Transcript Apostacy from in pursuit of justice By Maher Hathout etal

Apostasy
from In Pursuit of Justice
By Maher Hathout etal
Despite the fact that the Quran does not once mention the death penalty for apostasy,
jurists have relied on two hadith texts for their argument. The first one states “whoever
changes his religion shall be killed. The second is “It is not lawful to kill a man who is a
Muslim except for one of the three reasons: Kufr (disbelief) after accepting Islam,
fornication after marriage, or wrongfully killing someone, for which he may be killed.”
Notwithstanding the fact that the chain of transmission on the first hadith has been found
to be weak, both of them contradict the Quran and other instances in which the Prophet
(pbuh) did not compel anyone to embrace Islam, nor punish them if they recanted. The
general rule is that a single chain hadith cannot be used to justify capital punishment.
In one incident, the Prophet (pbuh) pardoned Abdullah bin Sa’d, after he renounced
Islam. Abdullah bin Sa’d was one of the people chosen by the Prophet (pbuh) as a
scribe, to write down Quranic text as it was revealed to the Prophet (pbuh). After
spending some time with the Muslims in Medina, he recanted and returned to the
religion of the Quraish. When he was brought before the Prophet (pbuh), Osman bin
Affan pleaded on his behalf, and the Prophet (pbuh) subsequently pardoned Abdullah
bin Sa’d. A second hadith states, “The Prophet said, ‘Whoever swears by a religion
other than Islam, is, as he says’; and …cursing a believer is like murdering him; and
whoever accuses a believer of disbelief, then it is as if he had killed him. The gravity of
mere accusations of disbelief is so great that it is inconceivable that the Prophet (pbuh)
would sanction the actual killing of an individual merely on those grounds.
Another hadith recorded by both Bukhari and Muslim also supports this point. A
Bedouin Arab came to the Prophet (pbuh) and accepted Islam. Then, he became ill
with a fever and the next day asked the Prophet (pbuh) if he could take back his
pledge. He asked three times and was refused each time. The Prophet (pbuh) said
“Medina is like bellows which rejects its dross and retains its purity.” The Bedouin was
allowed to leave unharmed. The refusal to allow the Bedouin to take back his pledge
indicates that a profession of faith is made between the individual and God, and the
Prophet (pbuh) does not retain any right to mediate on behalf of God in that respect.
This includes the fact that no temporal punishment is prescribed for an apostate.
Surah al Nisa – The Women, 4:137 affirms this principle, because it allows room
for both belief and disbelief. “Behold, as far those who came to believe, and then
deny the truth, and again come to believe, and again deny the truth, and
thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of the truth – God will not forgive them,
nor will He guide them in any way.” The reference to repeated acceptances and
rejections of faith indicates that God gives individuals that freedom of conscience
in the first place, and therefore applying the death penalty at the first instance of
disbelief is contrary to God’s Will. Furthermore, the only punishment for rejection
of faith is not of a temporal nature, but comes in the guise of God’s displeasure,
with all its moral implications. The state has no role in this because it cannot know
who professes internal belief or disbelief. Only God has that knowledge.
The same principle is stressed in the following Quranic verses as well. “How would
God bestow His guidance upon people who have resolved to deny the truth after
having attained to faith, and having borne witness that this Apostle is true, and
[after] all evidence of the truth has come unto them? For, God does not guide
such evildoing folk. Their requital shall be rejection by God, and by the angels,
and by all [righteous] men. In this state shall they abide: [and] neither will their
suffering be lightened,, nor will they be granted respite. But excepted shall be
they that afterwards repent and put themselves to rights: for, behold, God is
much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.
Verily, as for those who are bent on denying the truth after having attained to faith,
and then grow [even more stubborn] in their refusal to acknowledge the truth, their
repentance [ of other sins] shall not be accepted: for it is they who have truly gone
astray. Verily, as for those who are bent on denying the truth and die as deniers of the
truth – not all the gold on earth could ever be their ransom. It is they for whom
grievous suffering is in store; and they shall have none to succour them” (Surah al
Imran – The House of Imran, 3:86-91).
“Verily, as for those who will not believe in God’s messages, God does not guide them
aright; and grievous suffering will be their lot [in the life to come]. It is but they who
will not believe in God’s messages that invent this falsehood; and it is they, they who
are lying! As for anyone who denies God after having once attained to faith – and this,
to be sure, does not apply to one who does it under duress, the while his heart
remains true to his faith, but [only to] him who willingly opens up his heart to a denial
of the truth -: upon all such [falls] God’s condemnation, and tremendous suffering
awaits them: and all this, because they hold this world’s life in greater esteem than
the life to come, and because God does not bestow His guidance upon people who
deny the truth. They whose hearts and whose hearing and whose sight God has
sealed – it is they, they who are heedless! Truly it is they, they who in the life to come
shall be the losers!” (Surah al Nahl – The Bee, 16:104-109).
