Hisbah: A Historical Overview: Defending Dr. Nasr Abou Zeid

Hisbah: A Historical Overview: Defending Dr. Nasr Abou Zeid

Authored by: Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour

Translated by: Dr. Marilyn Tadros

Edited and reviewed by: Ahmed Fathy

INTRODUCTION

Hisbah: A Historical Overview: Defending Dr. Nasr Hamid Abou Zeid

1- Dr. Nasr Hamid Abou Zeid (1943 – 2010) was an assistant professor in the Arabic Department, Faculty of Arts, Cairo University, and he specialized in Islamic studies. In the 1990s, his case in Egyptian judiciary courts was a main episode in the Wahabism-Secularism struggle. Dr. Abou Zeid was persecuted by the terrorist MB group member, Dr. Abdel-Sabour Shaheen (1929 – 2010), who was a professor in Cairo University as well, who managed to prevent the promotion of Dr. Abou Zeid to become a professor and accused him of apostasy (or forsaking Islam) by suing him in court. Dr. Abou Zeid moved this intellectual conflict with Dr. Shaheen to the Egyptian press, and many debates ensued in the 1990s in Cairo about the struggle between secularism and Wahabism, until the conflict between both men moved from the academia circles to the Egyptian courts that declared Dr. Abou Zeid as an apostate. The Wahabis were intellectually defeated in all debates because the Quran contains no penalties at all to be exacted or enacted for apostasy or forsaking 'Islam'. The main figures of Wahabism in Egypt involved in such debates and sided with Dr. Shaheen were Dr. Ahmad Heikal, Dr. Muhammad Al-Beltagui, and Dr. Ismail Salem, and so many of the Wahabi (i.e., Salafists and MB members) Egyptian agents in Egyptian media and inside the judicial system and courts. Because the Egyptian Penal Code contains nothing at all about putting 'apostates' to death (as required in Sunnite religion sharia), the Wahabis managed to make use of a loophole in the Egyptian Law to punish Dr. Abou Zeid in a different way; since the Egyptian Law adopts the Abou Hanifa Sunnite doctrine regarding matters of religion, they managed to make the courts that declared Dr. Abou Zeid as an apostate (for allegedly defaming and insulting the Quran) issue another court ruling using the Hisbah concept (i.e., literally in Arabic, ''accountability'', a form of inspection and inquisition which means the assumed 'divinely' sanctioned duty of the ruler (government) to intervene and coercively impose 'good' and prevent 'wrong' as per Sunnite sharia) to separate him by forced divorce proceedings, without consent of both parties concerned, from his wife, Dr. Ibtihal Younis, as the Sunnite sharia laws prevent a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man. Since Dr. Abou Zeid was declared an apostate earlier, this forced divorce ruling was issued by the same court. Such forced divorce was a very serious precedent that indicated that the terrorist Wahabi MB members could anytime murder Dr. Abou Zeid and his wife, as she refused to leave her husband, and thus, to terrorize and intimidate all secular people and Quranists in Egypt by threatening them of accusations of apostasy using the Hisbah concept. Some Azharites (who were also Wahabi MB group members) demanded vociferously in public the execution of Dr. Abou Zeid, and he received death threats that led him, along with his wife, move to The Netherlands in 1995, where he worked as a professor of Islamic studies at Leiden University.              

2- The Wahabis won the war in courts, but were moralistically and intellectually defeated as we, Dr. A. S. Mansour, stood by Dr. Abou Zeid and refuted all the Wahabi claims regarding the so-called apostasy. The Wahabi MB group members could easily have defeated Dr. Abou Zeid intellectually, as he committed many big errors in his writings regarding the Quran (regarding it as a "cultural product", among other views of his so-called 'Quranic hermeneutics' field). Yet, we personally confronted and refuted claims of those Wahabi MB members and their trend from within Islam (i.e., Quranism) and NOT in the secular ways of Dr. Abou Zeid and his secular and Marxist supporters at the time. Their way of which we never have approved is summarized in the attempt to 'neutralize' the Quranic text, leaving ample room to attack and criticize the Quranic verses directly or indirectly.  

3- The Egyptian independent Marxist Cairo-based Al-Ahaly newspaper – which was popular and sold very well at the time – led the press campaign in defense of Dr. Abou Zeid within "the Abou Zeid Case", as Egyptian media called it in the 1990s. Dr. Shaheen, the foe and opponent of Dr. Abou Zeid, appeared many times in Egyptian TV channels and Egyptian media in general as if he were a star, and he was the Godfather of all Wahabis in Egypt who used his name, with his approval of course, to propagate the so-called 'Islamic' money-investment companies and the prohibition of banks' interests, which were the means to steal savings of many gullible Sunnite Egyptian citizens in an unprecedented crime of swindling that manipulated the name of Islam. At the time, our articles that refute the intellectual and theological basis of Wahabi money-investment companies and prove that the interests rates of bank are OK, based on our Quranist views, were published in the Cairo-based pro-government newspaper Al-Akhbar. We have grouped these articles in a book published, later on, on our website, titled "The Battle of Usury".       

