Freedom of religion is frequently misunderstood by many and this includes the issue on apostasy. The misunderstanding by the public and even in the Muslim community on the concept and legal position of apostasy has negated the image of Islam as a religion of peace. This is not surprising as there are numerous negative allegations upon the religion of Islam such as condemning it as barbaric and incompatible with modernity and human rights. This serious misconception should be rectified and in fact, it is a religious duty for every Muslim to portray a true picture of Islam and to respond to any allegation and negative arguments upon this issue.
In view of this negative phenomenon, this article aims to refine the misconception of apostasy in Islam and attempts to respond to two articles published by New Mandala entitled ‘Apostasy in Malaysia: The hidden view’ by Joshua Woo Sze Zeng and ‘Malaysian Muslims Responses to Conversion’ by Norani Bakar whereby the former heavily relies on the essay written by Abdullah Saeed entitled ‘Freedom of Religion, Apostasy, and Islam’ and online resources and the latter highlights Malaysian Muslims responses to apostasy with reference to the HIMPUN initiative by several non-governmental organisations.
Before presenting my arguments on the issue of apostasy in Islam, it is important to note that ABIM was not involved with the HIMPUN initiative. It is worth to emphasise here that ABIM has been very consistent with its stand to promote healthy discussion, interfaith dialogue and intellectual discourse rather than advocating any confrontation or provocation. With the aim of refining the misconception of apostasy in Islam, the preceding discussion in this article will consist of the position of the law of apostasy in other religions; the position of Islam in guaranteeing the freedom of religion, the limitation on freedom of religion, framework for implementation and finally the concluding remarks.
Apostasy is not unique to Islam only
The offence of apostasy is not unique to Islam and applicable to the Muslim community alone. The other religions such as Christian and Judaism also have their own legal mechanism to resolve problems on apostasy. In fact, both religions clearly declared apostasy as public offense and punishable by law. For instance in Deuteronomy 13:6-11, the stipulated punishment for an offence of apostasy is death penalty. This indicates that apostasy is not unique and exclusive to Islam but other major religions in the world also considers apostasy as a serious offence which is contrary to their basic religious epistemological foundation.
Islam guarantees freedom of religion
Islam is the religion of peace and it protects the basic individual rights and these include freedom of religion. Islam treats freedom of religion as a matter of right. Every individual has the right and free to choose his religion either Islam or any other religions that he likes. This is unconditional freedom guaranteed by Islam. To evidence this, al-Quran strongly repudiates religious coercion as stated in (10:99) “Had your Lord so willed, all the inhabitants of the earth would have accepted faith altogether. Would you then coerce people to become people of faith”. In another verse (2: 256), Allah says “Let there be no coercion in religion.”
Freedom of religion is not absolute
Nevertheless, the situation is different once an individual is a Muslim. The right and freedom of religion is not absolute. As a matter of fact, the notion of absolute freedom is against the principle of natural justice. The freedom of religion should not be abused and any elements of irresponsible religious anarchy that may lead to religious disharmony should not be allowed. This is because Islam considers religious freedom as a matter faith and not as legal or political issues. In this instance, in order to protect the sanctity of this religion, Islam has laid down specific sanction on the matter of apostasy.
Fiqhi issues shall not be the reason of negating the compatibility of Islam with the fundamental right of religious freedom
The difference of opinion amongst the Muslim jurists should not be the reason of baseless allegation on the compatibility of Islamic law with human rights particularly freedom of religion. At this point, Professor Cherif Bassiouni known as the ‘Father of International Criminal Law’ in his article entitled ‘Crimes and Criminal Process’ makes an interesting observation where he concludes that “the basic principles of Islamic criminal justice and the accused’s rights are well articulated and developed in the various jurisprudential schools, and some are more liberal than others. They correspond to many international human rights standards”.
As always happened and in fact it is a natural process to have different views upon any legal or fiqhi issues and this includes the punishment for apostasy. The first school of thought views that apostasy is an offence against the God as well as an act of treachery against the Muslim society. This view has a strong legal basis as it is supported by several Prophet’s traditions including the practice of Prophet’s companions. Interestingly, it is observed that the apostasy was never a real problem for the Muslim community in term of its implementation and theoretical issues as the people executed for apostasy in Islamic history were very few. Muslims as well as non-Muslim community during that time naturally accepted the law on apostasy as a necessary deterrent sanction and it ceases to be unusual or improper.
