By Cyril Anderson

 Part Two of Two

Those who say that leaving Islam as a religion and publicly refuting it constitute treason imply that disbelief in and attacks upon the religion of Islam represent attacks on the constitution of the government of the Islamic nation. But this is not necessarily true.

One can disbelieve in the Qu'ran, and in Muhammad, in the religious rituals, and yet still agree with the principles of government on which the state is constituted, because of the basis of these principles in universal principals of natural law. Analogously, one could have disagreements with certain aspects of the philosophy of Leibniz or Plato and other philosophers whose ideas of natural law shaped the US Constitution, without rejecting and undermining the US Constitution.

During history, in the strongest periods of Islamic civilization, the Islamic state contained large populations of non-Muslim minorities who were, for the most part, happy with the system of government in which they lived, because they were happy with the principles of the government. This was despite the fact that they didn't agree with Islam as a religion.
If merely rejecting Islam constituted an undermining of the constitution of the Islamic government, then what does this say about the position of religious minorities?  These minorities are traditionally protected by the Muslim state, given payment of taxes.  If someone left Islam for one of these protected religions, then would it not make sense that they would simply be considered as a member of one of these protected groups?

We as Muslims need to distinguish between Muhammad's role as a prophet in teaching us how to worship and draw near to God, and his role as a statesman implementing principles of good government. Even though the principles are inspired by the religious belief, these principles actually reflect universal principles of natural law, and are in this way independent of the religion itself. This is an important point, because treason is an undermining of the principles on which the government is constituted, not on the particular philosophical or religious foundation under which these principles are elucidated.

One does not need to be a Muslim to believe in most or all of the Islamic principles of governance. Jews and Christians in this century would have little difficulty understanding the key governance principles, given that they were described to them in their own frame of reference. The only religious beliefs on which these principles, which are largely natural law principles, depend, is a belief in God, a belief in the sacred value of an individual human life, a belief that humans are equal before God in justice and share a reason and sense of justice that come from God, to whom they are ultimately accountable for their actions. But these religious beliefs are not specifically Islamic; they are shared by almost all religions. Islamic civilization distinguishes itself in being one of the first of human civilization to implement such principles in a systematic and relatively coherent way, but the concepts are not uniquely Islamic. Across religions, these sorts of principles of good government have been expressed.

Thus a mere leaving of and criticizing of Islam, while believed to set a person in a bad position with God, does not in fact undermine the constitution of an Islamic state, and thus do not constitute treason.

There are a number of arguments against this notion of a death penalty for apostasy.  One strong argument that presents itself is from a perspective of natural law.  From this standpoint, humans have a natural, God-given right to freedom of thought, and we recognize the importance of this freedom deep down as an instinctual sort of insight. 

Another argument against a death penalty for apostasy comes from strength of the religion and God’s promise in the Qu’ran to protect it.  We should feel secure enough in the religion to not feel threatened by those who choose to leave it.  If someone leaves, and we are confident in our religion, we can be confident that more people will join the religion to take their place.

Yet another argument is from the Qu’ran, which, quite tellingly, describes no prescribed temporal punishment in the Qu’ran for apostasy.  There are several mentions of the issue of apostates, and in each of them there is an indication that this is something God disapproves of, and that He will take care of in the life to come if the person has not repented of his disbelief and turned back from it.  There is talk in one verse warning of those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe.  How could this be possible if they are to be executed after disbelieving?

Another argument is that having a death penalty for apostasy would act to keep people Muslim based on fear.  This is contrary to the teachings of Imam Ali (as), who said famously that worshipping God out of fear of punishment was the weakest sort of faith.  Such a law only creates hypocrisy, in which people disbelieve in their hearts, yet pretend to believe outwardly out of fear of physical harm.  The Qu’ran speaks repeatedly against hypocrites, describing them as the lowest of the low.  Do the proponents of a death penalty for apostasy think that Islam encourages such behavior?

If people born in Muslim households have serious doubts about their religion, and we believe our religion is true, then the only reasonable way to interpret this is that this is a sign that our efforts to educate people in the community is lacking in some way.  By hearing the arguments and reasoning of those who have lost their faith in Islam, however painful it is to hear, we can find out where we have gone wrong, and learn how to better our education system, and better our communities to fix these problems.  But if people keep their doubts quiet out of fear, then we miss this opportunity of feedback on how we are doing.

We as Muslims believe that we possess the truest, best faith of all those practiced by human beings.  As part of our key belief, we believe that Islam is the religion that truly enjoys God’s highest favor, and that He will take it upon Himself to protect it.  With this in mind, we should feel confident enough in our faith, our way of life as an institution to not feel threatened if someone decides to walk away from our faith, or even, God forbid, belittle the faith.  How can they harm in any way something that God has sworn to protect?  In no way.  Indeed, by responding to such childish attacks with calm and reason, we show the strength of our faith.

                                     Part One              Part Two