DOWNLOAD PDF RETHINKING CLASSICAL MUSLIM LAW OF APOSTASY AND THE DEATH PENALTY BY ABDULLAH SAEED

Transcription

1 Chapter 1 : Apostasy_in_Islam : definition of Apostasy_in_Islam and synonyms of Apostasy_in_Islam (Eng In Chapter Fifteen, "Rethinking Classical Muslim Law of Apostasy and the Death Penalty," Abdullah Saeed - some of whose writings have been banned in his native Maldives -argues that current human rights discourse is not Western but is shared by many Muslims. And in the Muwatta of Imam Malik one finds: Umar asked after various people, and he informed him. A man has become a kafir after his Islam. I was not present and I did not order it and I am not pleased since it has come to me! For example, here the phrase "one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims" is changed to "one who goes forth to fight Allah and His Apostle": In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam apostate and leaves the Muslims. The reason to kill an apostate is only with the intent to eliminate the danger of war, and not for the reason of his disbelief. The punishment of disbelief is far greater with God. Therefore, only such an apostate shall be killed who is actively engaged in war; and usually it is a man, and not a woman. For the same reason, the Holy Prophet has forbidden to kill women. And for this very reason, an apostate female could be killed if she in fact instigates and causes war by her influence and armed force at her disposal. She is not killed because of her apostasy, but for her creating disorder through war on earth. At a human rights conference at Mofid University in Qom, Araki stated that "if an individual doubts Islam, he does not become the subject of punishment, but if the doubt is openly expressed, this is not permissible. Execution of a Moroccan Jewess Sol Hachuel a painting by Alfred Dehodencq Proselytization and apostasy of Muslims to leave Islam and join another religion is considered a religious crime by many writers. If he does not regret, he will be killed according to rights and obligations of the Islamic law. Apostates who are men must be killed, states the Hanafi Sunni fiqh, while women must be held in solitary confinement and beaten every three days till they recant and return to Islam. Both men and women apostates deserve death penalty according to the traditional view of Sunni Maliki fiqh. After the wait, execution is the traditional recommended punishment for both men and women apostates. Execution is traditional recommended punishment for both genders of Muslim apostates. Male apostates must be executed, states the Jafari fiqh, while a female apostate must be held in solitary confinement till she repents and returns to Islam. This principle was upheld "even in extreme situations", such as when an offender adopts Islam "only for fear of death", based on the hadith that Muhammad had upbraided a follower for killing a raider who had uttered the shahada. In case the apostate is not executed, such as in case of women apostates in Hanafi school, the person also loses all inheritance rights. The Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi also called for different punishments between the non-seditious religious apostasy and that of seditious and political nature, or high treason. Abu Hanifa and his followers refused the death penalty for female apostates, supporting imprisonment until they re-embrace Islam. Hanafi scholars maintain that a female apostate should not be killed because it was forbidden to kill women under Sharia. He wrote, "Apostasy is not what gets one killed. While he initially faced the death penalty, he was eventually released as he was deemed mentally unfit to stand trial. Your religion was your ethnicity, your culture, and your social identity Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject it: How uncomfortable a couch to recline on! See ye if it be that I have a Clear Sign from my Lord, and that He hath sent Mercy unto me from His own presence, but that the Mercy hath been obscured from your sight? He further states that moderates consider the verse 2: He concludes that moderates do not believe that there is any punishment that attaches to apostasy. Rahman states "that not only is there no punishment for apostasy provided in the Book but that the Word of God clearly envisages the natural death of the apostate. At this point, what is punished is the action of ridiculing the high moral flavour of Islam and posing a threat to public order. Otherwise, Islam prohibits spying on people and investigating their private lives, beliefs and personal opinions. Montazeri defines different types of apostasy; he argues that capital punishment should be reserved for those who desert Islam out of malice and enmity towards the Muslim community, and not those who convert to another religion after investigation and research. For example, the Ridda wars civil wars of Page 1

2 apostasy shook the Muslim community in AD, immediately after the death of Muhammad. Originally it referred to a dualist and also the Manichaeans, whose religion for a time threatened to become the dominant religion of the educated class and who experienced a wave of persecutions from to A history of those times states: He was the first Caliph to order composition of polemical works to in refutation of Freethinkers and other heretics; and for years he tried to exterminate them absolutely, hunting them down throughout all provinces and putting accused persons to death on mere suspicion. However heresy and atheism expressed in public may well be considered a scandal and a menace to a society; in some societies they are punishable, at least to the extent the perpetrator is silenced. In particular, blasphemy against God and insulting Muhammad are major crimes. In the 8th century, apostates of Islam were killed in West Asia and Sind. Page 2

