Abdul Rahman, an Afghan, recently converted to Christianity. This inflamed the passions of the orthodox Muslims so much that they invoked application of apostasy law against him.

- - -
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Apostasy (Irtidad), as commonly understood, is abandoning Islam by converting to some other religion. It is just not a theoretical or academic issue; such incidents have happened in the past and continue to happen in our own time. While conversion from other religions to Islam is almost sacred and welcomed by Muslims, abandoning Islam is deplored and many believe is punishable by death. Consequently, a person who is born a Muslim is doomed to remain a Muslim.

The most recent case of apostasy is that of Abdul Rahman, an Afghan by nationality, who has relinquished faith in Islam and has embraced Christianity. This inflamed the passions of the orthodox Muslims in Afghanistan so much that they invoked application of apostasy law against him and demanded him to be punished accordingly.

According to BBC, Kabul, March 25, 2006, “Under the interpretation of Islamic Sharia law on which Afghanistan’s constitution is based, Mr. Rahman faces the death penalty unless he reconverts to Islam. The Prophet Muhammed has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back, says Ansarullah Mawalfizada, the trial judge. Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him.”

Islam may be a religion of peace in its literal sense but its application in the Muslim world is anything but peaceful. Provision of death sentence for apostasy is not sanctioned by Quran; a recourse is usually made to Hadiths by the hard-core orthodox and unforgiving fanatics to invoke death for apostasy. There is, as a matter of fact, no occasion for begging apology and forgiveness in such cases because they are wholly the individuals’ own choice; the clergy and the ulema shouldn’t have any right to impose their will on an individual who chooses to abandon Islam for his own reasons. He doesn’t have to explain his apostasy to any body; it should be nobody else’s business.

The most oft-quoted and well-known verse of Quran applicable to such a situation is 2:256. According to this verse, “Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.”

This assertion is so clear and obvious that there should be no room for equivocation. But equivocation does exist (in spite of clear statement in the verse) as in all matters of religion. For example, Maudoodi provides a clear and unambiguous explanation of verse 2:256 as follows: “There is no compulsion in religion (la ikraha fi-al-Din) means that we do not compel anyone to come into our religion. And this is truly our practice. But we initially warn whoever would come and go back that this door is not open to come and go. Therefore anyone who comes should decide before coming that there is no going back.” Here Maudoodi has gone beyond the Quranic injunction. The verse in question did not forbid one “to come and go.”

For example, the verse 4:137 in Sura al-Nisa states, “Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasingly in unbelief, Allah will not forgive them nor guide them on the way.” The verse doesn’t call for the apostate’s death. It simply says, “Allah will not forgive him.” Maudoodi’s ordering that the door is closed thus seems to be a transgression. This verse also shows that going back and forth between Islam and some other religion(s) did indeed happen (otherwise why mention it?). If the punishment of apostasy were indeed death, how could an apostate go back and forth in belief and disbelief? He would be killed at his first deed of apostasy and wouldn’t have opportunity to come and go.

Maudoodi equivocated when at another place (Abul-ala-Maudoodi, The Punishment of the Apostate according to Islamic Law: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Hahn/Mawdudi), he argued, “The following is the occasion for the revelation of this verse: During the pilgrimage (hajj) in A.H.9, God, Most High, ordered a proclamation of an immunity. By virtue of this proclamation all those who, up to that time, were fighting against God and His Apostle and were attempting to obstruct the way of God’s religion through all kinds of excesses and false covenants, were granted from that time a maximum respite of four months. During this period they were to ponder their own situation. If they wanted to accept Islam, they could accept it and they would be forgiven. If they wanted to leave the country, they could leave. Within this fixed period nothing would hinder them from leaving. Thereafter those remaining, who would neither accept Islam nor leave the country, would be dealt with by the sword.”

Similarly, there are other assertions calling for death of an apostate from the ulema in other countries of the Muslim world. Several Hadiths are quoted in support of their declarations but one thing that should be clearly understood is that a Hadith doesn’t have the same authority as an injunction of the Quran. A Hadith cannot abrogate a Quranic verse. A Hadith is at best the word of Prophet Muhammed (if it is reliable in the first place) while Quran is believed to be the word of God. So the verse la ikraha fi-al-Din holds in spite of all Hadiths and ulema’s convoluted arguments.

I’ll quote herein only one Hadith for specificity. According to it: “Allah’s Apostle said, the blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims,” (Sahih Bukhari, vol.9, book 83, number 17, narrated via Abdullah).

One of the most distinguished and profound legal minds of Pakistan was Chief Justice S.A. Rahman. In his book, Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, he stated “..that there was no death penalty in any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Quran,” (Apostay in Islam, Wikipedia).
The tragedy of the Muslim world is that it is stuck in the past. In the past, the apostates were treated ruthlessly not only in Islam but in Christianity and Judaism also. While they (Christians and Jews) have moved along with time and allowed the light of reason to shine on their religious beliefs, the Muslim are still trapped in their age old mindset and refuse to come out of it.

There is a considerable protestation against Mr. Rahman’s death sentence from all quarters of the world. There is a great probability that the death sentence would be rescinded. Still it is mind boggling that such things continue to happen. The west has gone through enlightenment, modernism and postmodernism and the Muslim world is waffling in the medieval age.

Is there any room for free speech, individual choice and rationalism in the Muslim world? There is urgent need to review the issue of apostasy in the light of Quran and let the Quranic injunction, la ikraha fi-al-Din, unequivocally prevail.