The opponent of this view on the other hand considers death penalty is not the absolute sanction for apostasy. In arguing this, they raise the issue of reliability of al sunnah that has been made as legal basis for death penalty for apostasy. As Islam does not regard ijtihad as fixed and must be followed, the authority has a freedom to choose either to take the view of the first school of thought or to take a liberal and more flexible approach in resolving the apostasy issues. At this juncture, the authority must take into consideration of all aspects including fiqhi issues, maslahah of the people, and sanctity of the religion as well as the will of Muslim community.
Actually, even if the authority adopts the view that the punishment for apostasy is death penalty, there are strict legal requirements to be complied with either in term of law of evidence or conditions and pillars to convict any wrong doer for apostasy. This is in line with the Prophet’s tradition: “guard against (idra’u) maximum penalties (Hudud) by means of uncertainties (shubuhat)”. For instance, the charge of apostasy can only be established by the testimony of two just witnesses and the prosecutor must clearly specify the nature of apostasy, whether it was through word or deed. The wrong doer can only be penalized for apostasy if the prosecutor can established the case beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the court may only pronounce the judgment after it grants sufficient time for the wrong doer for repentance. In this instance, Islam does not simply provide severe punishment for any offence without imposing strict legal requirements which is in parallel with the universal principles of justice.
Concluding remarks
In the context of globalization and the current phenomenon of human rights activism, the issue of apostasy is actually not a theological or theoretical or fiqhi issues but rather political. It is found that this issue has been heavily politicized as an ideological weapon to get the support of the public particularly by secular humanists including many Western-oriented Muslim intellectual. If the element of politics can be put aside, the apostasy in Islam will not be an issue either in the aspect of human rights or fundamental freedom of an individual. For instance, the report on ‘Human Rights in Islam’ by the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization vividly affirms that Islamic criminal law including law on apostasy has an inherent body of law for preventing crime and thereby protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people.
The preceding discussion concludes that Islam has a strong and solid theoretical and epistemological foundation for apostasy. The issue on apostasy does not negate the compatibility of Islam with human rights and in fact, Islam strongly protects fundamental freedom of the people. The debate and arguments on the law of apostasy in Islam is often superficial, marked by political intentions as well as religious prejudices. As a consequence, unnecessary issues and arguments are discussed and the key elements of such a debate are neglected and finally lead to confusion and misconception. The only mean we need to resolve this issue is an honest scholarly-led debate based on facts, textual injunctions analyses and focused on the real issues rather than blindly beating around the bush.
Dr. Zulkifli Hasan is Deputy Chairman, International Affairs Bureau of Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM – Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia)
This article is part of a series of articles under the theme, “Faith in Malaysia.”
19 responses so far ↓
1 Joshua Woo // Dec 18, 2011 at 2:53 am
Thank you for sharing your insight, Zulkifli.
I would like to inquire if there is a typo in this sentence of yours: “The difference of opinion amongst the Muslim jurists should not be the reason of baseless allegation on the compatibility of Islamic law with human rights particularly freedom of religion.”
Do you mean “incompatibility” instead of “compatibility” in the above sentence?
Quality comment or not?
17 
1
2 Siti Kasim // Dec 18, 2011 at 7:03 am
QUESTIONS TO ZULKIFLI:
1) What is to be made of a religion that forbids a man to think and choose for himself? In effect, Islam is a type of religious slavery. “Leave Islam, and you die”.
2) How does this mental bondage affect society, and its ability to provide for its people?
3) Leaving Islam doesn’t necessarily mean a person is now at war with his people. Isn’t it possible for a person who is born a Muslim to serve his country, and do no harm to its people?
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
51 
3
3 Singam // Dec 18, 2011 at 9:50 am
I have read and re-read the article but am still unable to arrive at a definitive answer.
In a land where everyone is Muslim and one who is not Muslim could be viewed as an enemy, I can understand the need for execution as an appropriate remedy, even if I don’t accept it.
But in a plural society such as Malaysia, where Muslims have not just non-Muslim friends but also non-Muslim family members, how does one countenance a non-Muslim being an enemy? And why would one who chooses to leave Islam become an enemy?