4- Al-Ahaly newspaper used to publish our articles regularly, and journalists there asked us to join their seminar organized by the Marxist The National Progressive Unionist Party (or in Arabic, Hizb Al-Tagamoue, which owns the newspaper as well) to defend Dr. Abou Zeid and we readily agreed of course. We asked the journalists there to allow us some time to read some books of Dr. Abou Zeid and to meet personally with him. We were provided with three books authored by Dr. Abou Zeid, but after reading few pages of his book about the so-called 'moderate' attitude in religion of the scholar/imam Al-Shafei (one of the deities made 'holy' and 'infallible' in the Sunnite religion), we decided not to read anymore within this book. Upon reading the other two books, we disapproved of his views regarding the Quran as a "cultural product" and the so-called 'Quranic hermeneutics'. At the seminar, we met with Dr. Abou Zeid for the first and last time, at the headquarters of the Marxist Party. We asserted to him that he has justified in his book the doctrine and methodology of Al-Shafei just because of his being the opponent of the Umayyad caliphate and because the Umayyads persecuted him, and when he answered in the affirmative, we told him about the historical facts that Al-Shafei was born in 150 A.H., 18 years after the downfall and collapse of the Umayyad dynasty and caliphate, and he lived within the First Abbasid Era and died in 204 A.H. Looking surprised, Dr. Abou Zeid remained silent for few seconds before telling us that this was a misprint in his book, and he meant Al-Shafei was persecuted by the Abbasids. We asserted to him that this seemingly unintentional error is the basis of the whole book of his. We told him that we support his intellectual and religious freedom and his freedom of thought and expression and that we are against his intellectual foes that hate and limit such freedoms. In addition, we have participated in this seminar by defending Dr. Abou Zeid and his freedom while asserting our disapproval of his ideas in general. The seminar proved a success and its reverberations reached all Egyptian media after its being published in full detail in Al-Ahaly newspaper.      

5- Strangely, the intellectual foes of Dr. Abou Zeid (i.e., the Wahabis) never noticed before the errors of Dr. Abou Zeid regarding historical facts, and yet, after the seminar, they copied our criticism of his ideas; as the MB Azharite sheikh Muhammad Al-Ghazaly attacked ideas of Dr. Abou Zeid (in an article titled "The Little Apostate" referring to Dr. Abou Zeid, in the pro-MB newspaper Al-Mukhtar Al-Eslami) by copying our criticism verbatim regarding views of Dr. Abou Zeid regarding the ideas and the lifetime of Al-Shafei.

6- We continued to defend Dr. Abou Zeid during his intellectual struggle against the Wahabi MB members within our articles published in Al-Ahaly newspaper. Our defending him using the Quran itself to prove the Quranic principles of religious freedom and freedom of thought and expression has refuted the claims and intellectual grounds of Wahabis and exposed their enmity toward Quranic facts of Islam, especially our published research titled "Freedom of Opinion between Islam and Muslims" (later on, we replaced the word ''Muslims'' with the term ''Muhammadans'' when we published this research online, to indicate followers of the Sunnite, Shiite, and Sufi religions that have nothing to do with Islam). Wahabis who felt defeated intellectually had nothing left to do except to resort to the Egyptian courts that declared Dr. Abou Zeid as an apostate and later on issued a ruling to separate him from his wife without his or her consent. This led us later on to author our book titled "Penalty of Apostasy", which refutes the Wahabi claim that Islam (the Quran alone) includes any punishment for those forsaking or rejecting Islam as a faith. 

7- Meanwhile, secular and Marxist thinkers focused their endeavors at the time to defend views of Dr. Abou Zeid and to publish many editions of his books, and we have delivered our speech in another seminar in another cultural center (called Al-Nidaa Al-Jadeed, or ''The New Call'' in English), about the concept of the Quranic interpretation in the Quran itself in contrast to the same concept held by Shiites, Sunnites, and Wahabis as well as by Dr. Abou Zeid, while refuting their concepts that contradicts the Quranic one about interpretation. This speech and the book on the Quranic concept of Quranic interpretation are published later on our website of course. We have asserted in this speech and this book that freedom of expression and the freedom of belief and thought are absolute freedoms in Islam and part of rights and higher values granted by God in the Quran to all people, and we have proved from the Quranic verses how these freedoms do NOT at all imply inability of intellectual confrontation or refutation, but actually reinforce and support freedom of everyone to peacefully refute and criticize any thought or set of ideas.         

8- We have found within our old papers a photocopy of this book on Hisbah in Arabic along with this English translation, rendered by Dr. Marilyn Tadros in the 1990s. We publish here on our website the English translation after its being revised and edited.  

Signature:

Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour

4^th of March, 2017

Fairfax, VA, USA   

Hisbah: A Historical Overview:

   The Hisbah concept is applied when a 'Muslim' individual volunteers to interfere in the lives of others once they commit a 'crime' or 'sin' against God or against people. The rights of God include doctrines and beliefs such as believing in God, His angels, His books, His prophets, as well as praying on time and giving alms, performing pilgrimage, fasting, repenting, and reading the Quran. The rights of people are protecting their money, lives, and honor as well as their right to ownership. What happens then when a person violates one of God's rights? Everyone tends to more or less agree as to the punishments for murder, burglary, theft, defamation, and adultery (although the latter is controversial). But the real controversy arises when one of God's rights is violated through heresy, apostasy, ignoring prayers and abstaining from giving alms. Should the ruler punish this person? Should others interfere in this person's personal life and force him/her to adopt a certain faith under the pain of death? Should anyone force this person to pray or to perform pilgrimage? In other words, is the Hisbah concept applicable here? And if the Hisbah were legitimate, and means interfering in someone's life, what are the limits of that intervention? Is it merely offering advice or should it include employing force through both moral and physical punishments? It is here that we find the vast difference between the Quranic sharia, which Prophet Muhammad applied, and the sharia applied by the clergy since the Abbasid Era. This difference lies in the political system itself. Of course, the Muhammad's city-state of Yathreb was founded on Shura (i.e., direct and democratic consultation), justice, and all types of freedom, whereas the Umayyad and the Abbasid caliphates were founded on power, violence, injustice, and the banning and flagrant violation of rights. The Umayyads were not bothered with acquiring fatwas (i.e., religious rulings or edicts) to justify their evil actions, even while murdering Al-Hussein and his followers, or while violating the Kaaba during the reign of the caliph Yazeed Ibn Mu'aweiya. The Abbasids established their caliphate under the slogan of gaining approval from the family/household of Muhammad, claiming to be his relatives and descendants. They clearly needed a legitimate and justifiable reason that would entitle them to murder their enemies on demand. This is why they created new religious notions and concepts that reinforced their power and authority, the most notable of which was creating the notion of Hisbah, performed by the Muhtasib (i.e., inquisitor, inspector, or supervisor).

