Apostasy and Islam

What is the punishment for apostasy in Islam and is it applicable today? 

The conditions and definition of apostasy in Islam are well documented and the common belief among many is that when these conditions are fulfilled, the apostate must face execution. Is this really true and does this apply in the modern world?

Clearly there is also the question whether capital punishment for Apostasy should have been applied in the past, but whilst this is not discussed here, it is more of a historical debate wherein we must also consider the historical context of the time in particular the fact that apostasy laws were often used as treason laws — laws which still exist in the UK today. The more pertinent question for most of us is; should Apostasy still be considered as a capital crime today?

We begin by noting quite unequivocally that the death penalty or any other such worldly punishment for Apostasy, is not mentioned anywhere in the Quran.

This is not to say that the Quran does not mention Apostasy at all. In verse 5:54 where it says:

“Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief — save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith — but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom”.

The main inference from this verse being that there is no punishment in this world but there is in the hereafter. More interestingly in verse 2:217 the Quran says

“Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can. And if any of you Turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the Hereafter; they will be companions of the Fire and will abide therein”.

Here once again no capital punishment is mentioned, but one should note the choice of words. The arabic term used here for death is mata which in other verses (particularly 3:144) has been used to signify the natural death of a person as opposed to word qutila (also used in 3;144) which is used by the Quran to refer to the execution of a person. Surely this use of the term is no accident.

Nevertheless, putting the detailed interpretation and transliteration of the Quran to one side, the fact that the Quran does not mention the execution of an apostate speaks volumes. Especially when the Quran goes out of its way to explicitly stress freedom of religion and the total lack of compulsion. It says categorically “There is no compulsion in Islam” (2:256) and in a later section Allah challenges the reader

“Had your Lord so willed, all those who are on the earth would have believed.Will you, then, force people into believing?” (10:99).

The fact that the Quran is so clear on freedom of religion, yet stunningly silent on any penalty for apostasy is rarely ever acknowledged.

Next we turn to the Sunnah (the Prophet’s pbuh narrations). Here the principle hadith [1] that is always cited by supporters of the death penalty is a narration by Ibn Abbas where he states that the Prophet pbuh said “Whosoever changes his religion, slay him”. Pretty clear cut one would have thought, but unlike other hadith very little context is provided and for those amongst you who are familiar with the science of hadith, this is not an absolutely trustable (mutawatir) narration, but to be fair neither is it catalogued as a weak (daif) one. What we do know is that without the required context the scholars of old were split and the debate was varied. Did it mean that a Christian converting to Judaism be slain or even more paradoxically could it also be taken to mean that changing one’s religion from Christianity to Islam is punishable by death?! And so this leaves everything open to scholarly interpretation which includes the use of other hadith including one in which the same narrator Ibn Abbas contradicts his earlier narration by saying that the Prophet ordered that female apostates should not be subject to capital punishment [2].

So what do modern scholars say? Let’s take some leading English speaking scholars of they day [3]. Zakir Naik, someone who has previously been attributed to be a proponent of apostasy laws. Ignoring the deliberately selected quotes from certain media outlets and all historical statements by him on the matter, Zakir Naik is on the record as saying that he does not believe the punishment of death is applicable to any person for apostasy alone [4]. Similarly, Professor Tariq Ramadan also stands against the death penalty, specifically stating that

“In light of the texts (Qur’an and prophetic traditions) and the way the Prophet behaved with the people who left Islam (like Hishâm and ‘Ayyash) or who converted to Christianity (such as Ubaydallah ibn Jahsh), it should be stated that one who changes her/his religion should not be killed”.

In fact Professor Ramadan goes one step further and calls for an unconditional suspension of all capital punishment in Islam and a push to reform our understanding of the texts in the area. There is also the view of Hamza Yusuf, who has not been as clear as some would like, but nevertheless in his own personal style has come out in opposition to all modern application of the penalty [5]. And finally the view of the eminent Dr Jamal Badawi who writes extensively on the topic. His thoughts essentially boiling down to the fact that he thinks there is little to no firm evidence on the death penalty and even if there was, it is categorically not applicable today.

So the Quran doesn’t mention it, the Sunnah isn't clear about it and the Scholars aren't exactly aligned on it, so what is really going on?

There are clearly extreme elements of Islam that are keen to implement such draconian punitive measure, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Shabaab in Somalia and our friends in Saudi to name a few. But extreme interpretations of any ideology aren't unique to Islam, and anyone who ignores the greater geo political game that is unraveling around us as we speak is either ignorant or being deliberately misleading.

The fact is that it is open season against Muslims and what more cunning a ploy than to mislead about how Islam and Quran is anti-freedom of choice and expression. Just as the EDL often reel out the same lone deluded Sikh to prove that they are not racist, here Islamophobes are keen to line up any ex-Muslim who wants the spotlight and point out “Look how horrible Islams and Muslims are, if you don’t believe us believe this chap who was one of them”.

Having said that we Muslims are not free from criticism — particularly our scholars. The complete inability of most Muslim scholars in the Muslim world to perform any function that equates with critical thought is mesmerising and is leading swathes of the Muslim community to lose trust in their scholastic merit and thus wander from Islam. It is one of the most significant problems we as the Muslim community face today and a problem only we can solve. In the words of great Muslim poet Allama Iqbal:

“Just as the half-baked physician endangers your health; the half-baked scholar endangers your faith”.

There is no solid ground upon which anyone can argue that Islam calls for the death of apostates in modern times. Contemporary scholars agree on this but their communication on the matter hasn't been clear and there remain a worryingly large proportion of scholars who maintain an out of date view — indicative of a problem with the Muslim scholastic approach rather than Islam itself.

At the same time those who continue to singularly argue that Islam is barbaric and prescribes death for anyone who has doubts are exposing their true motives. Without acknowledging the flaws of their position and the freedoms that Islam explicitly allows we can all know what this truly is — a debate that is masquerading as an attempt to malign a community that is already being ravaged in every corner of the world.

[1] There is a further hadith that is oft cited, narrated by Masud wherein which it is said that “It is not lawful to shed the blood of a person professing Islam…except in three cases: life for a life, or a married person guilty of adultery or a person who separates from his faith and deserts his community”. The third case being that of an apostate but once again scholarly opinion is split on whether this is apostasy alone or treason. Treason being a different ball game all together.

[2] Abu al-Layth al-Samarqandi (d. 373 AH/ 983 CE). Mukhtalaf al-Riwayah, vol. 3, pp. 1298-1299

[3] I've deliberately omitted the views of non-English speaking scholars here as this opens up a further opportunity to misunderstand introduced by the ability and motives of the interpreter. This includes the infamous video of Al Qaradawi, where the subtitles are pretty much telling us what to think but due to rusty Arabic its not entirely clear what he is actually saying.

[4] Zakir Naik at the Oxford Union, question on apostasy starts at 8.50

[5] “Today, it could be strongly argued that the aim of considering apostasy a capital offense, which was to protect the faith, is lost in application, given that modern people suffer a crisis of faith due to such applications.” (Sticks and Drones May Break Our Bones, but Fitna Really Hurts Us)