“God has promised those of you who have attained to faith and do righteous
deeds that, of a certainty, He will cause them to accede to power on earth,
even as He cause [some of] those who lived before them to accede to it; and
that, of a certainty, He will firmly establish for them religion which He has
been pleased to bestow on them; and that, of a certainty, He will cause their
erstwhile state of fear to be replaced by a sense of security – [seeing that]
they worship Me [alone], not ascribing divine powers to aught beside Me.
But all who, after [having understood] this, choose to deny the truth- it is
they, they who are truly iniquitous!” (Surah An Nur – The Light, 24:55).
“For, [many are] they [who]say, ‘We believe in God and in the Apostle, and
we pay heed!’ – but then, some of them turn away after this [assertion]: and
these are by no means [true] believers.” (Surah An Nur, 24:47).
Those who choose not to have faith do injustice only to themselves, and are
not punishable by temporal law. “Is there disease in their hearts? Or have
they begun to doubt [that this is a divine write]? Or do they fear that God
and His Apostle might deal unjustly with them?” (Surah An Nur, 24:50).
“Verily, those who turn their backs [on this message] after guidance has
been vouchsafed to them, [do it because] Satan has embellished their
fancies and filled them with false hopes” (Surah Muhammad - Muhammad,
47:25).
All of these verses point out that only God can determine one’s level of faith, and not
other human beings. Yet, there are proponents of capital punishment for apostasy who
base their argument on the juristic view that since the role of sharia is to apply God’s
Will in organizing the affairs of the Muslim community, then a sin against God is also a
transgression against the rights of the community (umma). The sin therefore carries
legal punishment as a crime. This perspective erroneously superimposes the boundaries
defining the religious community upon the boundaries defining the political community.
It is illustrated in the second hadith used by jurists in support of capital punishment for
apostasy, where severing ties to Islam coincides with severing ties to the political
community of Muslims.
Conclusion:
The problem with the argument for punishment for apostasy is that it cannot be applied
in any Islamic state without giving rise to the potential for abuse by the state itself.
Erroneously equating moral with political power in the determination of law has led to
the political repression that we see in Islamic countries today. We must separate the
right of God from that of man in defining freedom of religion as a legal right. The right
of God refers only to the moral obligations of Muslims towards God, and is adjudicated
by God. The state cannot act as a coercive moral authority, in effect representing God’s
Will on earth, because it does not have the right to do so. In the context of freedom of
religion, the state’s responsibility is to uphold and protect it as the right of all humans,
as granted by God, without exercising moral judgment on the content and/or manner of
exercising those religious beliefs.
Blasphemy and Apostasy
We must make a distinction between blasphemy and apostasy. Blasphemy
does not automatically entail apostasy. Blasphemy is intentionally offensive
behavior or speech that contravenes fundamental principles of Islam and
therefore is offensive to Muslims. Apostasy is a clear renunciation of Islam
altogether. Blasphemous actions may not necessarily imply renunciation,
since non-Muslims can also commit blasphemy. Regardless of the definition
though, the state does not have the legal right to punish individuals for
either offense, which are both offenses against the right of God and not of
man.
Religious freedom:
In line with our argument for freedom of belief and worship that has been
detailed in this chapter, it is necessary for the state to allow religious minorities
such the right to practice their faith, as they choose to believe it. It is not for the
state to judge anyone else’s authenticity of faith. All beliefs are subject to debate,
and while we disagree with the dogmas mentioned, God will make that decision
on the Day of Judgment. Furthermore, differences in doctrinal beliefs do not
constitute a basis for differentiation in citizenship rights. All citizens, regardless of
individual faith or belief, have equal civil, political and legal rights in an Islamic
state.
Religious freedom:
Conclusion
The state cannot function as a coercive religious authority and cannot
legally adjudicate on the content of religious belief of its citizens, nor
prevent them from practicing their religion as they wish. All citizens
have the same right to freedom of belief and worship, regardless of
the actual faith they follow.
Evidence drawn from the Quran, hadith, and early Islamic history, all
of which affirms the fundamental equality of all human beings and
religious communities in matters of conscience and religious belief.
Any restriction on either of these by the state transgresses against the
right of God as the Supreme Judge, and ultimately, violates the spirit
of Islam itself.