Articles

Apostasy Revisited

42 Comments

Apostasy Revisited
by Dr. Musa bin Mohd Nordin

Salams

Surgeon Kama embraces the classical opinion vis a vis apostasy which is being increasingly challenged by contemporary scholars the likes of Qardawi, Gamal Badawi, Ghanousshi etc – all members of the International Union of Muslim Scholars. I alluded to this in an earlier mail. I subscribe to the latter opinion having read the evidence of the contemporary scholars and having listened directly to Gamal Badawi whom we invited to our event in MPF. A useful kick off would be to first acknowledge :

  1. that there are ahkam (laws & rulings) dealing with matters of faith, belief and ibadah which are firmly established in the Quran, Sunnah and Ijma’ and which are definitive and categorical (qat’ie) eg prayers, fasting, riba, property distribution
  2. and that there are the allegorical (dzanni) ones, non-fixed, which invites a flexibility in shariah and a spaciousness in fiqh (jurisprudence). Such is the wisdom of the Almighty in making a few ahkam in shariah categorical in both their definitiveness, clarity and meaning; and in making hypothetical/allegorical/non-fixed ones the bulk of the ahkam in which there would be a broad scope for fruitful engagement and disagreement.

Therefore, we need to be cognisant of the issues which are open to disagreement and those which are not. And equally important; to exercise permissible norms of behaviour in negotiating differences and disagreements.

I therefore have a problem with surgeon Kama’s suggestion “If somebody wishes to take a softer stance towards the apostate, truly this is from his own decision, and not based on Islamic fatwa. The fatwa is clear as it stands and Islam cannot change in accordance to time and situation”

Not only is it autocratic and overbearing, it fails to exemplify the generous latitude of opinions provided for in Islamic jurisprudence and does a gross injustice to the magnanimity and “plasticity” of our deen in the face of post-modernism.

Kindly allow me to articulate a few reflections on this issue :

  1. There is no single verse in the Qur’an that prescribes an earthly punishment for apostasy. Verses about apostasy in the Qur’an speak only about God’s punishment of the apostate in the Hereafter. Writes Prof. Badawi : [Behold, as for those who come 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 truth – God will not forgive them, nor will guide them in any way.] (An-Nisaa’ 4:137)

    It is important to note in the above verse that if the Qur’an prescribes capital punishment for apostasy, then the apostate should be killed after the first instance of apostasy. As such there would be no opportunity to “again come to believe and again deny the truth, and thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of truth”. In spite of these acts of repeated apostasy, no capital punishment is prescribed for them.

    The silence of the Qur’an on any prescribed mandatory capital punishment for apostasy is quite revealing. More revealing is the fact that there is overwhelming evidence in the Qur’an of freedom of conscious, belief, and worship.

  2. There are a few reports alleging that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered the killing of a few apostates who refused to repent. However, all such reports were deemed weak (unauthentic) by Hadith scholars. For example, the famous scholar Muhammad Ash-Shawkani (died in 1839) wrote that there were problems with the isnad (chain of narration) of these reports and thus they are not consider to be reliable, especially in a serious matter such as capital punishment. None of these reports were narrated by earlier and far more reliable sources of Hadith such as Al-Bukhari and Muslim.

    More significant is the fact that a case of apostasy was reported in the most authentic book of Hadith (Bukhari) reported by more than one reliable chain of narration (stronger isnad). The following includes a translation of the most central hadiths:

    Jabir ibn `Abdullah narrated that a Bedouin pledged allegiance to the Apostle of Allah for Islam (i.e. accepted Islam) and then the Bedouin got fever whereupon he said to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) “cancel my pledge.” (wanted to leave Islam) But the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refused. He (the Bedouin) came to him (again) saying, “Cancel my pledge.” But the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refused. Then he (the Bedouin) left (Medina). Allah’s Apostle said, “Madinah is like a pair of bellows (furnace): it expels its impurities and brightens and clear its good.”

    This incident took place in Madinah when Muslims were living in an independent Islamic “state,” where the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had full authority to implement Shari`ah law. If indeed the “revealed” prescribed punishment for apostasy is death, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would have been the first to carry out the punishment. In fact, he did not even prescribe any punishment at all against that Bedouin, nor did he send any one to arrest him as an “apostate,” imprison, or ask him to recant or even reconsider his decision as later jurists prescribed. Nor is there any solid ground to claim that this and other similar hadiths were “abrogated.” In fact, these Hadiths are in conformity with the Qur’an and consistent with its central value of freedom of conscious and rejection of any compulsion in matters of faith (Al-Baqarah 2:256).

