Somehow to Abdul Rashid is being given credit for what he as an ordinary man could never have done. He owed no grudge to Swami Shraddhananda. The latter had done him no personal wrong. Till before the Counsel for him disillusioned him under the awe of legal justice, he is reported to have been proud of what he regarded to be greatest service he could have done to his religion.

And how do his co-religionists take it? We thought it was a misguided editor who justified the deed of Abdul Rashid as being in accordance with Islamic Law. The other day in a mass meeting in Lahore, speaker after speaker condemned Shraddhananda instead of Abdual Rashid for the murder. One went so far as to say that under a Muslim Government the sword ( it was a revolver which in the flow of Urdu oratory was termed sword) which killed Shraddhananda or a man like him should have been kissed with reverence and affection. Another, to match presumably the exhortation of Arya Samajists that the blood of the martyr will prove prolific in producing a corps of Shraddhanandas, declared that if Aryas persisted in their course, thousands of Abdul Rashidswould  forthcoming. The desire of the two communities will thus be most befittingly met.

One who has gone through Islamic literature will not be surprised at this ebullition of fanatic feeling. The tendency to kill non – Islamwith the sword dates from the time of Mohammad. We reproduce below a few of the commandments of the Quran in this regard with authoritative orthodox comment thereon and shall supplement these divine behests with quotation from books containing traditions of Prophet and excerpts from books of Islamic law governing Mohammadan jurisprudence to day.

1. O! those who believe? If anyone you turn away from his faith, well, God will send a people whom you will love and who will love you (Quran VI54) The Wuran appears to have omitted to the state here what to do with the apostate. He was presumably to be left to his fate. Commentators on the Quran however fill up the gaps says Bezavi: God gave tidiings of these happenings before they took place. These tribes apostatized towards the end of Mohammad’s life. One of them was BanuMudlaj… The chief was killed by FairozBailami in the night of the prophet’s death. The news was carried to the prophet and Mohammadans rejoiced. Similar also was the fate of other tribes which Bezavi narrates in the lines that follow. In the verse that follows the Quran is itself explicit:- and if they turn away (from their faith), take hold of them and kill them where you find them (IV-89-9- and if they turn away (from their faith), take hold of them and kill them where you find them (IV-89-9- and if they turn away (from their faith), take hold of them and kill them where you find them (IV-89-9- and if they turn away (from their faith), take hold of them and kill them where you find them (IV-89-90) No comment is deeded on this passage. The words enclosed within brackets are taken from Bezavi to make the meaning of the text clear. The former of theses versed is explained in Bukhari, whose place among the collectors of traditions is foremost. In the chapter bearing on the Acceptance or Non acceptance of Repentance from Apostates this verse is quoted as deciding this important issues. Difference of opinion is shown to exist among alumni as to the final decree to be based on of the injunction of verses. That the apostate should be murdered all are unanimous. Whether to give him three days respite and allow him to recant if the will is the pint at issue. Dar Qitni is said to have reported on the authority of Jabir that the prophet ordered the murder of a woman who apostatized in his life time. A few pages further a man is stated to have come to th Prophet to take with him the governor whom the latter appointed over the province of Yaman. Moaz was sent to fill that office and as he saw a man bound hand and foot and learnt on inquiry that he was an apostate from Islam he refused to sit till the later was murdered as this he said was the behest of Allah and the Prophet.

2. The same stories are repeated in other book of traditions. Asection among Mohammadans aver that these commandments and decisions brutal on the face of them were dictated by the exigencies of time which to day do not exist. We regard the whole Quran to have been dictated by exigencies of time which too fortunately do not exist today. The pity is that Mohammadan priests whose writings have regulated Mohammadan jurisprudence till this time and whose interpretation of Mohammadan law governs even today all codes of judicial laws for Mohammandans have perpetuated these exigencies into eternal demand of God appointed law. An excerpt from Hedaya will be found to the point. The compilation of this book does not belong to the age of Mohammad but to an age centuries later. Mohammadan low is even today framed in accordance with the decree of this book.