3 Chapter 2 : Abdullah Saeed (professor) - Wikipedia Abdullah Saeed is an Australian academic and "Rethinking Classical Muslim Law of Apostasy and the Death Penalty" in Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes. One of the most authoritative and influential definitions of religious freedom comes from Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms that: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Such a comprehensive understanding of religious liberty is essential for civil peace and prosperity in multicultural and pluralistic societies. Those modern, secular countries that can secure religious freedom for all citizens through rule of law and civic toleration are more stable and successful because they are able to bring together, on the same level playing field, a range of competing faith groups and worldviews that may have little in common philosophically or theologically. When societies restrict religious liberty, the result quite often is intolerance and increased societal tensions which may eventually boil over. Muslims and non-muslim believers alike understand the importance of freedom for fulfilling their obligations to God and for the expression of their respective faiths. Still, many Muslims feel uneasy with contemporary understandings of religious liberty, and some reject it entirely. Islamic tradition is much more restrictive of religious liberty than modern norms, and this tradition still carries great weight and authority among the majority of Muslims today. Traditionally, religious communities have tended to perceive faith as a competition for members or adherents, and many Muslims fear that calls for religious liberty are actually calls for Muslims to convert to other religions particularly Christianity. A great number of Muslims also worry that embracing religious liberty will lead to the destruction or weakening of Muslim identity and community. In addition to these pervasive cultural attitudes, the individual right to freedom of religion, thought and conscience is today severely constrained by many governments in Muslim-majority societies. At the same time, the use of political authority to control religious belief is widely seen as legitimate in these countries. Likewise, various Islamist movements also oppose religious liberty as they strive to impose their own worldview in pursuit of political power. These combined pressures can be seen in the spreading intolerance and worsening sectarian conflict both among different Muslim populations and between them and other religious groups. Because of these realities, many Muslims and non-muslims have concluded that Islam is essentially opposed to modern ideas about religious liberty. This conclusion, however, is mistaken. There is, in fact, a great range of teachings within Islam and its traditions about religious liberty as it pertains to society and individuals. And whoever errs only errs against it. Adam and Eve are said to have been given free will, and it was through this which God tested them. They failed their first test, but in Islamic belief their failure did not lead to the fall of the human race. It is one of the reasons humans were created. In fact, many Muslims believe that free will bestowed by God is what gives humankind a higher place in the order of creation. In recognition of this, God gave humankind the intellect and ability to discern between right and wrong. Many verses stress that all human beings are free to believe or not to believe in God or in a particular religion. This choice is also about individual responsibility: What this means is that salvation, like belief itself, is an individual effort, not a collective or community matter. There shall be no coercion in matters of faith. Distinct has now become the right way from [the way of] error: Affirming this, Ibn Qudamah d. It is not permissible to compel a disbeliever into professing Islam. Correct faith al-iman al-sahih only comes from individual certitude and conviction. It clearly denounces practices and attitudes that are based on the blind adherence of ancestral precedents instead of independent thought or personal conviction Q 2: It encourages Muslims to use courteous advice, sound reasoning, and elegant persuasion rather than hostility or physical aggression in spreading Islam. This is also evident in the example of the Prophet Muhammad. We can moreover see that Prophet Muhammad supported the idea of free choice when it came to religious belief and practice. In Mecca and Page 3

4 Medina, the Prophet showed a great deal of tolerance towards other religious communities. They were allowed to manifest and practice their religions and even to govern their lives by their own religious rules and values. Muslims were encouraged not to abuse or slander those of other faithsâ including even idolaters, whose beliefs were the antithesis of Islam. One of the articles of this document states that: To the Jews their religion din and to the Muslims their religion. Yet despite this, the real-world prospects for religious liberty in many Muslim-majority countries are bleak. Although most of these countries do not officially sanction punishment for apostasy and heresy, several of themâ including Kingdom of Saudi Arabiaâ still do. These governments claim their power on the basis of Islam. Similarly, various Islamist movements also use Islam to impose their own ideological worldview and to promote intolerance and sectarian violence. It is true that some hadith support the death penalty for apostasy, and other hadith restrict religious freedom in other ways. However, these hadith are sayings which Muslim tradition has over time ascribed to the Prophet Muhammad; importantly, they are not necessarily the same as the actual actions of the Prophet. These people questioned how the Prophet could possibly have travelled to Jerusalem and then back to Mecca in one night, as the journey typically took weeks. Similarly, some Muslims migrated to Christian Abyssinia when the persecution they experienced in Mecca because of their Islamic beliefs became unbearable, and later converted to Christianity. However, none were put to death. There is no evidence that the Prophet orderedthe killing of any person simply because of a change in faith. By and large, they set down a range of restrictions on religious freedom and assigned penalties for flouting these prohibitions. The most obvious of these is the hadith that states: These hadith are routinely used today to bolster the argument that the appropriate punishment for conversion from Islam is death. However, some of these traditions are considered weak and unreliable and too general, and it is therefore difficult to use them as evidence in support of a death penalty for apostasy. Initially, these prohibited the use of foul language with respect to Prophet Muhammad sabb al-rasul, although this was later extended to include foul language about God sabb Allah, any of the angels, or about other prophets. Anyone using this kind of language was considered a grave sinner. In some cases, non-muslims were also executed for committing blasphemous