Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Questions on Islamic law: Apostasy, in light of Qur'an and Hadeeth

The following is an old post I made on other sites, in response to questions posed about the usual notion that a person who decides to "leave Islam" is to be executed. The question seems to get repeated of late, so below is a brief statement on the subject. Comments are always welcome, thanks and Salaam.

Salaam all,



A] Islam is a faith of utmost intellectual and spiritual conviction. We know this when we have only a cursory look at the Qur'an. Repeatedly, it points to Ayaat [signs] in the creation, even in ourselves, as evidence of Allah's power as well as his being the source of the Qur'an.

[B] Yes, the Qur'an says "No compulsion in the Deen" [Laa Ikraha Fid deen]. The reason for that is "The right guidance is very clear, distinct from confusion or misguidance" [Qad TabayyanaR-Rushdoo min al Ghiyy]. Allah does not need our salaah, fasting, Shahaadah or any of that. We require those things. For our guidance and spiritual salvation. If Allah does not need our 'Ibaadah, then why should we execute someone?

[C] The Prophet [Sall-Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam] was, without doubt, the best Daa'ee. As such, there are very few reports in the hadeeth books dealing with the Prophet and "apostasy". Where such reports do exist [if we accept the reports as accurate & complete renderings of the events] we always see it in connection with something else. For example, there's a report that the Prophet executed "apostates" after sending them missionaries, at their request, but the report clearly states that the particular group laid a trap for the Muslim missionaries, killing them and plundering their goods. So, the punishment here was not for apostasy necessarily, but rather for murder.

[D] "Apostasy" was just another word for treason, or rebellion against the authorities. Such is clearly what occurred in the early days of Abu Bakr's rule.

[E] There has been debate for generations about some aspects of all this. For example, a Muslim who recognizes that Allah is One God, and Muhammad is his Prophet, yet prays only on fridays or the 'Eid [which is the case for many today], or, does not pray at all. Many would see such a person as an "apostate". My point being, if a government punishes people for "apostasy", it's going to be very subjective, and in the end accomplish nothing.

[F] Personal conviction and practice is, in the end,the business of the person and God. Unless he or she starts to attack Islam, with the purpose of destroying the UMMAH , we should leave them alone, both as a Muslim state and as individuals.

[G] Because of the logic inherent in Islam, there has historically been very few cases of apostasy. Moreover, in those days, all religious communities saw apostasy as punishable by execution, so it would have been logical for muslims to assume the same, even if never seen or done in their lifetime. It's one of those things people may never really think about because it never happens.

[H] Finally, back to the Qur'an. It tells us "And a party of Ahlil Kitaab asserted among themselves 'proclaim Imaan in that which has been sent to those who believe [meaning, pretend to believe just as Muslims do], in the beginning of the day, and [then proclaim] disbelief [wa akfurooo] in the night, so that hopefully, they [the Muslims] will return back [to Jaahiliyyah, i.e. reject Islam themselves] [La'allahum Yar ji'oon.] "[3:71].

Their plot was simple, this is a reference to Jews here, according to all Mufassireen. They would say the Shahaadah, etc.. and then "give it up", in order to demoralize the naive Muslims, convincing them that Islam was not a worth-while religion. The Qur'an clearly records their plot, something which scholars have acknowledged as well. Such a plot would be unthinkable had the punishment for apostasy [remember, this was in Madinah, where the Prophet was in charge] been the death penalty.

Any reports coming from the time of the Prophet, if we accept as accurate, are clearly with regards to treason, murder etc.. and not because someone was not intellectually convinced that he [Muhammad, 'Alayhis salaatu was salaam] was a Prophet.

Wallaahu A'laam,

wassalaam,
S.Waheed

4 comments:

NB said...

Hello Waheed.

If all you are trying to assert is that Islam does not require the execution of people who leave Islam, then you are not addressing the issue that matters to millions of Muslims.

There are many verses in the Qur'an that address apostasy. One example is Q 3:90. It is clear from this verse and from others that rejecting the message after believing is a very serious transgression in Islam; and in some cases, so serious that "never will their [claimed] repentance be accepted". Q 16:106-108 says "But those who open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great punishment; That is because they preferred the worldly life over the Hereafter and that Allah does not guide the disbelieving people. Those are the ones over whose hearts and hearing and vision Allah has sealed, and it is those who are the heedless."

We should not confuse apostasy, a religious problem, with treason, a political problem. Indeed, we should be careful about throwing the word "treason" around and justifying harsh treatment of those who rebel against the authorities (your point [D]). There are many places in the world today and throughout history when people have risen up against corrupt authorities. Must we side with repressive regimes against social reformers? The USA was founded after such a rebellion.

We must define carefully what kinds of behaviours are transgressions which need to be punished harshly and which are merely differences of attitudes and viewpoints. Denying the Islamic Prophet must be seen as the latter.