   Hisbah was therefore a new term never mentioned in the Quran at all nor in any of the approved hadiths made 'holy' by Sunnites, and rejected by Quranists who deny all hadiths and Sunna. The clergy of the Abbasid Era found in the concept of (Al Amr bel Maaroof wal Nahy an Al-Monkar) (i.e., to enjoin 'good'/right and forbid 'wrong'/vice) a supportive basis for their Hisbah, making it an official religious concept that would operate politically in favor of, and at the service of, the State/caliphate. This was approved despite the fact that the Quranic command about people offering pieces of advice to one another about right and wrong is a volunteer work that by definition, and this contradicts official employment and paid work of the so-called 'religious' police. It has been historically established that the concept of Hisbah was unknown during the lifetime of Muhammad and also during the reign of the four pre-Umayyad caliphs, although the latter killed their enemies within Al-Khawarij, Shiites, and non-Arabs on the grounds of mere suspicions. Al-Hajaj, the powerful Umayyad governor of Iraq, killed his opponents just for doubting their loyalty, without the need for legal justification of fatwas from judges or courts. This state of affairs continued until the Abbasids destroyed the Umayyads with the help of the Persians. In the wake of the rise of the Abbasid State/caliphate with the help of Persian leader Abou Muslim Al-Khorasany, immediate suspicions began to surface between him and Abou Jaffer Al-Mansour, the Abbasid caliph. The latter felt insecure about his own power in the presence of Al-Khorasany until he finally murdered him with his own hands in 137 A.H. Despite the precautions he took, he could not prevent the Persian rebellions in Khorasan and the Eastern provinces under the leadership of Fatima Bint Abou Muslim Al-Khorasany, daughter of the slain leader. At the same time, followers of Al-Khorasany within the Abbasid caliphate and in Baghdad, its capital, began conspiring against the caliph in order to attempt to assassinate him. The caliph knew that among his administrators and military leaders there were many followers of Al-Khorasany. Those of them who announced their loyalty to the caliph were still treated with suspicion. Being a military caliph who founded his caliphate on religious grounds, needing to protect it and defeat his enemies, he sought a religious legislation that would accomplish two objectives: 1) getting rid of his enemies and the conspirators against him within the State, and 2) portraying him as a defender of the faith who would massacre and put to death all 'apostates', 'heretics', and 'enemies' of faith.

   In such political environment, the apostasy punishment/penalty (which is being put to death) was invented and fabricated and the concept of Hisbah emerged for the very first time. The Abbasid caliphate sent its forces to fight the Persian rebels led by Fatima, while concurrently steering its religious scholars inside Baghdad to issue fatwas to allow killing of opponents under the guise of being accused of apostasy. Since there is no penalty for apostates in Islam (the Quran), the clergy invented and phrased two hadiths about punishment of apostates, and the state immediately began inflicting such punishments. The war between the two parties continued, and the Abbasid caliphate sent its army to fight the Persians in the East. Fatima and her followers announced that they were adopting their old faith again which was Mazdakism. They therefore fought the Abbasids under that umbrella, and the Abbasids continued to pursue Fatima's followers and supporters, who were murdered for being heretics and apostates. Among those murdered were the poet Bashar Ibn Burd and poet Ibn Abdel-Quddus. The caliph Al-Mansour advised his son and successor, Al-Mahdi, to pursue and put to death all apostates, and Al-Mahdi in his turn advised his own son and successor, Al-Hadi, with the same piece of advice. The Abbasid caliphate therefore was clearly founded on pursuing and massacring the opponents and enemies of the Abbasids under the guise and claim of apostasy.

   It noteworthy that many other 'apostates' were left completely unharmed since they did not criticize the Abbasids; chief among them were poets named Abou Al-Ataheya, Ibn Saba, and many others, some of whom were even close to the caliphs in their palaces. Historians therefore agree on the fact that the term Muhtasib appeared for the first time during the reign of Al-Mahdi (158 – 169 A.H./ 774 – 785 A.D.) and the first Muhtasib was called Abdel Jayyar, otherwise known as 'Friend of the Apostates', whose duty was to seek and hut down apostates and to put them to death, when he was appointed in his post in 163 A.H. This therefore was the scene that created the concept of Hisbah, and it is no wonder that it is contradictory with the Quranic sharia laws. Since the Abbasid Era witnessed the beginning of writing down authored 'Muslim' thought (which was previously accumulated orally) including the fiqh (i.e., religious jurisprudence), the hadiths, and the interpretations of the Quran, we have therefore inherited this deception and lived with it as though it were part of Islam itself, although God has given us the Quran and said that He would protect it so that we would always get back to it as a basis for our faith and belief.

Asking People to Repent and Postponing Judgment till Resurrection Day:

   Is it acceptable that a human being demand that another person or group of people must repent under threat of punishment? This Sunnite notion known in Arabic as "estetaba" (literally, forcing someone to repent). The term 'repent' and its derivatives are mentioned in the Quranic text 87 times, and the word estetaba is NEVER mentioned at all. Repentance is a special and private relationship between each human being and God, and no human being not even Muhammad himself, may come between man/woman and God in matters of repentance or indeed any other religious matters and affairs. Whoever makes himself or herself a go-between or mediator, who demands from people to repent in in the name of God, is indeed a sinner, as this person has clearly misunderstood Islam. We ask this person to provide us with the proxy he/she has from God to receive repentance in His name or to force others to repent in His name. In the Quran, there are sufficient details concerning repentance for real believers. We provide below some of those verses linked to repentance.

1- In matters of faith and the secrets of people's hearts which no one knows but God, repentance is to God alone. God has commanded Muhammad in the Quran  to announce that: "...Say, "He is my Lord; there is no God but He; in Him I trust, and to Him is my repentance."" (13:30). This means that to Him alone do we repent, trust and believe. These are the words that Muhammad have uttered, and this is what every believer should say as he/she repents and turns to God alone.