offences. Moreover, heresy was banned. Some scholars came to believe that such heretical beliefs should also be punished by death. The transgression of religious hypocrisy dates back to the time of the Prophet. It warns Muslims that hypocrites are a danger to the Muslim community. One verse commands the Prophet to engage in jihad against any hypocrites and unbelievers who are engaged in hostilities; other verses warned them of punishment in hell. It is important to understand the context in which these rules governing religious life were developed and propagated. During the Umayyad and early Abbasid periods 8th to the 10th centuries CE, Islam was rapidly expanding and the Muslim community began to experience political power as they brought more and more non-muslim lands and communities under their rule. In part because of this, the great Muslim empire-builders began to grapple with novel issues about how to both establish their rule and remain true to Islam in multi-cultural and multi-confessional polities. As empires expanded and Muslims came into contact with new peoples and religions, Muslim scholars began to grapple with how to define mainstream Islamic belief and they faced growing political and intellectual pressures to determine Islamic positions on a range of issues. Not all jurists thought this way, however. Some jurists, for example, argued that Muslims needed to distinguish between those non-muslims who came under Muslim rule through treaties or other agreements and those who fought against the Muslim state and came under Islamic rule by force. In time, the idea of religious belief would become strongly connected with the idea of the superiority of Islam. As more and more scholars sought to differentiate between Muslims and others at a theological level, restrictions such as blasphemy and heresy began to emerge. As such, the many practical issues that Muslims dealt with during this period of Islamic expansion and while governing multi-confessional empires later became religiously sanctioned practices concerning non-muslims and their religious liberty. In these ways, the rules governing religious life developed by Muslim jurists in the classical era differ considerably from religious liberty as it is widely understood today. Religious liberty and the restrictions on it that were developed centuries ago to suit that particular period in time were a reflection of various factors that Page 4

5 emerged from the context in which the jurists lived. However, not all the positions within classical jurisprudence on religious liberty were the same. In fact, there is a considerable range of opinion among the classical jurists. Each jurist had his own legal and theological views, reasoning and rulings. This diversity and the remarkable fluidity within Islam over time should be recognized. It should also be seen as a blessing in disguise, because within Islamic Tradition there can be found positions which are less restrictive of religious freedom as well as reasoning which can be used to support contemporary conceptions of religious liberty. Fostering Religious Liberty in Muslim Societies In large part because of the political and religious realities of the classical era, a variety of traditions in Islam came to embrace rather restrictive notions of religious liberty. But such limited understandings of religious liberty do not necessarily have to be the Islamic understandings. Moreover, circumstances also change. Our contemporary social, political, cultural, and intellectual context is driving humankind toward greater freedom, not less. To succeed and live well in this era, Muslims need an updated Islamic understanding of religious liberty that is in line with the contemporary understanding and expectations. How, then, can we foster a more modern and comprehensive understanding of religious liberty in Muslim societies? There are a number of possible strategies. First, Muslim thinkers and scholars must be wary of blind imitation of received practice and instead dig deep into their own traditions to rediscover and engage the wealth of insights that these traditions offer. This means examining the texts, interpretations, rulings and practices that have accumulated over many centuries, and particularly during the first three centuries of Islam, to see what resources exist within these traditions to support a contemporary understanding of religious liberty. As previously discussed, the diversity of Islamic Tradition means that there are resources within it that can be revived in support of modern religious liberty while remaining faithful to Islam. As one example, the contemporary Egyptian thinker Muhammad Salim al-awa introduces an element of legal flexibility in the body of traditional juristic opinion which holds that apostasy, for instance, should be punished with death. This difference matters, because if the punishment is prescribed, then it at least in theory cannot be changed, but if it is a discretionary punishment, it can be changed in agreement with principles developed in Islamic law. By applying this legal methodology, al-awa provides an opening for scholars to remain faithful to Islam while moving away from the long-held position that apostasy is punishable by death. Second, contemporary Muslims need to closely examine the foundations of the restrictions on religious liberty that exist in Islamic Tradition and determine whether these are essential to Islam or not. If these restrictions are shown to be derived from and contingent on historical context, then work can be done to counter the assumption that these restrictions are an essential part of Islam. Indeed, as I have suggested, when the diverse and historically fluid traditions of Islam are examined more carefully, key restrictions on religious liberty may be found to have little solid basis in Islamic scripture, the authentic sayings, or the practices of the Prophet Muhammad and the pious generations of early Islam. Many Muslim scholars today, in fact, are coming to such conclusions. It may be said by way of conclusion that apostasy was a punishable offence in the early years of the advent of Islam due to its subversive effects on the nascent Muslim community and state. Third, Muslim and non-muslim thinkers need to identify and highlight the far-reaching political, economic, and social consequences that restrictions on religious liberty have in Muslim-majority countries. It is necessary to describe how these restrictions adversely impact the growth and development of these societies, intellectually and otherwise, and how this lack of freedom detrimentally affects the lives of both Muslims and non-muslims. The reality today is that most Muslim-majority countries use restrictions on religious liberty to curtail other freedoms, such as the freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Page 5