If the person is not an enemy, how is the Ummah threatened that they should seek to execute him?
If a person has decided that he no longer wishes to submit to the will of Allah, is that not a matter between him and Allah? Why should man interfere?
If a person decides that the manner in which Islam is being practiced by the Ummah is contrary to what he understands of Qur’an and therefore he chooses to leave that community and follow his own path, who is to say that he is wrong? Is it not proper to let Allah, who knows all, decide what to do with that person?
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
46 
3
4 R. N. England // Dec 18, 2011 at 11:39 am
Dr Hasan, in his roundabout way, has succeeded in reminding us that his religion is a prison.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
5 Neptunian // Dec 18, 2011 at 8:10 pm
verse (2: 256), Allah says “Let there be no coercion in religion.”
I really like this verse. If Allah said that, then all you practitioners of Islam are going against Allah’s words by forcing death upon those who choose not to believe anymore.
It is a simple statement. There is no need for further interpretation. DO NOT twist Allah’s words.
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
45 
1
6 Adam // Dec 18, 2011 at 11:58 pm
Thank you for taking the time and effort in writing the article which could be summarised as follows:-
- Apostasy was an offense according to other religions such as Christianity and Judaism. Question: is it still considered an offense now?
- Islam guarantees the “unconditional” freedom to choose any religion. This is acceptable but…
- Freedom from religion is not absolute once one becomes a Muslim. In other words, a person who believes in any religion other than Islam has absolute and unconditional freedom to opt in or opt out of any religion but a Muslim has no absolute freedom to opt out? How could this be right and sensible?
Your reason that Islam considers it an offense holds no water. It is like you wanting to migrate to another country but you present country considers this as an insult and would not let you go and even imprison you. How do you like that? Your wife wants to divorce you but you consider it as an insult to your manhood and you would not let her go and even punish her. Would you do that?
Religion may be about the divine but no God worth believing would impose such a condition. Just as no loving parents would punish their children who want to leave the family. They could only persuade them to stay and if they still insist, would provide support and ensure their safety.
Please reconsider your stance.
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
42 
0
7 Siti Kasim // Dec 19, 2011 at 12:07 am
Dear Neptunian,
I wish it is that simple. The problem is the mainstream views and interpretation on Islam is far from palatable and it is practiced in all of the Muslim countries save for Turkey, for now. I have always said to Muslim apologists that a religion cannot speak for itself and it is spoken only through the behaviour and the rituals of its followers. I have yet to see the views and interpretation by these Muslim apologists to materialise.
This aspect of Islam portrays one of its most ugly sides – i.e. the murder of those who think for themselves. Look today at the Islamic world, we see it backwards, regressive, and primitive. The poor people who have grown up into Islam, who have had to adopt this dark system, are kept in bondage. It is no wonder that their countries continue to regress since freedom of thought, freedom of creativity, freedom of expression is stifled. We see the Muslim states falling further behind the rest of the world in areas like education, science, and the arts. The more Islamic a state becomes, the farther it regresses.
If what you are saying is true, show it to me, where in the world that practices such an interpretation?
Siti
Highly rated. Quality comment or not?
37 
0
8 Joshua Woo // Dec 19, 2011 at 1:10 am
I re-read this interesting article and find that Zulkifli Hasan needs to clarify what he meant by the following confusing statement in the ‘Concluding remarks’:
“The preceding discussion concludes that Islam has a strong and solid theoretical and epistemological foundation for apostasy.”
Is Zulklifi saying that his article has built a strong case for Muslims to apostatize from Islam should they choose to?
If this is the case, then it outright contradicts what he has written under the section “Freedom of religion is not absolute”:
“…in order to protect the sanctity of this religion, Islam has laid down specific sanction on the matter of apostasy.”
Look forward to read his clarification.
Quality comment or not?
14 
0
9 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Dec 19, 2011 at 7:06 am
@ Neptunian
Unfortunately, it is not as simple as you state. Within the Qu’ran, several passages seems to contradict each other. To address this, Muhammad developed the doctrine of abrogation, i.e. verse that were written in Mecca are canceled out by verses written in Medina.