2- Because Muhammad was a human being who never knew the secrets inside people's hearts, and because God the Omniscient alone knows what is hidden from the eyes and hidden in the chests, repentance is directed to God alone. God says the following in the Quran: "But whoever repents after his sins, and reforms, God will accept his repentance. God is Forgiving and Merciful." (5:39). Who could know the truthfulness of such repentance but He who knows the unknown?

3- Because repentance concerns God alone, one of His Divine Epithets is that He is a 'Forgiver'. This is repeated 11 times in the Quranic text. Because repentance is only to God and no one may join Him in accepting it, it is closely related to His will. God says the following in the Quran: "...God redeems whomever He wills. God is Knowledgeable and Wise." (9:15). "That God may reward the truthful for their truthfulness; and punish the hypocrites, if He wills, or accepts their repentance. God is Forgiving and Merciful." (33:24). No human being is therefore allowed to interfere in God's will and make someone repent or punish someone for not repenting.

4- All people are equal in imploring God to accept their repentance and beg for His mercy. All human being ask for God's pardon, whether they be ordinary people or prophets/messengers, even hypocrites, sinners, and wrongdoers. God says the following about Abraham and Ishmael when they lifted the foundation of the Holy House, the Kaaba, and implore their Lord, saying: "Our Lord, and make us submissive to You, and from our descendants a community submissive to You. And show us our rites, and accept our repentance. You are the Acceptor of Repentance, the Merciful." (2:128). Hence, even these two prophets implored their Lord to accept their repentance, without mediators, clergy, or intercessors, and this must apply to all people everywhere. God says the following about Muhammad: "God has redeemed the Prophet, and the Emigrants, and the Supporters-those who followed him in the hour of difficulty-after the hearts of some of them almost swerved. Then He pardoned them and accepted their repentance. He is Kind towards them, Compassionate." (9:117). We conclude then that accepting repentance is confined to God, not to any mortals, for He alone knows what is inside people's hearts and how truthful their repentance is. Asking others to repent therefore is a divine command clearly shown in the Quran, and human beings cannot give themselves the right to demand from people, when usurping this divine command, to declare repentance before mortals in private or in public to avoid being put to death.

Postponing Condemnation until the Judgment Day:

    The Quranic sharia laws do not give any human beings the right to judge others concerning their beliefs and faiths. It clearly urges real believers to wait and postpone condemnation till the Judgment Day. God's will entails to create people who freely adopt different opinions, beliefs, and trends, as we deduce from the Quran itself: "Had your Lord willed, He could have made humanity one community, but they continue to differ." (11:118). The history of the humankind is a series of nonstop differences among religions worldwide, within each religion and every sect. Jews and Christians differ, and each claim to have the Truth while others are wholly in the wrong. God will judge among them on the Judgment Day like the rest of humanity: "The Jews say, "The Christians are not based on anything;" and the Christians say, "The Jews are not based on anything." Yet they both read the Scripture. Similarly, the ignorant said the same thing. God will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection regarding their differences." (2:113). There are still differences among the Jews even after the Torah was revealed, referred to in the following verse as ''knowledge'' from God: "And We settled the Israelites in a position of honor, and provided them with good things. They did not differ until knowledge came to them. Your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection regarding their differences." (10:93). Concerning their differences around the Sabbath that God will judge among them as well. We read the following Quranic verse "The Sabbath was decreed only for those who differed about it. Your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection regarding their differences." (16:124). The Christians have similarly differed, and they include those who adhered to the Truth and those who were misguided and stuck to falsehoods; God has postponed their judgment till the Day of the Resurrection: "God said, "O Jesus, I am terminating your life, and raising you to Me, and clearing you of those who disbelieve. And I will make those who follow you superior to those who disbelieve, until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return; then I will judge between you regarding what you were disputing." (3:55).    

     Concerning the differences among those who believe in Allah as the One True God and those who take other deities alongside with Allah/God, we read the following verse: "Say, "Our God, Initiator of the heavens and the earth, Knower of all secrets and declarations. You will judge between your servants regarding what they had differed about."" (39:46). Regard the relationship between believers and the People of the Book (i.e., Jews + Christians), we read this divine command in this verse: "...Had God willed, He could have made you a single nation, but He tests you through what He has given you. So compete in righteousness. To God is your return, all of you; then He will inform you of what you had disputed." (5:48). Concerning the relationship between Muhammad and those who fought against him, we read the following verse: "You will die, and they will die. Then, on the Day of Resurrection, you will be debating before your Lord." (39:30-31). This means that Muhammad  himself will dispute with his enemies, on equal footing before the Lord God. That is why God has commanded Muhammad to tell them the following: "Those who believe, and those who are Jewish, and the Sabians, and the Christians, and the Magi, and the Polytheists-God will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. God is witness to all things." (22:17). Hence, settling all religious conflicts, disputes, and differences have therefore been postponed until the Day of Resurrection. God says the following about all people: "...No soul gets except what it is due, and no soul bears the burdens of another. Then to your Lord is your return, then He will inform you regarding your disputes." (6:164). Concerning judgment among people on The Judgment  Day, God has commanded Muhammad in the Quran to announce the following "Say, "Our God, Initiator of the heavens and the earth, Knower of all secrets and declarations. You will judge between your servants regarding what they had differed about."" (39:46). Those many verses are enough to show that religious differences among people are left only to God, the Eternal Judge, on the Day of Resurrection, Who will judge all human beings, including Muhammad and the rest of prophets and messengers as well.