6 Chapter 3 : Abdullah Saeed - theinnatdunvilla.com "Rethinking Classical Muslim Law of Apostasy and the Death Penalty." in Silenced: How Apostasy & Blasphemy Codes Are Choking Freedom Worldwide., pp. In English and Arabic. Other issues. Whatsapp There are two Islamic reforms that are urgently needed: Both reforms, crucially, must be supported by an Islamic argument to make them acceptable to Muslims. Let me deal with these in turn. The problem of apostasy and the principle of freedom The imposition of the death penalty for apostasy and related offences is not unique to Islam - it existed in Judaism and Christianity, and was widely practiced under the latter in the mediaeval period. Yet these notions have been effectively eliminated from any current Jewish or Christian discourse, and there is no possibility of imposing the death penalty for these crimes in the modern context of these societies. In contrast, such punishments remain entrenched in Islamic jurisprudence and those found guilty of these offences can still be sentenced to death in countries like Pakistan and Sudan. The more pressing question, I believe, is not how Islamic societies can "catch up" with their Jewish and Christian counterparts in this regard, but rather how Islamic jurisprudence can be revised as an internal Islamic imperative. How, in other words, can traditional notions of apostasy be seen as incompatible with the Islamic conception of religious freedom, rather than as contrary to international human rights norms which some Muslims regard as impositions from Western countries? The Arabic word riddah, commonly translated as apostasy, literally means to "turn back. The vast majority of classical Muslim scholars agree that once a person becomes a Muslim by his or her free choice, there is no way by which he or she can change religion. According to such scholars, ways in which riddah may occur include denial of the existence of God or the attributes of God, denial of a particular messenger of God, denial of a principle that is established as a matter of religion such as the obligation to pray five times a day or fast during the month of Ramadan, declaring prohibited what is manifestly permitted halal, or declaring permitted what is manifestly prohibited haram. But since some of these issues have always been the subject of significant and persistent disagreement among Muslim scholars, it is difficult to establish the definitive and categorical view by which all other views are to be judged. Moreover, apostasy is said to apply whenever a person is deemed to have reverted from Islam, by an intentional or blasphemous belief, act or utterance. For instance, the first category is supposed to include: It would therefore logically follow that where there is no consensus on an issue, apostasy is not possible on that count. Yet, as a matter of fact, there is no consensus on many of the issues included in the list of various scholars and schools. For example, verse 4: Obviously, many heresies simply perish and disappear, but there is no orthodoxy that was not a heresy when it started. From this perspective, every religious community should safeguard the psychological and social as well as legal possibility of heresy and disagreement among its members, because that is the best indicator of the honesty and authenticity of the beliefs and practice within that community. Believers must always remain within their religious community completely voluntarily or leave by their free choice - there is simply no value for any purpose in coerced religious belief or practice. Unfortunately, the harsh legal consequences of failure to respect freedom of religion and confusion and fluidity over the concepts and terms used to suppress this freedom in the Islamic context are far from theoretical or historical. For example, members of the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan were considered a religious minority within Islam, governed by Muslim personal law in the area of family law, allowed to contest elections as Muslims and to assume public office reserved for Muslims. In, the Government of Prime Minister Zulfiqar Bhutto amended Article of the Constitution of Pakistan in order to declare all Ahmadiyyas non-muslims, thereby denying them all the legal benefits of being classified as Muslims. Since the rationalization of such persecution is alleged to be "Islamic," it is therefore necessary to challenge such violations of freed of religion from the same Islamic perspective. These issues should be taken as matters of freedom of conscience, rather than capital crimes. But that possibility of re-interpretation must begin with a clear acknowledgement of the traditional position, despite all its ambiguities and contradictions. An Islamic Page 6

7 reform methodology that I find to be appropriate for achieving the necessary degree of reform is that proposed by Ustadh Mahmoud Mohamed Taha. The individual and collective orientations of Muslims today, I believe, are probably different from those of earlier generations because of the radical transformation of existential and material circumstances of today compared to those of the past. While some individual Muslims may still choose to advocate traditional notions of community and conditionality of rights, the reality of the pluralistic national and international political communities of today support entitlement to freedom of belief as a human right rather than a conditional right of membership of a religious community. If the benefits of freedom of belief are available only to believers who are accepted as such, what is the rationale for having a right to freedom of belief at all? The right to freedom of belief is needed, and can be claimed, only by nonbelievers and believers who are not accepted as such by the community in question. I, as a Muslim, need a secular state and the protection of my freedoms of speech and religion, along with other human rights, in order to be a Muslim by choice and conviction, which is the only valid way of being a Muslim. In other words, given the wide diversity of opinion among classical scholars and schools of