The fact that people are only very rarely executed for leaving Islam is not sufficient to satisfy the international community's commitment to freedom of religion. Islam says that there is no compulsion in the Deen, but the reality for Muslims is that the social consequences of renouncing Islam, though not punished by execution, are in fact extremely harsh.

Muslims, particularly in the West, must make it clear that belonging to the religion of Islam and remaining in the religion is a choice that anyone can change at any time, without consequences. Identifying as "this" or as "that" isn't what makes a person who they are, rather it is their character that makes the person.

Islam must strongly affirm that membership in the religion is not a prerequisite for a moral life, but is merely one path which may lead there if followed properly. Some may choose this path or perhaps they may find a better path for themselves, even after starting down the path of Islam.

Blasphemy and apostasy laws violate fundamental human rights and need to be abolished everywhere in the world.

Shamsuddin Waheed said...

Hi NB,

The Quranic verses you cite have no implications in the physical world, but only in the spiritual realm. FURTHER, none of them say a death penalty is required for rejecting Islam.

A careful reading of the reports given in the time of the Prophet, when dealing with those who rejected Islam, shows that those who were punished were punished for other issues, such as murder, robbery and the like. There are also reports of people who accepted and rejected Islam and not having been bothered at all. One man converted to Christianity when in Ethiopia, he eventually died there.

" There are many places in the world today and throughout history when people have risen up against corrupt authorities. Must we side with repressive regimes against social reformers? The USA was founded after such a rebellion"

The issue of political quietism has always been a debated topic in every religious community, indeed, much of European history is filled with the violent response to such sentiments (expressed in being averse to joining military etc).

The original post, written almost a decade ago, argues that so long as those leaving the faith don't enter into rebellious acts, they were to be left alone. However, in the middle ages, "apostate" was seen as synonymous with a traitor. So it's more than simply religious conviction.

Regarding your last three paragraphs, the article argues that the Qur'an in fact does NOT require a death penalty for abandoning the faith, and that they have freedom to accept or deny truth.

NB said...

Hello Waheed. In my very first sentence, I make the point that whether or not the death penalty is required is NOT the point. However, I will point out that to be convincing in your argument, you must address the evidence that the death penalty is required. I have already cited the story of Mu'adh, which is backed up by other Hadith, for example, Muwatta Book 36, Number 36.18.15 and 16. There's a link with texts, too numerous to mention, that support the death penalty https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Apostasy You ignore these in your article.

However, that isn't my point... I'm simply concerned, in today's world, about the case of a person who grew up Muslim and at some point in his life discovers that he does not belief that Muhammad is a prophet. You use words like "rebellious" and "traitor", but the very act of declaring his religious opinion would be viewed as "rebellion" in many places in the world. I have read words of a Sheikh who ruled that apostasy itself is not punishable, however the affirmation of apostasy is punishable. The implications of such a view is startling when you consider the position of a man who no longer believes.

You say people are free to "deny the truth", but you ignore the ramifications of such denial. If there are any consequences, even minor consequences, then are you truly free? What do you imagine would happen to such a person who stood up in a public place in Cairo or Baghdad or Tehran or Mosul or Medina or just about any Muslim place and declared that he no longer believed that Muhammad was a prophet? Would his family and friends accept his apostasy and allow him to move on?

Muhammad's rebellion in Mecca was far more inciteful; he attended at the Ka'aba and "denied the truth" of the Meccan religion even at their temple. He intercepted pilgrims travelling to Mecca to dissuade them from their religion. He made blasphemous pronouncements. He did to others those things that Muslims claim to be too offensive when done to them. But you don't see the parallel. However, the Meccans were decent people and they largely tolerated his religious deviance until the offences became too grave to ignore.

You neither affirm nor deny that blasphemy and apostasy laws in Islam violate fundamental human rights. That tells me much!

NB said...

Waheed, I continue to think about this issue...

As you are an Imam at an Islamic Center, the issue of apostasy within your congregation should be a very real concern. You cannot ignore the fact that some Muslims discover that they no longer believe in Islam. This often happens with young people and the consequences can be serious. You have a role in helping these people and their families. Trying to guide the apostate back to Islam is one possibility, but it won't always be the right answer. You have to accept the possibility that they leave Islam. What then?

Both the apostate and his family are undergoing extreme emotional turmoil. The Islamic "solution" appears to be for the family to sever ties with the apostate. Is this really the best approach? Shouldn't the focus be on restoring the family relationships? Shouldn't the apostate be supported and welcomed to find his own path? Isn't rejection a harmful act against him that can lead to severe depression and even suicide? What kind of a teaching is it that turns its back on a person in such great need?

"Proving" that Muslims aren't required to murder apostates is barely the least you can do to confront this problem. You need to teach your faithful how to tolerate and love those who are guided to a different path. Muslims need to accept that apostates can still be decent people worthy of respect and kindness.