   After all this, is a real believer who loves Islam cannot possibly be judgmental of faiths of others or to demand from them to repent, let alone forcing, threatening, or coercing them, and we know that compulsion in religion is absolutely forbidden in Islam: "There shall be no compulsion in religion; the right way has become distinct from the wrong way..." (2:256); "Had your Lord willed, everyone on earth would have believed. Will you compel people to become believers?" (10:99). Hence, matters of faith are God's concern alone on the Day of Resurrection, and never the concern of mortals to judge one another. But there are rights of people to preserve their lives, property, dignity, and honor, and when such rights are violated, violators must be  punished in this world, and this is part God's Quranic sharia laws. This is the field where the human judiciary systems must interfere to protect people and society while abiding by the divine laws.

The Refutation of the Verdict against Dr. Abu Zeid:

Firstly: this is a verdict against Egyptian laws:

  The verdict against Dr. Abu Zeid  crossed the threshold of the judiciary legislation, ignoring all legal and Constitutional provisions that differed with the judge's opinion. The judge immersed himself in religious (Sunnite Wahabi) jurisprudence and doctrinal writings, deliberately choosing from them what supported his opinion and ignoring what did not. Consequently, he neither abided by the law, the Constitution, the opinions of religious scholars themselves, nor even by the judicial system of the Middle Ages, and what is more laughter-inducing is the fact that he did not adhere to a specific Sunnite doctrine. Never in the history of the judiciary systems during the Middle Ages was there a verdict regarding the apostasy of someone issued in absentia. The defendants at the time were always present and had their fair chance of defending themselves and their opinions and beliefs. This judge in this Egyptian court should have then announced the verdict ONLY after hearing the defense. This did not happen in the case of Dr. Abu Zeid. It is narrated about the courts during the Middle Ages that they were inquisition courts, denying people their right to have their own beliefs, views, and opinion. But they were certainly better than this verdict issued by a court in the 20^th century, since at least during the Middle-Ages courts, the defendants were present and their defense was heard. This did not happen in the case of Dr. Abu Zeid. More importantly and tragically, this verdict contradicts the Quran itself, a fact which needs a detailed explanation. The Judge writes on page 23 of the verdict the following passage we quote here: "What Dr. Abu Zeid has written is not just contravening with religion but is also in contradiction with the Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt. Article 2 states that Islam is the religion of the State. Hence, we have to resort to it in this matter rather than resorting to the writings and opinions of religious scholars which necessarily tend to expresses their own opinions. The Word of God and the Sunna of his Prophet Muhammad alone express God's opinions. They are both necessarily coinciding with each other...". We beg to differ; Islam is represented only by the Quranic text and no other texts at all. Islam does not have sharia laws or jurisprudence that condemn a person to death for their opinions, faith, or beliefs or accuse them of apostasy, separating this person from their spouse. We will prove below how our opinion here is detailed in the Quran and has been applied by Muhammad himself. We have never heard in any biography that Muhammad killed any of the hypocrites, nor judged them, or even ordered their being separated from their spouses. This is what we shall explain in detail below, asserting here that the verdict against Dr. Abu Zeid therefore is against Islam and against the religion of the State.

Secondly: the verdict contradicts the principles of the Quranic sharia:

   Article 2 of the Egyptian Constitution states that the principles of the Islamic sharia is the source of legislation in the Arab Republic of Egypt. There is a clear difference between the principles of the sharia and the fatwas issued by scholars. The principles of the Islamic sharia are undoubtedly based on justice.

- "We sent Our messengers with the clear proofs, and We sent down with them the Book and the Balance, that humanity may uphold justice..." (57:25).

- The principles of Quranic sharia are made to lift burdens and make matters easier: "...say, "I believe in whatever Book God has sent down, and I was commanded to judge between you equitably."..." (42:15).

- God says in the Quran: "...God desires ease for you, and does not desire hardship for you..." (2:185).

- God says in the Quran: "God intends to lighten your burden, for the human being was created weak." (4:28).

- God says in the Quran: "O you who believe! Be upright to God, witnessing with justice; and let not the hatred of a certain people prevent you from acting justly. Adhere to justice, for that is nearer to piety; and fear God. God is informed of what you do." (5:8).

- God says in the Quran: "And strive for God, with the striving due to Him. He has chosen you, and has not burdened you in religion..." (22:78).

- Freedom of choice and personal responsibility before Almighty God are asserted in many Quranic verses as well: "Say, "Am I to seek a Lord other than God, when He is the Lord of all things?" No soul gets except what it is due, and no soul bears the burdens of another. Then to your Lord is your return, then He will inform you regarding your disputes." (6:164). "Whoever is guided-is guided for his own good. And whoever goes astray-goes astray to his detriment. No burdened soul carries the burdens of another..." (17:15). "If you disbelieve, God is Independent of you, yet He does not approve ingratitude on the part of His servants. And if you are thankful, He will approve that in you. No bearer of burden can bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return; and He will inform you of what you used to do. He is aware of what the hearts contain." (39:7).

- Even those who are 'apostates', 'infidels', 'heretics' or 'disbelievers', God has postponed their punishment till the Judgment Day, as we infer from the Quran: "Those who despise Our revelations are not hidden from Us. Is he who is hurled into the Hell-Fire better? Or he who arrives safely on the Day of Resurrection? Do as you please; He is Seeing of everything you do." (41:40).

   The principles and purpose of the Quranic/Islamic sharia are founded on justice, ease, and facilitation. They are based on freedom of belief and opinion, while being responsible before the Lord God for this freedom. This of course contradicts the interference in other people's freedom of thought, belief, or opinion, and judging them accordingly. It should be emphasized therefore that there is a difference between the purposes of sharia and its rules. Rules are specific, whereas purposes are comprehensive. For example: The rules of the sharia discuss fasting. God says in the Quran:  "Ramadan is the month in which the Quran was revealed. Guidance for humanity, and clear portents of guidance, and the Criterion. Whoever of you witnesses the month, shall fast it. But whoever is sick, or on a journey, then a number of other days. God desires ease for you, and does not desire hardship for you, that you may complete the number, and celebrate God for having guided you, so that you may be thankful." (2:185). Therefore, the legislation concerning fasting and the refraining from fasting for a cause, enter under the field of the Quranic legislative rules, while Quranic legislative purposes on the other hand, came to lighten burdens and make matters easy rather than difficult. The same applies regarding the rules and purposes concerning performing ablution (see 5:6). The rules of Islamic/Quranic legislation to which Muhammad adhered, therefore, clearly contradict condemning someone for apostasy or someone who differs in opinion or belief from the mainstream.