The Medinan verses have this to say about apostasy:
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is : execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land : that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter ; Sura 5:33
But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith,- never will their repentance be accepted ; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray. Sura 3:90
Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith – but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty. Sura 16:106
Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way. Sura 4:137
This view is further reinforced in the Hadith:
Narrated Ikrima: Some Zanakiqa (atheists) were brought to Ali; and he burnt them. The news of this event reached Ibn Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Messenger forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Messenger: ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’” al-Bukhari 6922
Abu Qilaba al-Jarmi related that Anas said, “A group from ‘Ukl came to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and became Muslim. They disliked Madina and the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, ordered them to go out to the zakat camels and drink their milk and urine. They did that and then regained their health. Then they apostatised and killed the herdsman and stole the camels. The Prophet sent [some people] in pursuit of them and they were brought and their hands and feet were cut off and their eyes gouged out and then they were not cauterised until they died.” al-Bukhari 6417
Abd-Allah ibn Masood said : The Messenger of Allah said : “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, except in one of three cases : a soul (in case of murder) ; a married person who commits adultery ; and one who leaves his religion and separates from the main body of Muslims.” Al Bukhari number 6484 and Sahih Muslim number 1676
etc.
That having been established, the question is who is eligible to determine whether someone has apostatized or not (called Takfir in Islam). The general view is that only a recognized Islamic scholar has the ability to practice Takfir; however, a growing movement known as the Takfiri argue that a Muslim can declare Takfir themselves, and is thus free to indulge in the violent punishments proscribed in the Medinan verses. The followers of Sayyid Qutb, a founding member of the Muslim Brotherhood (of whom Anwar Ibrahim is an well-known member), often argue from a Takfiri viewpoint.
It is worth noting that the author of this post, Dr. Zulkifi Hasan received two of his degrees and is currently faculty at the Islamic Science University of Malaysia, one of four Islamic Science centers established by Dr. Muhammad Abdul Rauf, another early founding member of the Muslim Brotherhood and radical Takfiri. That Dr. Zulkifi fails to mention the doctrine of Medinan abrogation, nor discuss the influnce of the Takfiri on the current Islamic viewpoint on apostasy leads me to believe that people like him are some of the biggest obstacles in the “honest scholarly-led debate based on facts, textual injunctions analyses and focused on the real issues rather than blindly beating around the bush.”
Quality comment or not?
25 
2
10 Peter Ho // Dec 19, 2011 at 11:52 am
One of the point raised by a commentator, who are to say who has the authority to proclaim the alleged apostate is guity and must be sentenced to death. Is status a good guide? A professor? One with a doctorate?
Dr. Riduan Tee’s essays and opinions leave a lot to be desired. Many of the Malaysian judges whether sitting or ex do not and did not convince the world with their findings and judgements.
If Buang Mokhtar committed khawat and caught in the situation by a thieve, the allegation by the thieve is the truth, do we then because of the withness is a thieve and dismiss the incident as not believable?
Come January 9 when the judge pronounce that DSAI is indeed guilty as charged. How many of us are going to believe that? No? you mean even the YAB judge’s words cannot be trusted, wasn’t Saiful a credible witness? He even dare to swear on the Koran in a mosque!!!
Who are you then to pronounce that I deserve the death sentence because I am an apostate? Can you swear that you have never committed any sin throughout you life, whether great or small?
Quality comment or not?
8 
0
11 Friend of Bolehland // Dec 19, 2011 at 12:22 pm
sancity of religion is absolutely good. but many bolehlanders were not given the right to choose. it’s enshrined in the constitution, what they must profess and if apotasy is not permitted, their own choice is to leave bolehland to seek reconciliation with their Creator they choose to believe in other than what was casted in stone under the law.
if Malaysia believes in freedom of religion, let the young ones choose when they mature. no turning back after that, an act which blemishes the religion. but for sake of righteousness and freedom, let them choose or not to choose when they attain majority. Only then apotasy laws will be regarded as fair.
By all means, for blemishing a religion, damn these fellas (if it’s death, so be it). but ensure, at all times, they have, at least once in a life time, a choice. A chance to choose what they want to profess.
Quality comment or not?
9 
0
12 Ridzwan // Dec 19, 2011 at 1:33 pm
There is not a single statement in the Quran that so much as suggests that the punishment for apostasy is death. Many Muslim jurists reject the death penalty for apostasy.
Mahmud Shaltut, the late Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University argued that a worldly punishment for apostasy was not mentioned in the Qur’an and whenever it mentions apostasy it speaks about a punishment in the hereafter.
