamic law is regarding Muslims leaving their religion. The purpose of this shift was clear, it was to give Muslim panellists the opportunity to answer in a way that gives the impression there is no death penalty for leaving Islam, without having to admit that it is only a version of Islam crippled by British law that makes this the case. Of course those who leave Islam should not be killed (because British law forbids it).

And then in came Mr Andalusi. Would he answer the question I asked, or would he monopolise on the get-out clauses he had been awarded both deliberately and accidentally?

He started "The old chestnut of apostasy is always brought up. I've always said the same thing, and I'll say it again". At that point I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt he was going to take the opportunity to dodge my carefully worded question.

First he says there is no law under a caliphate or in the UK that creates an inquisition that will check everyone's beliefs and see if they have left Islam or not. That is true. As long as one continues to pray, fast, and never mention to anyone that one's faith in Islam has gone then the Islamic state will leave you alone. However, according to those four main schools of Jurisprudence if one refuses to perform obligatory religious practices such as praying, or if one openly admits they no longer believe, then they to be killed unless they go back to pretending they are still Muslim.

It's at this point I shouted out in protest "That's not what I asked!" (1h 20m 30s). I wish iERA hadn't edited the video to show the audience at this point, because my memory of what happened next was Andalusi looking me straight in the eye, sheepishly, as he deceived his way through his answer. I silently mouthed "Shame! Shame!" at him, and shook my head in disappointment.

Next he went on to explain how the Arabic word Irtidaad is really about treason, and not about someone who just changes their mind.....in their own head, and that's it. Even in his dodging he has to add his own clause in order to ensure he is being accurate in his answer even if not entirely truthful.

Andalusi goes off on a tangent for a while, and even in bringing him back to the subject of the question Lauren Booth once again puts forward a question with the "in the UK" clause that offers him the opportunity to get off the hook while leaving non-Muslims and cultural-Muslims feeling that political Islam is all nice and fluffy and people living within a caliphate are free pass gaily through life not having to worry about what might happen to them if ever they change their mind about being a Muslim.

At 1h 22m and 12s I shouted out the request for him to answer my question. Lauren Booth refused, saying I had already asked a question. I shouted out that he is obfuscating, and she replied "I don't think he is, I have asked him twice." - Unfortunately she asked him her own question twice, not mine.

At 1h 38m and 43s onwards a Hindu guy asked a question, and refers to my question as having been "neatly dodged". At 1h 45m 20s a member of the audience says

There's been a lot of obscurantism on the part of, in particular, Abdullah Al Andalusi when it comes to the matter of apostasy.

I think the point was made very clearly. The ex-Muslim cat is out of the bag, the British public are being made aware of it, and hopefully it will encourage more Muslims to reject Hadiths if not Islam itself.

Hamza Tzortzis will not debate me

After over a year of insisting that I am the one creating obstacles to prevent us debating, the possibility of a debate between Hamza Tzortzis and myself seems to have come to an abrupt end.  Hamza and I had finally agreed on terms under which we were happy to debate Islam when Hamza suddenly told me that if I wish to proceed I must ask iERA for permission.  Although I wasn't after an iERA affiliated event, just an informal one-on-one chat about Hamza's beliefs and the credibility of the claims for Islam, I thought I'd go through the next step of the process (obstacle) and all would be fine.

I was pleased at first to discover that despite Hamza's suggestion he might not be available until some point in 2014 his event coordinator confirmed Hamza only had prior engagements booked for April and May of 2013.  I received the occasional contacts from the event coordinator apologising for the delay and assuring me he'd have an answer for me that day / the next day.  Approximately 3 months later I received his tweet from Yusuf Chambers of iERA.

"Sincerity is measured as a mark of the importance of privacy to a given situation. Do we need cameras?"

I actually disagree. Sincerity of conviction to a publicly aired opinion is measured by one's willingness to be challenged openly; not by agreeing to a challenge but keeping the details secret... but I digress.  Although I am I open to change my mind (and indeed enjoy doing so) I doubt that Hamza or I would were likely to change each other's positions, the purpose of such a discussion is always for the benefit of presenting the audience with opposing arguments, so I replied to Yusuf Chambers letting him know it was pointless to have an unrecorded debate with Hamza.

Eight days later I received the following email from the events coordinator at iERA. (This has been posted publicly by Hamza via his Twitter account so is already within the public domain).

I hope you are well, 

At this moment in time Hamza Tzortzis is not available to participate in a recorded debate/discussion. We have received requests from various people to share a public platform with our Speakers but we unfortunately cannot say yes to all of these as in this day and age debates and discussions - to be popularised - requires influentials in the area. 

I understand Hamza reopened the invitation to yourself for a public discussion, but this was not within Hamza's remit to do so without prior permission from the iERA. You are more than welcome to discuss with Hamza at anytime though and I could arrange that. 

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

All the best

It seems like a somewhat odd response to me.  To be permitted to debate with Hamza as Hamza had already agreed (and insisted I was introducing obstacles to avoid it) I have to be an "influential".  A discussion about the Kalam argument and the miraculous nature of the Quran with me is not going to happen, but a debate partly on the miraculous literary nature of the Arabic in the Quran is a good subject to debate with cosmologist Lawrence Krauss?  Since when have cosmologists been interested in classical Arabic, and since when has fame been more important than Dawah?

I have not asked iERA to "popularise" this event nor do I necessarily require iERA to be affiliated with it in any way.  The request Hamza insisted I made (I thought) was merely professional courtesy towards his employer to let them know that Hamza and I were going to have a non-iERA-affiliated discussion.

Paricularly strange is Hamza's claim that despite being the number one debater of small operation such as iERA he has no power to influence iERA's decision about with whom he debates.  Even more strange is the offer at the end of the email; apparently Hamza is not available for a recorded discussion with me because it wouldn't be popularised, but I can have the same discussion with him at any time on condition that it is not recorded, which of course would not be popularised at all.

I have felt that Hamza has been running away from this agreed debate ever since the day we crossed each other on The Magic Sandwich Show and I gave him a grilling about hell. So to answer my Muslim nuisance caller with a London accent's question "Why don't you come out of hiding and debate Hamza you coward?" the answer is.....I tried; and to answer my critics I am not calling Hamza a coward, although I feel it would be "intellectually dishonest" of me to say that I think iERA aren't doing a good job of making him look bad.

To coin a phrase...."Allah knows best"