 The verdict against Dr. Abou Zeid, therefore, clearly contradicts the Islamic/Quranic sharia itself. In addition, this verdict also contradicts the opinions of the four 'grand' and 'holy' Sunnite imams/scholars who founded their doctrines. It is important here to note that those imams have differed and agreed in their intellectual efforts, and that these efforts are merely representative of their own points of view, NOT of Islam's point of view which is clearly stated in the Quran. It is clear therefore that the verdict quoted  the later religious scholars who lived during the times of obscurantism and regressive attitudes. He ignored the imams who lived during the more enlightened times of exerting intellectual efforts and ijtihad (i.e., innovative, creative thinking in theology). Imam Malik, for instance, never stated that Muhammad demanded the death of an apostate. Nor does he mention separating a man from his wife based on apostasy or rejecting faith. Imam Al-Shaybany, friend of imam Abou Hanifa , is said in the writings of imam Malik to have asserted that no man may testify to another man's sins however grave or big those sins are. This is also approved by Abou Hanifa and the majority of those scholars contemporary to him. The followers of the doctrines of the imams Malik and Abou Hanifa, therefore, during the times of scholarly research and ijtihad, were against the Hisbah and equally against accusing others of apostasy and heresy. This is the correct opinion which refutes the later opinions during the eras of obscurantism. Imam Al-Shafei asserts in his writings that any person who believes in God must keep his doubts and not judge any person accordingly and that Muhammad himself is an example for us, as he never demanded putting to death those who rejected Islam after feigning a conversion at first.

  It is an established fact that Dr. Abou Zeid the defendant, who is accused of being an apostate, has announced his adherence to Islam. What the court accused him of is its own understanding of his writings and opinions. It is therefore a judgment by doubt against a man who utters the testimony of Islam and who asserts his being a Muslim. According to what imam Shafei states in his writings, this verdict is nullified, annulled, and invalidated. The verdict clearly contradicts even the opinions of other later imams. The wife of Dr. Abou Zeid herself, Dr. Ibtihal Younis, announced that she was staying with her husband and she believes in his opinions. Since the court has ruled that the defendant is an 'apostate', then this applies to his wife too. What do the scholars, whom the court has quoted , say about separating a man and his wife if they both became apostates? In his book titled "Al-Ahkam Al-Sultaneya", Al-Mawardy the imam says that a marriage is not nullified if both husband and wife are 'apostates' who both reject 'Islam'.  Hence, the judge in the case of Dr. Abou Zeid has based his verdict on a book titled "Badae Al-Sanae" written by Al-Kasani Al-Hanafi, who asserts that if both man and wife become 'apostates' or if both become Muslims, their marriage is not annulled and could not be made so. This means that separating the defendant, Dr. Abou Zeid, forcibly from his wife is not legal even within Sunnite sharia because they share the same opinions and beliefs which the judge has described as 'apostasy'.  We therefore say that separating a man from his wife is not legal according to Al-Kasani, although the judge has quoted  his book in the matter of Hisbah and used it against the defendant. The judge therefore has clearly quoted  what he wanted and ignored what he felt that would contradict his issued verdict. This verdict therefore ignored both the Law and the Constitution that stipulate freedom of opinion and belief and also the freedom of making academic intellectual efforts and ijtihad . If there was a clear legal provision that criminalized the opinions of the defendant, the judge would not have resorted to the opinions of the religious scholars while ignoring all other opinions. The only justification for the verdict is that there is no local law for a case like that; this is an unprecedented case. The judge was therefore obliged to resort to the opinions of obscurantist scholars to support his wrong verdict with their erroneous views. Even in such a case, the judge should have adhered to one single doctrine. This was the way things were during the Middle Ages, before the modern laws were made.

More detailed refutations:

   The judge who issued the verdict against Dr. Abou Zeid quoted the verses that discuss hypocrites. But Quranic sharia laws do not pass judgment over hypocrites and do not consider them as 'apostates'. Muhammad himself did not judge them or separate them from their wives. Some people might say that when Muhammad was the ruler of the Yathreb city-state, he did not have any powers over his enemies the hypocrites nor over the People of the Book living inside it. Maybe his rights as a ruler and a prophet was to sentence his hypocrites, but the Quranic sharia laws are consistent and there is no room in it for exceptions and additions to be introduced by fiqh scholars (this crime has been committed later by Sunnites of course). The Quran is very clear and  precise in its treatment of the hypocrites who are under Islamic rule. Furthermore, there are two types of hypocrites: the first type involves those who were adamant in hypocrisy, keeping their opinions and feelings inside themselves and without saying or doing anything that would reveal their true hatred of Islam. In the Quran, God has promised this type an eternity in Hell in the Hereafter (i.e., they were never punished during their lifetimes by Muhammad). Muhammad did not know those hypocrites by the name, as we deduce from the Quran itself: "Among the Desert-Arabs around you there are some hypocrites, and among the inhabitants of Medina too. They have become adamant in hypocrisy. You do not know them, but We know them..." (9:101). The second type of hypocrites involves those who had shown their hatred of Islam through words and through aggressive action, conspiring against Muhammad and the early believers. Their conspiracies amounted to high treason, where they sometimes joined forces with the enemies of the Yathreb city-state or allied themselves to the enemies to conspire with them against early believers in times of self-defense battles. Hypocrites were never punished at all as long as they were peaceful and as long as they were still under the state's authority and did not raise arms against it. It was acceptable as long as their actions were merely mouthing harassments. But once they went beyond those limits, like the hypocritical Bedouins or desert-people or attempted to raise arms against peaceful ones, this necessitated military confrontation according to the Quran: "What is the matter with you, divided into two factions regarding the hypocrites, when God Himself has overwhelmed them on account of what they did? Do you want to guide those whom God has led astray? Whomever God leads astray-you will never find for him a way. They would love to see you disbelieve, just as they disbelieve, so you would become equal. So do not befriend any of them, unless they emigrate in the way of God. If they turn away, seize them and execute them wherever you may find them; and do not take from among them allies or supporters." (4:88-89). The hypocrites at the time, as individuals and groups, had the freedom of opposition to the Yathreb city-state and to the new faith. The Quran passes judgments on them while exposing them and their conspiracies. However, Quranic commands to Muhammad and the early believers include dealing peacefully with the non-violent hypocrites and to accept what will happen to them on the Judgment Day if they do not repent. The Quranic sharia laws therefore contain no physical harm to hypocrites who express their opposition and opinions peacefully as long as they commit no aggressions. This Quranic sharia contradicts judging them by mortals, accusing them of apostasy, punishing them, or separating them from their wives. This Quranic sharia is also stable and constant (and NOT supplanted or replaced by the so-called hadiths and Sunna) and was followed by Muhammad and the early believers in Mecca in their dealing with the Qorayish tribe disbelievers, and in the Yathreb city-state with the hypocrites, despite the difference between the status of Muhammad in the Yathreb city-state and Mecca.