The Grand Mufti of Cairo, Sheikh Ali Gomaa have stated that while God will punish apostates in the afterlife they should not be executed by human beings.
S. A. Rahman, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, argues that there is no indication of the death penalty for apostasy in the Quran.
Quality comment or not?
9 
2
13 rfoo // Dec 19, 2011 at 1:47 pm
The issue is NOT:
– whether other religions punish for apostasy
– whether apostasy from Islam has been politicised by some people (it may well have been, but that’s not the issue);
– whether the proper punishment for apostasy from Islam is death or some lesser punishment, according to the one or the other school of thought;
– whether strict legal requirements have been complied with in order to prove such an apostasy has occurred, or whether those requirements themselves conform with human rights.
The only real issue is whether a Muslim who clearly wishes to apostasise may freely do so, without being subject any punishment at all. Anything less than that is squarely incompatible with an individual’s freedom of religion. Dr Zulkifli’s article fails to justify this incompatibility.
Quality comment or not?
17 
0
14 Arthur // Dec 19, 2011 at 2:08 pm
When the writer mentioned about Deuteronomy 13:6-11, he failed to apply it in true Christian context. Remember, when a Christian read a bible, he must always read them in both Old Testament (Prophets prior to Christ) and New Testament (Christ’s Teaching) context. Christians like me believe that Christ is the fulfillment of the scripture, so, by failing to contextualize the content of Deuteronomy 13:6-11 with Christ’s Teaching, it is quite immature to conclude that Christians ‘clearly declared apostasy as public offense and punishable by law..’ and that ‘…the stipulated punishment for an offence of apostasy is death penalty.’
So, my honest advice, even if the writer is clearly not a Christian, it is important to consider the New Testament verses first, above all else, whenever the writer wanted to discuss about Christian’s Doctrine (in order to avoid misleading information). Remember, a glass of white creamy liquid is not necessarily be a glass of milk.
Quality comment or not?
13 
1
15 gua // Dec 19, 2011 at 2:17 pm
I have always said to Muslim apologists that a religion cannot speak for itself and it is spoken only through the behaviour and the rituals of its followers.
====
Well said Siti, no point telling how beautiful is Islam when what its followers conduct shows the opposite. Intellectual discourse only ends up on the dusty shelf of the libraryies.
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
16 zigger // Dec 19, 2011 at 3:14 pm
The author said that apostasy is not unique to Islam and go on to cite the O.T. Do you see any death sentence for apostasy today in Christianity. None. That was in the O.T. and for the Jews only at that time. But Islam still practices death sentence for apostasy in Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other muslim countries.
I find the author is beating around the bush but did not want to come outright with what he is trying to say. He wants to say that apostasy is compatible with human rights. You can’t have both.
It is very clear cut. Only God can punish a person, it is not for human to decide another person’s fate, even in apostasy. To you it may be apostasy, to another it may not be. Who knows in his heart, he is constantly praying to God but not in the way you do it or the ritual you perform. Only God sees all. There are people who perform all the correct ritual but got not substance. It is in form only perform for others to see, but is corrupted. Another may not perform all the correct rituals, but their hearts are right with God and not corrupt but is clean.
Quality comment or not?
15 
0
17 Reckoning the peace/violence ambiguity in the apostasy debate // Dec 20, 2011 at 4:50 am
[...] Hasan’s article ‘Refining the misconception of apostasy in Islam’ attempts to demonstrate that the ‘peace’ of Islam as he understands it does not contradict [...]
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
18 VRM // Dec 21, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Where is the rifinement? Where is clarity? The author perhaps wants to assert that punishment for apostasy is no hindrance in provision of human rights! How is that, how can human rights be complete without freedom of conscience? I am sorry to say, but I must, that the author has justified the allegation,” supremacist” when he pushes the point that followers of other religions may have the absolute freedom of religion but not followers of Islam. sorry, a pathetic attempt, no points proven.
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
19 devann // Dec 22, 2011 at 1:05 am
Reading the comments, it is clear that Zulkifli failed miserably with his crooked arguments to convince the readers. Fortunately he is not debating with Wafa Sulltan, Ali Sina and the likes. He would be torn to shreds.
Quality comment or not?
5 
0
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.