“when a mussulman apostatizes from the faith an exposition thereof is to be laid before him in such a manner that if his apostasy should have raised from any religious doubts or scruples those may be removed. The reason for laying an exposition of the faith before him is that it is possible some doubts or errors may have arisen in his mind. Which may be removed by such exposition and as there are two modes of repelling the sin of apostasy namely destruction or Islam and Islam is preferable to destruction the evil is rather to be removed by means of an exposition of the faith is not incumbent according to what the learned have remarked upon this head (since a call to the faith has already reached the apostate.)
“as apostate is to be imprisoned for three days; within which time if he returns to the faith it is well but if not he must be slain. It is recorded in the Jam’s Sagheer that ‘an exposition of the faith is to be laid before an apostate and if he refuses the faith he must be slain and with respect to what is above stated that he is to be imprisoned for three days, it only implied that if he requires a delay three days must be granted him as such is the term generally admitted and allowed for the purpose of consideration. It is recorded from Hanifa and AbouJusef that the granting of a delay of three days is land able whether that apostate requires it or not and it is recorded from Shafai that is not lawful for him to put th apostate to death before that lapse of this time . since it is most problem that a Mussulman will not apostatize but from some doubt or error arising in his mind; wherefore some time is necessary for consideration and this is fixed at three days. The arguments of our doctors upon this point are two fold. First God says in the Koran “Slay the unbeliever” without any reserve of a delay of three days being granted to him and the Prophet has also said “Slay the man who change his religion” without mentioning anything concerning a delay. Secondly an apostate is an infidel enemy who has received a call to the faith wherefore he may be slain upon the instant without any delay. An apostle is termed on this occasion an infidel enemy because he is undoubtedly such and he is not protected since he has not required a protection neither is he a Zimmee because capitation tax has not been accepted from him hence it is proved that he is an infidel enemy. It is to be observed that in these rules there is not difference made between an apostate who is a freeman and one who is a slave as the arguments upon which they are established apply equally to both description.

 

If an apostate dies or be slain in his apostasy his property acquired during his profession of the faith goes to his heirs who are Mussulman and whatever he acquired during the apostasy is public property of community of Mussulmans that is it goes to the public treasury. This is according to Hanifa….

All acts of an apostate with respect to his property such as purchases sale manumission mortgages and gift done during his apostasy are suspended in their effect. If therefore he becomes a Mussalman those acts are valid but if he dies or be slain or desert into a foreign country those acts are null.

“if any person kills an apostate before an exposition of the faith has been laid open to him. It is abominable that is it is laudable to let him continue unmolested. Nothing however is incurred by the slayer because the infidelity of an alien(?) renders the killing of him admissible and an exposition of the faith after a call to the faith is not necessary.

“ if a Mussulman woman becomes an apostate she is no put to  death but is imprisoned until she returns to the faith. Shafei maintains that she is to be put to death because of the tradition before cited and also because as men are put to death for apostasy solely for this reason that it is a crimes of great magnitudes and therefore requires that its punishment to proportionately savers (namely, death) so the apostasy for woman being likewise (like that of a man ) a crime of great magnitude it follows that her punishment should be the same at that of a man.

“if a husband and wife both apostatize and desert to a foreign country and the woman becomes pregnant there and brings forth a child and to this child another child be afterwards born and the Mussulman troops then subdue the territory the child and the child both are plunder and the property of the state the child is so  because as the apostate mother is made a slave her child is so likewise as a dependent on her and the child’s child is so because he is an original infidel and an enemy and as an original infidel is fee or the property of the state so is he woman’s child may moreover be compelled to become a Mussulman but not the child’s child. Hassan records from Haneefa that compulsion may be used upon the child’s child or so to make him embrace the faith as a dependent of the grandfather.

Our last quotation is from Sir Abdul Rahim’s Mohammedan Jurisprudence a recent complain which may be fairly thought to represent sound Muslim opinion as to the award of Islam in all matters of vital importance to that faith.

Apostasy  or change of faith from Islam to infidelity places the apostate outside the protection of law. The law however by way of indulgence gives the apostate a certain locus penitential. For instance he will be first asked to conform to the faith and if he entertains any doubt efforts must be made to remove it by argument he will be given an option of three days to re embrace the faith before the sentence is passed on him . but since by the very fact of apostacy a man losses the protection of law, if even before the chance of re embracing the faith has been given to him a Muslim kills an apostate it will be considered as an improper act but he would incur no penalty of the law. So long as the sentence has not been passed on an apostate he will be allowed according to the two disciple to retain possession of this property but according to Abu Hanfait passes to his heirs at the instance of apostacy.

Shraddhananda was surely not an apostate but a potent instigator to the crime (?) no doubt. Maulana Abdul Bari on the occasion of the Unity Conference which was a sequel to Mahatma Gandhi’s 21^stdays fast id Delhi, demanded that apostacy from Islam should be punished also in India if not with death with at least imprisonment as it is in the Bhopal State.

What the advocates of religious liberty both Muslim and Non Muslim have to fight is this barbarous attitude of Islamic jurisprudence and not an individual Abdul Rashid who like millions of his misguided brethren is a victim of blind faith and deserves our pity rather than contempt and indignation.