    At the beginning of the ministry of Muhammadto call people to the new faith that renews the religion of Abraham, Muhammad was ordered to merely inform and convey the message of (There is no God but Allah) and then to distance himself from the disbelievers, as we infer from the Quranic verses: "So proclaim openly what you are commanded, and turn away from the polytheists." (15:94); "Be tolerant, and command the just norms, and avoid the ignorant." (7:199); "So avoid him who has turned away from Our remembrance, and desires nothing but the present life." (53:29); "Follow what was revealed to you from your Lord. There is no god but He. And turn away from the polytheists." (6:106); "So turn away from them, and wait. They too are waiting." (32:30). The Quranic commands regarding withdrawal and distancing oneself from harming peaceful and non-violent disbelievers, polytheists, hypocrites, and apostates came as a general sharia law for all believers in the Quran as well: "The servants of the Dominant Lord are those who walk the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, "Peace."" (25:63); "And those who do not bear false witness; and when they come across indecencies, they pass by with dignity." (25:72); "And when they hear vain talk, they avoid it, and say, "We have our deeds, and you have your deeds; peace be upon you; we do not desire the ignorant."" (28:55). All those verses descended in Mecca, by the way. After the early believers grouped themselves in the Yathreb city-state, this Quranic sharia law has NOT changed; rather, it has been applied to the letter, especially within dealing with the peaceful non-violent hypocrites, and early believers withdrew and distanced themselves from hypocrites and their conspiracies, scheming, bad words, and opposition movements. We quote Quranic verses that prove all this below.

- Hypocrites used to leave the judicial authority of the Yathreb city-state and resort to others, directly rejecting the judicial procedures of Muhammad. The Quran has order Muhammad to distance himself from those hypocrites where God said: "They are those whom God knows what is in their hearts. So ignore them, and admonish them, and say to them concerning themselves penetrating words." (4:63).

- Some of the hypocrites used to go to Muhammad and express loyalty then leave him to immediately join in scheming a plot or a conspiracy against him by claiming that Muhammad said things which he did not. God in the Quran has exposed them and has ordered Muhammad to withdraw from their company: "They profess obedience, but when they leave your presence, some of them conspire something contrary to what you said. But God writes down what they conspire. So avoid them, and put your trust in God. God is a Sufficient Guardian." (4:81).

- The hypocrites used to organize meetings in which they ridiculed of God's verses and God's prophet. The environment of freedom existent in Muhammad's Yathreb city-state allowed this non-violent expression of stances, attitudes, and views. Muhammad sometimes attended those meetings of the hypocrites who mocked God's verses, but a Quranic command ordered Muhammad not to attend those meetings and added that should they begin talking about something else, he could go back to them. God said: "When you encounter those who gossip about Our revelations, turn away from them, until they engage in another topic. But should Satan make you forget, do not sit after the recollection with the wicked people." (6:68). The Quranic command is therefore one of withdrawal and distancing and NOT through preventing them under the threat of using force from questioning, despising, and ridiculing God's verses. This Quranic command stipulates that Muhammad should not sit with them only as they discussed and mocked God's verses and did not stipulate for totally rejecting them nor severing ties with them. Some believers continued to attend those meetings in which the enemies of Muhammad disparaged and ridiculed God's verses. The Quran has reminded them of the previous command and threatened them that if they did not stop attending those meetings, God will consider them like the hypocrites and polytheists: "He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear God's revelations being rejected, or ridiculed, do not sit with them until they engage in some other subject. Otherwise, you would be like them. God will gather the hypocrites and the disbelievers, into Hell, altogether." (4:140). The believers had abided by this Quranic command and stopped attending those meetings. The hypocrites then were free of all sense of shame and those meetings were transformed into outright declarations of disbelief and ridicule: "If you ask them, they will say, "We were just joking and playing." Say, "Were you making jokes about God, His revelations, and His messenger?" Do not apologize. You have disbelieved after your belief. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others, because they are guilty." (9:65-66).

