On Apostacy
There are four basic premises:
Firstly, we must scrutinize freedom itself. Even in Western law, freedom has never been construed as being an absolute right or concern of the state. In the presence of a compelling state interest, freedom can be infringed upon. Freedom is not an intrinsic good (i.e. a good in and of itself) but an instrumental good (i.e. it is good because it allows rational agents to carry out their volition).
Secondly, we must recognize that Islamic law and Western law are based on distinct metaphysical presumptions. Our aqeedah is what distinguishes our basis of legislation. In Western law, the source of legislation is a document that was purportedly compiled by the people. Although in America, for example, the Constitution was written without the permission of either the people or the states (they overstepped their authority which was to revise the Articles of Confederation). Furthermore, according to Max Lerner, a legal scholar from Yale, only 5% of the US population participated in the ratification of the Constitution. Hence, to claim that the document itself has any true democratic weight is very sketchy. Ultimately, the authority of the Constitution comes from convention, not some sort of platonic conception of rights which are intangible. Islam, on the other hand, posits in the existence of an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Just and Merciful God. Hence, when God legislates, unlike the people, His legislation is just, precise, and unarbitrary. It is for this that good and evil, the lawful and prohibited, is determined by the Shari’ah and not the human intellect. The human intellect isn’t capable of determining what is good or evil because it lacks the necessary knowledge and means to weight things. The only power it truly has is to choose between doing good or evil, it cannot determine this.
Thirdly, we must recognize that just like Western law, the Islamic legal system has its own objectives (maqasid al shari’ah). According to Imam Ghazzali, these are five: the preservation of faith, life, property, family (or lineage), and the intellect. It is remarkably similar to the liberal conception of the purpose of the state. Ultimately, the major difference between what is within the interest of the individual and human kind between Islam and the West is that Islam doesn’t restrict harm/benefit to material and physical matters, but extends it to spiritual matters and matters concerning the akhirah. It is for this reason that under Islamic law, apostasy goes against the core objectives of the Shari’ah, namely, the preservation of the faith. The other objectives of the Shari’ah, in reality, are subsumed by the main objective, which is the preservation of faith. Nothing can contradict this objective more than apostasy which is conceivably one of the greatest harms a person can commit. If you think about it, the harm of the akhirah is worse than the harm of this life. The punishment in the akhirah is not temporal but eternal and is far more intense and painful than the punishment and suffering of this world. Hence, it is inherently within the interest of both the state and the individual to take the necessary means to prohibit apostasy as a criminal act.
Fourthly, the question becomes what the proper punishment is for apostasy, which we have already established to be a capital offense. Since the apostate threatens the faith of other believers, he cannot be allowed to integrate back into society. Hence, he should either be punished with banishment, life imprisonment, or death. The main reason why death is chosen is because this is what the Prophet (saw) did, the Sahabah (ra) did, and what the four schools have ijmaa upon. This in and of itself is a sufficient proof. We should recall that Imam Ghazzali (r) has stated in “On the Boundaries of Theological Differences” that to deny the fundamental beliefs as well as matters of consensus is an act of kufr in and of itself. Thus, the main proof for the punishment are the conventional sources of legislation. That should be sufficient; Islam is based upon hearing and obeying. However, there are other reasons for supporting a capital punishment. It prevents the apostate from going back into society and spreading fitnah. It also serves as a deterrence from other individuals to apostate. It also serves to preserve the state itself which is based upon Islam. If people apostate, the strength of the state itself is undermined. Thus, either the apostate actively engages in treason against the state (as is usually the case) or passively undermines the state as stated above. The argument can be made that this is a punishment that is cruel and unusual. If you think about the death penalty in Islam, it is actually better than it is in the West because in Islam, the death is virtually instantaneous. Whereas in the West, punishment through electrocution, lethal injection, gas, etc actually cause extreme pain. Furthermore, the punishment is proportionate. The death of the individual may be construed as being oppressive, but it pales in comparison to the oppression that the person does to his own soul. With regards to life imprisonment, it is a costly measure (an estimated $58,000 to provide for an inmate) that doesn’t seem to have an effect on crime (over 60% of those who commit a crime usually return to it after completing their prison system). From a Kantian perspective, we could argue that belief in God, as Imam Juwayni argued, was an inherently rational conclusion and to deny Allah 
or the deen after having found the truth, was comlpetely irrational. When rational agents commit irrational acts, they are liable for punishment. The same thing applies to Islam, when a person makes a choice, they should be held accountable.
Allahu alim
Sphere: Related ContentPublished March 29, 2006 . Filed under: Islamic Politics and Governance, Uncategorized
Posts
I would add that the death penalty doesn’t seem to have an effect on crime either. If we are going to argue from the shariah, we need to stick to that. Getting bogged down in doubtful empirical claims will only hurt the argument. I can see why the harm, real or potential, done to other members of society warrants a severe punishment (an apostate, after all,
guides aright there is none to lead him astray; and there is none to guide him aright whom Allah 
leads astray”-From a translation of Rasulullah(SAW)’s final sermon. While it is true that other harms that may befall one, including those 
(SWT)it is the fact that they _are_ occasioned by some offense on the part of another that demands a response by the state. Simply being an apostate
(SWT) wills their misguidance. I’m not questioning the wisdom of Allah 
(SWT) in assigning proper hudud punishments, I’m merely criticizing a certain tactic used in defending them. May Allah 
(SWT) forgive me or
apparently has the potential to damage other’s status in the akhirah), but to redress a wrong to one’s self (apostacy) with another wrong to that person (death, and thus virtually certain eternal agony) is none-sensical. It’s like the joke about the man who climbed a tall building and said “I’ll jump”
whereupon a police officer shut him and said “No, you’ll fall.” My other criticism is that the harm to others is _very_ sketchy. “Whom Allah
which are occasioned by the actions of others (such as theft), are also
the will of Allah
does not damage anyone (other than themselves); at most it would be the attempt to propogate apostacy that should be punished. Even then it seems odd to punish someone for attempting an act which it is beyond their power to perform. Whether they keep silence or blast their kufr from the loud speakers it will not misguide someone unless Allah
mistakes I have made and not make them an occasion for anyone to do harm to themselves. Ameen.