thought, enacting any of those principles as positive law will have to select among competing views that are regarded as equally legitimate from an Islamic perspective. Since that selection will be made by whoever happens to be in control of the state, the outcome will be political, rather than religious as such. It is counterproductive because it will necessarily deny some Muslims their religious freedom of choice among those views. What I am calling for is the institutional separation of religion and the state, while recognizing and regulating the unavoidable connectedness of religion and politics - not only because religious values invariably influence political behaviour, but also in order to enable them to do so through the democratic process, just as non-believers may seek to advance their philosophical or ideological views. Mediating this tension between the need to separate religion from the state despite the connectedness of religion and politics can take place through the distinction between the state and politics. The state should be the more settled and deliberate operational side of self-governance, while politics is the dynamic process of making choices among competing policy options. The state and politics may be seen as two sides of the same coin, but they cannot and should not be completely fused into each other. It is necessary to ensure that the state is not simply a complete reflection of daily politics because it must be able to mediate and adjudicate among competing views of policy, which require it to remain relatively independent from different political forces in society. Still, complete independence of state and politics is not possible because those who control the state come to power and keep it through politics, whether by means of a democratic process or not. In other words, officials of the state will always act politically in implementing their own agenda and maintaining the allegiance of those who support them. The critical need to separate state and religion, while regulating the interconnectedness of religion and politics, requires that proposed policy or legislation must be founded on what I call "civic reason," which consists of two elements: I would also emphasize that the operation of civic reason in the negotiation of the relationship of religion and the state should be safeguarded by principles of constitutionalism, human rights and citizenship. The consistent and institutional application of these principles ensures the ability of all citizens equally and freely to participate in the political process, and protects them against discrimination on such grounds as religion or belief. With the protection provided by such safeguards, citizens will be more likely to contribute to the formulation of public policy and legislation, including objection to proposals made by others, in accordance with the requirements of civic reason. Religious believers, including Muslims, can make proposals emerging from their religious beliefs, provided they are also presented to other on the basis of reasons they can accept or reject. The access of citizens to civic reason debates will vary according to the differences in their socio-economic status, political experience or ability to maximize use of resources, to build alliances and so forth. But such factors are reasons for more fair and inclusive application of the principle, rather than for abandoning it. With greater appreciation for the value and credibility of the civic reason process itself, religious believers will have more opportunity for promoting their religious beliefs through the regular political process without threatening those citizens who do not share their religious beliefs. This balance is likely to be achieved precisely because Page 7

8 religious views will not be directly enforced through the coercive power of the state without being mediated through fair and transparent political contestations and subject to constitutional and human rights safeguards, as noted earlier. In the final analysis, religious beliefs are neither granted special privilege nor suppressed, which make the relationship between religion and the state more dynamic and its outcomes less predictable. This view of the secular state neither depoliticizes Islam nor relegates it to the so-called private domain. My proposal is opposed to domineering visions of a universal history and future in which the "enlightened West" is leading all of humanity to the secularization of the world, of which the secularity of the state is the logical outcome. In the conception of a secular state I am proposing, the influence of religion in the public domain is open to negotiation and contingent upon the free exercise of the human agency of all citizens, believers and unbelievers alike. In all societies - Western or non-western - constitutionalism, democracy and the relationship between state, religion and politics, are highly contextual formations that are premised on contingent sociological and historical conditions, and entrenched through specific norms of cultural legitimacy. In this gradual and tentative process of consensus-building through civic reason, various combinations of persons and groups may agree on one issue but disagree on another, and consensus building efforts on any particular topic may fail or succeed, but none of that will be permanent and conclusive. Whatever happens to be the substantive outcome on any issue at any point in time, it is made - and can change - as the product of a process of civic reason based on the voluntary and free participation of all citizens. His most recent books are Islam and the Secular State: Related The context of a truly secular state, along with the protection of freedoms and rights it affords, are necessary to be a Muslim by choice and conviction, which is the only valid way of being a Muslim. Page 8