     Here there is a postponement of condemnation and punishment until God Himself takes action against sinners, for He is the one who forgives or punishes. God has ordered Muhammad to distance himself from the hypocrites and polytheist and not to harm them: "And do not obey the blasphemers and the hypocrites, and ignore their insults, and rely on God. God is a Sufficient Protector." (33:48). The environment of freedom prevalent in the short-lived Yathreb city-state (it ended when Muhammad died) permitted this sort of peaceful opposition to Muhammad and the new faith. Muhammad tolerated it knowing that God in the Quran is defending him and say the following about the hypocrites: "And among them are those who insult the Prophet, and say, "He is all ears." Say, "He listens for your own good. He believes in God, and trusts the believers, and is mercy for those of you who believe." Those who insult the messenger of God will have a painful penalty." (9:61). This liberal environment made some believers near Muhammad fell into the trap of verbally harming Muhammad themselves, as we infer from the following Quranic verse: "Those who insult God and His messenger, God has cursed them in this life and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a demeaning punishment." (33:57). Warning people against harming Muhammad, God says the following in the Quran: "O you who believe! Do not be like those who abused Moses; but God cleared him of what they said. He was distinguished with God. O you who believe! Be conscious of God, and speak in a straightforward manner." (33:69-70). The hypocrites moved from mocking and harming to conspiring against Muhammad and the believers in times of trouble and battles to refusing to fight in defense of the Yathreb city-state, their homeland, then they had built a mosque of harm which became a meeting place to plot and scheme. God did NOT order Muhammad to burn or demolish that mosque but merely not to pray in it. This means that he attended prayers there until the Quran exposed them for what they were. In the Quranic text, God describes this mosque as being a whole destructive force where it was a place for conspiring and disbelief to cause dissent among the believers, and as an outpost for those who declared war against Allah and His messenger, and yet, the only command He gave Muhammad was that he should not pray there. This Quranic command did not seem favorable with the scholars of the Abbasid Era later on, and they therefore invented and fabricated hadiths and narratives about Muhammad burning this mosque. God the Omniscient knew that this would happen and that this would be said about Muhammad; thus, He says the following about this mosque: "The structure which they built will remain questionable in their hearts, until their hearts are stopped. God is Knowing and Wise." (9:110). This means that this mosque remained during Muhammad's lifetime and had not been demolished or destroyed as the fabricators of hadiths claim in their books. This is for sure linked to that Quranic command of distancing oneself from polytheists and hypocrites whatever they said and whatever they did, as long as there were no arms involved, nor violence, nor bloodshed/aggression, nor something that infringed the rights of people. For example, God says  the following about the hypocrites who spread lies and slander about early believers in Yathreb: "Those who perpetrated the slander are a band of you. Do not consider it bad for you, but it is good for you. Each person among them bears his share in the sin. As for him who played the major role-for him is a terrible punishment." (24:11). Those hypocrite were never put to death or physically harmed in any way and no one accused them of apostasy; the punishment in 24:11 refers to the one in the Afterlife by God. Muhammad did not act like an inquisitor against any hypocrites, although the Quran itself describes them as polytheists and disbelievers. Neither did Muhammad separate the hypocrites from their wives. Muhammad whom God has sent as mercy for the humankind, and NOT to terrorize the humankind, was truly merciful of those hypocrites who were harming him and conspiring against him. He used to implore God to forgive them and even accepted some of their demands in the hope of winning them to his side, but God has reproached him: "Whether you ask forgiveness for them, or do not ask forgiveness for them-even if you ask forgiveness for them seventy times, God will not forgive them. That is because they disbelieved in God and His Messenger. God does not guide the immoral people." (9:80). And when he allowed some of them to refrain from participating in the self-defense endeavors, God has reproached him as well: "May God pardon you! Why did you give them permission before it became clear to you who are the truthful ones, and who are the liars?" (9:43). Quranic commands focus on avoiding the hypocrites without hurting them or asking them to repent or accepting their demands in the hope of gaining them to the side of the Quran/Islam. God exposes in the Quran the intentions of those hypocrites will wait until the fighters return to meet them and swear that they were faithful, and give illusory reasons of why they did not go to fight, so that believers would leave them alone and let them be. God has commanded the believers to avoid the hypocrites and leave them to what will happen to them in the Hereafter: "They will swear to you by God, when you return to them, that you may leave them alone. So leave them alone. They are a disgrace, and their destiny is Hell; a reward for what they used to earn." (9:95). That was how hypocrites lived during the lifetime of Muhammad, in complete liberty and freedom, safe from pursuance, persecution, and punishment. Current democracies make their actions punishable within the penal code, but the Quranic sharia  revealed in the 7the century gives them unprecedented freedom. The current fundamentalist Wahabi movement objects to the higher values of our modern world, democracy, and human rights, and they demand a return to the application of the obscurantist Sunnite sharia laws of the Middle Ages. This contradicts the enlightened Quranic sharia laws that God has granted to all humanity till the Judgment Day. The judge who issued the verdict against Dr. Abou Zeid also quoted the Wahabi definition of apostasy while quoting a Quranic verse that he assumed to support punishing 'apostates' like Dr. Abou Zeid: "They ask you about fighting during the Sacred Month. Say, "Fighting during it is deplorable; but to bar others from God's path, and to disbelieve in Him, and to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and to expel its people from it, are more deplorable with God. And persecution is more serious than killing. They will not cease to fight you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can. Whoever among you turns back from his religion, and dies a disbeliever-those are they whose works will come to nothing, in this life, and in the Hereafter. Those are the inmates of the Fire, abiding in it forever. " (2:217). But this verse which the judge quoted clearly shows that there is no punishment applied by mortals for 'apostates' or those who forsook faith; the verse tackles the notion of self-defense when those who feigned to convert to Islam and then rejected it committed military aggression against the peaceful early believers. This is also asserted through other Quranic verses: "Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe, then disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, God will not forgive them, nor will He guide them to a way. Inform the hypocrites that they will have a painful punishment." (4:137-138). This clearly means that punishment of sinners and disbelievers who rejected faith is postponed by God till the Judgment Day in the Hereafter and that there is no penalty for 'apostasy' applied by mortals in this world at all. We conclude then that the concept of Hisbah, or inquisition to declare others as 'infidels', 'heretics', or 'apostates', has nothing to do with real celestial religion of Islam (i.e., Quranism).

Signature:

Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour