There is no equality though. In countires under Islamic rule, a Christian or Jew can convert Islam, but a Muslim can not convert to Christianity or Judaism. Actions always speak louder than words.
It is estimated that around 18% of the world’s 1.8 billion Muslims live in countries that permit the killing of apostates. I have no idea – and neither do you – what percentage of this minority group are eager to abandon Islam; and would rush to do so, were it not for fear of reprisal. But let’s be clear: If only one disaffected Muslim – just the one – is killed for leaving the Faith, then that is one too many.
Some would have us believe that the punishment ordained for apostasy is death; but this is not the case.
Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) says: ‘As for those who believe, then reject the faith, then believe again, then reject the faith again and become increasingly defiant, Allāh will not forgive them, nor will He guide them on any path. (Prophet), tell such hypocrites that a grievous punishment awaits them.’ (Al-Nisa: 137-138).
If death is the ordained punishment for apostasy, then why do these verses not say so? Indeed, they are rendered nonsense by the notion that one who rejects the faith must be killed; for how can a dead person accept what he once rejected; reject it again; and grow in defiance?!!
Although the Qur’an speaks of apostasy more than a dozen times; nowhere does it authorise an earthly punishment for abandoning faith. On the contrary, Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) reserves for Himself the right to judge such behaviour; and to do so on the Day of Judgement.
Puritans would have us believe that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) required the death sentence for apostasy. A favourite ḥādīth of theirs is this: ‘Ibn Abbas said: The Messenger of Allah said, “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”’ (Sahih Al-Bukhari).
I opine that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said no such thing; and that this ḥādīth – and others like it – was fabricated to support corrupt rulers and governments; and is now being employed for that very purpose.
Here are my reasons:
The Qur’an was revealed throughout the Prophet’s life. At no time was he given permission to judge, or to execute, apostates. On the contrary, the Qur’an makes it perfectly clear that his role was to convey the message – to preach and teach the Faith, as expressed in the Qur’an – and nothing more. He was NOT to impose it by force:
‘Allāh bears witness that there is no god but He, as do the angels and those who have knowledge. He upholds justice. There is no god but Him, the Almighty, the All Wise. True Religion, in Allāh’s eyes, is (devotion to Him alone). Those who were given the Scripture disagreed out of rivalry, only after they had been given knowledge - if anyone denies Allāh’s revelations, Allāh is swift to take account- if they argue with you (Prophet), say: “I have devoted myself to Allāh alone and so have my followers.”
‘Ask those who were given the Scripture, as well as those without one: “Do you too devote yourselves to Him alone?” If they do, they will be guided, but if they turn away, YOUR ONLY DUTY IS TO CONVEY THE MESSAGE. Allāh is aware of His servants.’ (Al-‘Imran: 18-20); and again: ‘Obey Allāh, obey the Messenger, and always be on your guard: if you pay no heed, bear in mind that the SOLE DUTY of Our Messenger is to DELIVER THE MESSAGE clearly.’ (Al-Ma’ida: 92).
The Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was given no authority to enforce belief; no authority to kill a person simply for changing his religion. Given the restrictions placed upon him by his Lord, it is unthinkable that he would assume authority for himself – that he would usurp the Exalted’s role as sole judge in this matter. This is why I discount all aḥādīth that suggest the contrary (and by the way, I am not a Qur’anist!). My argument is supported by the fact that the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) did not order the death of a single person for apostasy alone.
Let me repeat: The Qur’an stresses freedom of conscience as one of Islam’s fundamental tenets:
‘There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error, so whoever rejects false gods and believes in Allāh has grasped the firmest hand-hold, one that will never break. Allāh is all hearing and all knowing.’ (Al-Baqara: 256); and again: ‘(Prophet), follow what has been revealed to you of your Lord’s Scripture: there is no changing His words, nor can you find any refuge except with Him. Content yourself with those who pray to their Lord morning and evening, seeking His approval, and do not let your eyes turn away from them out of desire for the attractions of this worldly life: do not yield to those whose hearts We have made heedless of Our Qur’an, those who follow their own low desires, those whose ways are unbridled. Say: “Now the truth has come from your Lord”: let those who wish to believe in it do so, and let those who wish to reject it do so.’ (Al-Kahf: 29).
Apostasy laws are enforced for political rather than religious reasons. Autocratic religious states (and organisations) have always used the threat of punishment as a means of control. When the Church was a power to be reckoned with – when it controlled every aspect of a believer’s life – it did not hesitate to punish apostasy (and heresy) with death. Only when the Church lost its secular powers were people free to think, and to do, as they pleased.
All Muslims consider the Qur’an to be the very the word of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla). This is why it is considered to be the primary and supreme source of jurisprudence in Islam. The Sunnah (the practice of Prophet - sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) comes next. Both leave no doubt that apostasy – of itself – is not a punishable by death. The only justification for punishing an apostate is when that person goes on to commit a criminal offence – such as murder; theft; treason or some form of war crime.
It amuses me to see Islamophobes and extremists at odds with the Qur’an on this issue. In order to portray their own perverted theological, or political, viewpoint both go to great lengths to misrepresent its clear verses. Both regurgitate the same fallacious arguments, and offer them as ‘authentic’ Islam.
Apostasy laws have been borrowed from older scriptures. They have no basis in the Qur’an or Sunnah. This is why clerics who espouse such extremist beliefs show continued reluctance to debate Muslim scholars and intellectuals on this issue.
The Qur’an upholds Freedom of Conscience in the clearest of terms. It is the duplicity - and political insecurity - of extremist clerics, and of the corrupt governments they support, that gives excuse for oppressive regimes to punish dissent (apostasy).
Khaled M. Abou El Fadl writes:
‘The vast majority of Muslims are not puritans, but they practice a traditional form of Islam based on inherited beliefs and practices that is distinctively different from the puritan creed. For instance, the puritans prohibit all forms of music, and yet there is no Muslim country that is not flooded with all kinds of Western and non-Western music. The puritans prohibit women from seeking employment outside the home, and yet women make up a sizable percentage of the workforce in most Muslim countries. The story of the puritans told in this book is the story of the exception to the mainstream in Islam. Nevertheless, the Muslim mainstream is targeted by puritans. The puritan creed is strongly evangelical, and through proselytizing, the puritans hope to convert the mainstream to what they consider to be the true Islam. In my view, this is where moderate Muslims must play a critical role. For the reasons discussed, the juristic class will not be able to play its historical role in marginalizing the puritans. The burden must fall on moderate Muslims to articulate the alternative to the puritan menace.
‘According to moderates, God’s light is not owned by anyone, and so Muslims and non-Muslims can step into the light together. They can share a partnership in which they come to know one another. In the process, they can cooperate to establish virtue and mercy on this earth - they can cooperate to prevent the corruption of the earth through the ugliness of ignorance, hate, war, and destruction. Moderates believe that supremacy belongs only to God. Therefore, when they come to invite the other to step into the light, they do so with utter humility - the humility of knowing that it is impossible to avoid corrupting the earth, and also impossible to achieve any degree of Godliness on this earth, unless they can come to know the other. It is this, the knowledge of the other, that is the requisite for the Divine gift of peace.’ (‘The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists.’)
In another work he writes:
‘What type of arrogance permits a people to name themselves God’s soldiers and then usurp His authority? What type of arrogance empowers a people to inject their insecurities and hatred into the Book of God, and then fancy themselves the divine protectors? Of all the sins of this world, what can be more revolting than usurping God’s Word, and then misrepresenting God’s meticulous Speech?’ (‘The Search for Beauty in Islam: A Conference of the Books’).