9 Chapter 4 : Islam and Religious Freedom Bibliography Rethinking Classical Muslim Law of Apostasy and the Death Penalty more. Abdullah Saeed studies International Law of the Sea, Contract Law, and Ports. January 17, Author: Within the context of Muslim jurisprudence fiqh, the word implies the abandonment or renunciation of Islam. An apostate therefore is known as a murtadd. This term has evoked so much sentiment among Muslims and non-muslims alike. Some Muslims today are calling for harsh punishments for apostates, ranging from death to imprisonment. Pew Research Centre, Many Muslim-majority countries, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Malaysia, have enacted laws that target apostates as well as attempts to convert Muslims to other faiths. Meanwhile, freedom of religion is regarded as an important aspect in a modern, democratic society. This is how some people have framed the issue that one was forced into a kind of false dilemma. Both were actually fundamentalist positions that reduced Islam into a monolithic and essentialist understanding; ignoring the intricacies and complexities that were discussed within the Islamic traditions. This is how the issue has unfolded in recent years in Malaysia, and in many other Muslim societies since the dawn of Muslim resurgent politics in the late 20th century. No doubt, the dominant view in classical Islam stipulates some form of punishment, including death for apostasy; but one cannot view the matter as a foregone conclusion. Several Companions of the Prophet such as Umar ibn al-khattab d. In more recent times, respected scholars such as Mahmud Syaltut grand sheikh of Al-Azhar University, d. Rahman chief justice of Pakistan, d. But Muslim scholars had noted that many of these ahadith were contentious and problematic in both sanad chain of transmission as well as matn content. More so, no reports can be found in the corpus of authentic hadith where the Prophet had supposedly killed apostates. Focusing on socio-political context Therefore, it is clear that differences of opinion do occur among the religious scholars ulama on whether an apostate should be punished, and if yes, whether it should be death either immediately or after a grace period for repentance, or by other means of punishment such as imprisonment ranging from few years to life sentence. Under what circumstances would a particular religious interpretation dominate and why were the more tolerant, open or progressive interpretations of Islam less attractive to the masses and elites alike? This is basic legal literacy that lay Muslims often were not equipped with and thus subjected to slogans by political actors and groups intending to stoke the religious sentiments of the unassuming masses. Secondly, the psychology of a nation emerging from a traumatic colonial period and subjugation must be taken into account. Most of the Muslim-majority countries were once subjected to colonial incursions and now struggling to modernise in the face of greater challenges of globalisation and continued economic and often political domination by Western powers. Thirdly, in many cases, the charge of apostasy is often an excuse to rid potentially subversive ideas that can challenge existing power holders, which may include the politicians as well as the religious elites. In, Sudanese reformer Mahmoud Muhammad Taha was hanged on charges of apostasy. Such cases led to al-alwani declaring that riddah apostasy is first and foremost a political issue and religious factor plays a secondary, if not inconsequential role in determining it Al-Alwani, This is clearly seen in the case of Azlina Jailani also known as Lina Joy, a Malaysian Malay who applied first in to have her name changed to reflect her new Christian status. This is an option not open to Muslims in Malaysia and Singapore, although in the case of apostasy, the latter guarantees freedom of belief for all via the state Constitution art. From this perspective, every religious community should safeguard the psychological and social as well as political possibility of heresy and disagreement among its members, because that is the best indicator of the honesty and authenticity of the beliefs and practice within that community. Believers must always remain within their religious community completely voluntarily or leave by their complete free choice â there is simply no human or religious value in coerced religious belief or practice. He argued that while religion is sacred and heavenly, the understanding of religion is human and earthly. Thus, while religion remains constant, religious knowledge and insight undergoes change Soroush, This paradigm is useful in formulating Page 9

10 our position on apostasy. Whether or not Islam stipulates punishment for apostasy falls within the paradigm of religious thinking, which eventually will be determined by the changing context and realities that shape our understanding of religious laws. In fact, this is how Muslim scholars today argued for rejection of punishment for apostasy. Shaltut, in Kamali Therefore, we can say that our deeper understanding of human rights and greater sensitivity to all forms of oppressive discrimination should lead to new insights in our Islamic legal formulations. Lastly, one cannot address controversies involving apostasy issues from a mere theological position. Islam, as it is, is a dynamic religion with rich traditions and diverse manifestations. To do so will be to commit the act of authoritarianism El Fadl, Every issue involving apostasy must be squarely located within the dynamics and context of that particular society. Here, three main factors account for the deterioration of Christian-Muslim relations in Malaysia in the last few years. First, is the experience of colonialism that generates racial and religious dynamics within the Malaysian society from independence onward. The issue of apostasy, as argued above, is never a straightforward affair of religious choice, but rather, embedded within certain social and political dynamics unique to each country in case. The second source is the Hadith, or the prophetic tradition â usually the collected sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad. Beyond these two sources, religious scholars relied on ijtihad independent reasoning, which may employ various juristic tools and methodologies developed by the various schools of law. Mutawatir ahadith are those narrated by many people that it is not conceivable that so many people could have agreed on an untruth, thus confirming the strength of the transmission and veracity of the hadith. Ahad ahadith are those with singular narration and does not fall into the category of being widely transmitted mutawatir. This has been the law as well as belief of Muslim ummah all over the world for the last years. Disagreement among the contemporary Muslim intellectuals, authors and writer are recent phenomenon only. Contrast this with Al-Alwani who disagreed that there was any consensus, arguing that the appeal to consensus was meant to prevent other future ulama from investigating the matter further or do rethinking Al-Alwani Human Rights Issues in Southeast Asia. Anouar Madjid, A Call for Heresy: Why Dissent is Vital to Islam and America. University of Minessota Press. The Authoritative and the Authoritarian in Islamic Discourses. An Enquiry into the Hudud Bill of Kelantan. Accessed on 27 September Rahman, Punishment of Apostasy in Islam. Page 10