March 29, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
Assalamu alaikum
Awesome critique. I realize that their is a major contradiction in the argument and thats why I posted it. I wanted to recieve criticism and possible suggestions for ammending it.
Any suggestions? Or is this one of those cases of “We hear and Obey” and the hikma is known only to Allah
(swt)?
March 29, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
In Islam, state and religion are ONE. There is no separation. That is why Umar punished people for listening to music, dressing up a particular way etc etc. Now, it can be said ‘what harm is music going to do? Or what interest could the state have in preventing these things? So you won’t see it and no one will believe it until you make them see that in Islam, state = religion.
Therefore, the central argument should first talk about separation of religion/state and then about how individual features serve the valid purpose.
This is only an extension/reformulation of the Imam Ghazzali quotation, but to talk about it to the Westerners you will need to bring in the religion/state element since that’s exactly what should things put in perspective for them.
March 29, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
Good point brother.
I completely forgot to take the issue of secularism into consideration.
March 29, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
You know I was thinking about this and I realized that the view on apostacy are different in the Middle East and the West because of our histories.
Keep in mind that Europeans have had nothing but trouble when religion was in the public sphere and as a result, they sought to put it in the private sphere. This is evident in Thomas Hobbe’s writings who wrote about leaving religion in the private sphere while the war of the roses was going on.
Meanwhile, the Middle East, as far as I can think of, has not had large scale religious wars such as those of Europe. Religion in the public sphere often had good effects. I’m not saying people were never hurt because of religion, but it’s nothing like Europe.
As such, Europe believes that religion is a private matter in order that we avoid conflict while in Muslims see religion as a public thing because of our history and experience with religion.
Kapeesh?
March 31, 2006 @ 12:14 am
I dunno if I can necessarily agree with your assessment about religious wars. We had two major civil wars, the sunni-shi’i, various sects, all battling it out throughout our history.
But no one ever questioned the authority of the Shari’ah until colonialism happened.
March 31, 2006 @ 1:59 am
When have ever had a large scale sectarian war, though? The closest we have come was during the wars between the Ottomans and Safavids. I don’t think the Battle of Siffin can really be called a sectarian conflict; it was a political battle which later had sectarian consequences.
April 2, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
Well, during the Crusades, we also had the Assassins, the Fatimids in Egypt, etc.
Lets not forget the khwaraaj too.
I don’t think the warfare was as intense as it was in Europe, but I think sectarian differences contributed to the complexity of Muslim geopolitics throughout our history.
April 3, 2006 @ 7:55 pm
You said…”The punishment in the akhirah is not temporal but eternal and is far more intense and painful than the punishment and suffering of this world. Hence, it is inherently within the interest of both the state and the individual to take the necessary means to prohibit apostasy as a criminal act.”
I am not seeing the logical connection between these statements. Why does the severity of the punishment for apostacy in the hereafter necessitate that human beings make it a criminal act in this world? What “crime” has been committed? One could argue that apostacy could equal treason if there is a (truly) Islamic state, but even then it should only be punished as such if its causing revolt against the government. In today’s day and age, if some Muslim in his home decides he no longer believes in God, justice hardly demands that he be put to death for it.
Also, it seems silly to say that in Islam we kill you more softly than in the West, thus the death penalty for apostacy is not “cruel and unusual punishment.” Whats at issue is the punishment of death itself, not the method in which its carried out.
Maleeha
March 19, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
“the apostate threatens the faith of other believers”
i think that is absolute nonsense. is your faith so weak that it would waver if an apostate went on about his reasons for disbelief in the religion?
also, i think that the death penalty creates a climate of fear, which actually threatens and damages the religion greatly. any apostate (in an Islamic state) can not admit to having lost faith (something he would have no doubt struggled with a lot). he can not consult anyone, for fear of being reported and sentenced to death. his only way out is to live a lie (and live with the fear of being caught in that lie), which makes him hate the religion even more. had he been free to express himself, may be he would have been able to talk to someone who could guide him back to religion. THAT is why God actually says in the Quran:
“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 the truth - God will not forgive them, nor will He guide them in any way.”
note the part where God obviously talks about those who believe and then apostate and then grow to believe again. aside from the obvious, over-argued point that one can not grow to believe again is already dead which frankly crushes any argument for death as a valid punishment for apostasy in my books, a person can grow to believe AGAIN if he is given the room and the opportunity to do so. and this can not be done with threats of death or violence or severe punishment but with love and kindness (as no doubt the Prophet would have done).
April 29, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
Was it also the case that most mass-murdering Christian rulers were orthodox, while most mass-murdering Muslim rulers were heretical (eg the Mad Caliph of Egypt)?
January 2, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
Well, my understanding of apostasy itself is that its applied on a case by case basis. Most of the people who were prosecuted in large groups under the charge of apostasy usually took up arms against the state which makes the issue more complicated because it transforms from a question of theology into one of challenging the legitimacy of the state.
In fact, the Hanbali view of apostasy seems to be that the primary purpose is to restrict challenges against the state and not necessarily to punish people for an individual choice of leaving the religion.
Other then in the instance of challenging state authority, I’m not aware of any specific cases of a large scale punishment of apostate groups.
January 3, 2008 @ 4:25 am