The answer.

I've long marveled at the lack of accountability there is in Islamic governance. Islamic doctrine is recondite, to say the least, and who gets to do what and what should or should not be done are all exceedingly slippery questions, the answers to which depend upon which city block you're standing in or whether the designated Holy Man is feeling good, cranky, dyspeptic, or murderous at fatwa time. Plus, the result seems to vary according to whether the imam(s) follow the Jafari, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’iyyah, or Hanbali schools of jurisprudence, or all five.

Ok. Ok. Even U.S. legal scholars differ on whether we have (a) a Constitution whose meaning can only be determined from honestly attempting to ascertain the Original Intent of the Founders and Ratifiers, or (b) a "Living Constitution" designed to facilitate the establishment of an arbitrary socialist hell. I'll let you know later where I stand on this particular controversy. Now let's get back to our consideration of the elegance of the sharia.

Whether there's any appeal from imamical decisions, I do not know. Perhaps the concepts of abuse of discretion, or just straying off the legal reservation altogether, are inconceivable to Muslim legal minds. But, if there is an opportunity for appeal, I assume it's heard by something resembling a half dozen or so Lutheran or Seven Day Adventist preachers, say, who — to carry this to an extreme, I know — have the thump to rule on whether an adulterous couple should be stoned or a rape victim given 150 lashes with the cat.

It's an interesting idea and maybe one that should be tried. Maybe that mix of temporal and spiritual decision makes for some pretty powerful muti. On the other hand, and this is ugly, combining the Yale Law School and the Yale Divinity School seems more like a step in the direction of Romper Room than of Coke, Blackstone or Learned Hand. Do we really want to go there? We don't but they have. Since 633 A.D. No reform, no rationalization, no amelioration. Completely stuck in the "this is the literal word of Allah" mode. For over a 1,000 years. Exclamation mark.

Be that as it may, however, I have at last learned the answer to the question, "In Islamic jurisprudence, who is it exactly, who gets to 'operationalize,' shall we say, this bedrock principle that for apostasy there must be the death penalty?"

In short, who gets to do the killing?

Learned Muslims ink lots of pages about the penalty and the reasons therefore, but never get specific about the mechanics, at least in the reading I've done.

Well, here it the answer. An apostate can legally be killed by absolutely anybody in Muslim society.

Those accused of killing Farag Foda were defended in court by Sheikh Ahmad Ghazali, one of Egypt's most senior theologians. He is an official at Al-Azhar [University] and thus a government employee. Mr. Ghazali testified in court that Mr. Foda and secularists' like him are apostates who should be put to death. He added that if the government failed to carry out that ‘duty', individuals were free to do so.^[1]

This is the doctrine that Muslims bring with them when they move to Western countries. This is what issues from the one of the cherished institutions of the Arab world.

It's one hell of a way to run a railroad, friends. Is my neighbor across the hall a heretic from the True Church of Jesus Christ? He is?! Well then let's go cut his throat. It's ok. The pastor said so.

Notes
^[1] "The Rushdie Rules." By Koenraad Elst, Middle East Quarterly, June 1998.