11 Chapter 5 : PROF Abdullah Saeed - The University of Melbourne Rethinking Classical Muslim law of apostasy and the death penalty. Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide. Oxford University Press. If Muslims are to embrace modernity, including life in a pluralistic, democratic society, without abandoning their faith, they must take up the argument for religious liberty that is embedded in their history and that stands at the center of their most sacred texts. Both are remarkably supportive of the idea of individual and personal religious freedom. Further, it holds that God gave humankind the intellect and ability to discern between right and wrong Q Evidence from Islamic history suggests that this view was held not only by Prophet Muhammad but also by his political successors. In one recorded example, an elderly Christian woman came to see the caliph Umar and then refused his invitation to embrace Islam. He became anxious that she might have perceived his invitation as compulsion. Muslims in these states face penalties for blasphemy, heresy, and, most famously, apostasy. Non-Muslims are barred from proselytizing and possessing or importing unsanctioned religious items, including Bibles. They face restrictions on the public practice of religion and strict limits on the building or renovation of places of worship. The government monitors their religious activities, raids private services, and sometimes harasses or imprisons non-muslim believers simply for practicing their faith. On a practical level, it repeatedly emphasizes the role of the Prophet as teaching people about God rather than forcing them to convert to Islam. Its relatively tolerant position gave way to restrictions that emerged approximately one hundred years after the death of Muhammad. Indeed, it drew a sharp line between enforcing recognition of state authority and forcing any change of religious belief. But does it command such means to stop conversion from Islam? The answer, I believe, is no. The first concerns Muslims who profess Islam outwardly but who then attempt to destroy the Muslim community from within, using every opportunity to discredit the Prophet Q 2: The other category of apostasy concerns Muslims who reject Islam and then return to it, only to reject it again a second or even a third time, seesawing back and forth between Islam and their former religions Q 4: What do the hadith, the collected traditions and sayings of the Prophet, say about religious liberty? Some appear to indicate that any Muslim who changes his or her religion should be killed. However, the hadith themselves offer no evidence to suggest that Prophet Muhammad himself ever imposed the death penalty for the mere act of conversion from Islam. Shortly after his arrival, however, he informed Prophet Muhammad that he wanted to return to his former religion. Far from punishing him with death, the Prophet let him go free, without imposing any penalty at all Bukhari, Sahih, 9, 92, hadith A contradiction, therefore, exists between certain sayings attributed to the Prophet and his actual conduct. Of course, there are instances when the Prophet did impose the death penalty. What are we to make of them? In these cases, the accused had joined an enemy camp, or taken up arms against the Muslim community, or done something else that made their act more than a simple conversion. One version of an important hadith says: Another hadith, attributed to the Prophet, affirms the idea that it is not simply a change of religion that warrants the death penalty for apostasy: The various hadith that appear to command Muslims to kill apostates from Islam must, therefore, be understood in their proper political context. He argues that although a person is free to believe or not to believe in Islam, once he has embraced the Islamic faith he is subject to all of its requirements, including the contemporary stand on apostasy and its punishment. A tribal system was in place in much of Arabia in the sixth and early seventh centuries. Given the ongoing hostility between the Muslims and their opponents, conversion from Islam generally meant that a person left the Muslim community and joined its opponents. Apostasy was the equivalent of treason. Most of these restrictions can be traced back to classical Islamic law. The classical legal texts from each of the surviving schools of Islamic law provide a range of restrictions on the religious liberty of both non-muslims and Muslims. About one hundred years after the death of the Prophet, Muslim theologians and jurists during the Umayyad dynasty began to define Muslim and community. These debates produced a wide range of positions and schools of thought. It was within this Page 11

12 context of religious pluralism and conflict that Muslims had to deal with the problem of religious liberty. Over time, limits on religious liberty for non-muslims were added. These included restrictions on the building of places of worship, public readings of Scripture, and the ability of non-muslims to engage publicly in certain activities that Muslims considered forbidden such as drinking alcohol if these non-muslims were living in Muslim communities. It is far from clear how consistently or stringently the restrictions were applied in practice. Like apostasy law, they may have been used only at particular times of uncertainty, difficulty, or tensions with an external enemy. Although these restrictions have come to form an influential part of classical Islamic law, non-muslims under Muslim rule generally have been granted the prerogative to manage their own affairs including religious affairs from the time of the Prophet Muhammad onward. This practice was adhered to in various Muslim empires from the Umayyad through to the Abbasid and the Ottoman. One of the major challenges for the Ottomans was finding ways to govern the broad array of people, religions, cultures, and languages contained within their empire. Under the millet system, the Ottomans gave people of various religious traditions the right to practice their own religion and preserved their places of worship, provided they recognized