  3. Ibn `Abbas narrated that the Prophet said, “Whoever changed his religion, then kill him“.17 This hadith (Sahih al-Bukhari) is perhaps the most quoted one by those who are of the view that apostasy is a capital crime. It raises a number of questions as to how it may be interpreted in view of the following context :
    1. The absence in the Qur’an of any earthly punishment for apostasy in spite of its mention in many places in the Qur’an.
    2. The consistent and repeated affirmation of freedom of conscious and freedom of faith and worship in the Qur’an.
    3. The hadiths in Al-Bukhari discussed earlier show that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) himself did not carry out any punishment on the man who committed apostasy in Madinah and left the town.
    4. There is no authentic hadith that narrates that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) carried out capital punishment for apostasy during his lifetime.
    5. In the light of the evidence discussed earlier, the Prophet’s command here seems to refer to the permissibility of capital punishment, when apostasy is coupled with a capital crime such as waging war against the community.
    6. Umar (RA) who is against mandatory capital punishment for an apostate, most probably opines that when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘Whoever changes his religion, then kill him,‘ the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said that in his capacity as the leader of the community and head of state and that this was one of the executive decisions by the authorities (one of the actions that falls within as-syaasah ash-ahar`iyyah) and NOT a religious verdict (fatwa) or transmission (of a verdict) of God which is binding on the Ummah at all times and everywhere and under all circumstances.”19
  4. With due respect, in our handling of the apostasy issue we have been seen to be rigid, inflexible, restrictive, punitive, autocratic – all of which Islam is not. Beauty, tranquility, peace, freedom, compassion, forgiveness and love, all attributes of Islam is lost in the maze of highhandedness, rigidity, inflexibility and failure to grasp the ruh of the fiqh related to apostasy.
  5. Even if an act was permissible or desirable but could cause harm to the cause of Islam, it should be avoided (ma’alaat al-af`aa – a principle of Islamic jurisprudence). The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was conscious of the imperative of safeguarding the name of Islam and its reputation. When it was suggested to him that Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salul should be killed because of the divisive and subverting role he had played in Madinah, the Prophet answered that he feared that people will say that “Muhammad is killing his companions.”
  6. It makes no sense to do some good if that results in greater harm (Mel’s significant other makes a good point about this). Applying these rules in our contemporary world where the setting is vastly different from the past, begs a few pertinent questions :
    • Would the insistence on a particular view, common in Muslim jurisprudence heritage as it may be, really enhance the reputation of Islam and Muslims and correct the already severely blemished unfair image?
    • Just as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and early Muslims considered the context of their times in non-fixed matters (ghair thawaabit) shouldn’t our scholars today do the same?

Prof Gamal Badawi concludes :

  • The preponderance of evidence from both the Qur’an and Sunnah indicates that there is no firm ground for the claim that apostasy is in itself a mandatory fixed punishment (hadd), namely capital punishment.
  • References to early capital punishment for apostasy were not due to apostasy itself, but rather other capital crimes that were coupled with it.
  • In the context of the besieged early Muslim community, apostasy was a major threat to the nascent Muslim community. Taking a passive attitude towards it would have jeopardized the very emergence of the Muslim community. This may be one reason why the consensus of scholars is that apostasy is an offense (in the context of an Islamic society). However, there are wide divergence of views about its suitable punishment. Sheikh `Abdul-Majeed Subh argues that “we can conclude that the issue of the penalty prescribed for apostasy is dependent on the public interest of the nation. Therefore, there is no harm in ignoring the apostasy of an individual as long as he or she does not harm the nation. On the other hand, if a group of apostates endangers the security and interests of the Muslim community, then the Muslim ruler should consider them to be a danger and threat to society.”
  • As religious opinions (fatwas) change with the changing time, place, custom, and circumstances, this issue should be reexamined within the basic boundaries of Islamic jurisprudence and not simply of pressures of others. No Muslim is required to change the indisputable stable and fixed aspects of Shari`ah for the sake of pleasing others or earning the title “moderate” or “open minded.” In the meantime, jurisprudent rulings and interpretations in the non-fixed area need not be permanent either.

Wallahu alam

musa