the Ottoman state and the superiority of Islam. With these arrangements in place, Ottoman society remained generally free of large-scale religious conflict for centuries. Even the Jews fleeing persecution in Spain found that they were welcome in Ottoman lands. This tolerance did not necessarily result in full equality or equal citizenship which are, in any case, relatively modern concepts even in the West, but non-muslims nonetheless rose to prominence in many Muslim states. Today there is some movement toward Muslim acceptance of religious liberty. Sadly, the implementation of this standard continues to be painfully slow because of certain trends within Islam. At a time when a number of ultraconservative voices appear to be dominating the discourse in many parts of the Muslim world, Muslim scholars who advocate for religious liberty are fiercely opposed. They are often labeled as stooges of the West or accused of being apostates or heretics. Many such scholars in Muslim nations are imprisoned for their views or have their publications banned. My book Freedom of Religion and Apostasy in Islam was banned in the Maldives in after a targeted campaign against my coauthor and brother Hassan Saeed by certain politicians and an ultraconservative group. Despite current challenges, the degree of freedom available to many Muslims, particularly those who are based in intellectually free societies many of which are in the West, can be used to challenge those who threaten religious liberty. This essay includes material delivered in a lecture given to the James Madison Program at Princeton University. Get a digital subscription to First Things to read on the ipad, on Kindle, or online. Page 12

13 Chapter 6 : The Islamic Case for Religious Liberty by Abdullah Saeed Articles First Things This chapter provides an overview of the apostasy law as it developed in classical Islamic law, to trace the development of the idea of apostasy and its punishment, and to examine how Muslims in. On one hand, we know that Islam strictly prohibits compulsion in religion. On the other hand, classical Islamic law has prescribed the death penalty for apostasy. These two aspects of our faith exist in tension with one another and the news media often highlights controversial cases in which someone in the Muslim world has been charged with apostasy. Each time we hear of these cases the Muslims erupt into bitter arguments, some siding with religious freedom and others siding with harsh punishment. How can we reconcile these two teachings and find the moderate, middle path to which Islam calls us? Freedom of Religion Islam guarantees religious freedom for non-muslims and prohibits forced conversion and spreading the religion by violence. The truth is distinct from error. The truth is from your Lord. So whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve. Anas ibn Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said to a man: Musnad Ahmad, Grade: Sahih In this tradition, the Prophet did not call the man to Islam using threats or intimidation, but rather by telling him that Islam is good for him even if he disliked it. Muhammad Rashid Rida writes: It is not permissible to force anyone to enter the religion and it is not allowed to expel anyone among his people from his religion. As for those who made peace with him or conducted a truce, then he never fought them and he never compelled them to enter his religion. Hidayat Al-Hayara The many verses of the Quran that declare freedom of religion must be understood as the general rule. Nowhere does the Quran prescribe any worldly punishment for apostasy, whereas in the authentic traditions we find that punishment is prescribed in specific circumstances as a means to protect the community. Apostasy in Context The punishment for apostasy originated due to the dangerous phenomena of hypocrisy nifaq that threatened the community in Medina. Believe in that which was revealed to the believers at the beginning of the day and reject it at its end that perhaps they will abandon their religion. Surah Ali Imran 3: This was at a time when Medina was threatened with a war of extermination by the Quraish aristocracy. Tafseer Ibn Kathir 3: Such acts constituted a serious threat to the security of the community. Then they will not remain your neighbors therein except for a little while. It was not prescribed in order to punish the act of unbelief itself, as this is for Allah alone, but rather to protect the Muslims from the conspiracies of their enemies. Taha Jabir Alalwani writes: After all, there is no nation on earth that will allow others to harm it in this way. Moreover, if the Jew who was being commanded by those plotting against Islam to appear to enter Islam at the beginning of the day, then repudiate it at the end of the day, realized that he would not be able to exit from Islam with the same ease with which he had entered, he would think twice, nay a thousand times, before throwing in his lot with such conspirators. A historical and scriptural analysis. International Institute of Islamic Thought. Sahih Bukhari, Grade: Sahih Scholars recognize that this apparently general statement must be restricted takhsees by other evidence. What we find is that the Prophet issued this directive within the particular context we have described and it should not be used to negate several verses and traditions indicating restriction. Rather, this tradition must be understood in light of the Quran and traditions as a consistent whole. Fadl Ibn Ziyad reports: I heard Ahmad Ibn Hanbal respond to a question regarding the saying that the Sunnah overrules the Quran. However, the Sunnah is the exegesis tafseer of the Book and its explanation. Al-Bahr Al-Muheet 11 In fact, scholars now recognize that there are degrees of apostasy just as there are degrees in other areas of the religion. Scholars have divided unbelief, idolatry, hypocrisy, and sins into major and minor categories. Likewise, it becomes clear when all the evidence is presented that apostasy should be divided into major and minor categories as well. Lesser Apostasy Minor apostasy is when someone embraces Islam and later leaves the religion peacefully without causing harm to the community. The sin is purely between the apostate and his Lord, and worldly punishments are not applied in this case. This person committed apostasy twice and yet Allah did not prescribe a legal punishment for him. An authentic tradition relates the story of a bedouin who Page 13