Why Muslim Nations Must Abandon Apostasy Laws?

By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, New Age Islam 8 February 2025 The issue of apostasy laws in Muslim-majority nations has long been a contentious topic, both within the Islamic world and in global discourse on human rights. Apostasy laws, which criminalize the act of leaving Islam, are enforced in several Muslim countries, often with severe penalties, including imprisonment, fines, and even death. The following countries impose capital punishment on individuals who renounce Islam: Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Many Muslims view Islam as a system that enforces piety and eliminates impious acts, apostasy, and blasphemy through force. These individuals base their beliefs on traditional interpretations of Sharia law, highlighting the need for open discussion and significant reinterpretation to reconcile Islam with the principles of freedom. However, a closer examination of the Quran, the primary source of Islamic teachings, reveals a strong argument against such laws. This essay explores why Muslim nations must abandon apostasy laws, drawing on Quranic verses, the principles of Islamic jurisprudence, and the perspectives of contemporary Muslim scholars. The Quranic Case Against Apostasy Laws Throughout Muslim history, numerous brilliant philosophers faced accusations of apostasy. Notably, Ghazali's severe condemnation, which included the death penalty, targeted "philosophers" influenced by Greek metaphysics, such as al-Farabi and Ibn Sina, as well as Shia Ismailis. This marked a pivotal moment, introducing the perilous concept of "clandestine apostasy." (Griffel, 2001). The technical term for apostasy in Islam is riddah or irtidad; an apostate is called murtadd. The Quran does not, contrary to popular belief, prescribe any punishment for apostasy. On the contrary, it advocates total freedom of con-science, conviction and belief. (Sardar, p.158) The Quran, as the foundational text of Islam, emphasizes principles such as freedom of religion, personal accountability, and the absence of coercion in matters of faith. These principles directly challenge the legitimacy of apostasy laws. Below are key Quranic arguments against such laws: The Quran explicitly states the importance of freedom of religion in verse 2:256, "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is distinct from the wrong." This verse underscores the Islamic principle that faith must be a matter of free will and personal conviction. Apostasy laws, which compel individuals to remain within Islam under threat of punishment, directly contradict this principle. Furthermore, the Quran affirms individual autonomy in matters of belief in verse 18:29, "Say, 'The truth is from your Lord': Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it)." This verse highlights that accountability for one's faith lies solely with God, not with human authorities. Punishing apostasy assumes a role of divine judgment that belongs only to God. In addition, the Quran addresses apostasy in several verses but does not prescribe any earthly punishment for it. For example, verse 4:137 states, "Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief, - God will not forgive them nor guide them on the way." The absence of a prescribed punishment in the Quran suggests that apostasy is a matter between the individual and God, not a crime to be adjudicated by humans. The Quran also rejects the idea of forced belief in verses 10:99-100, "If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed, - all who are in the earth! Wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe!" This rhetorical question challenges the very notion of using coercion to maintain religious adherence, which is the essence of apostasy laws. Moreover, the Quran reminds believers that guidance is ultimately from God in verse 2:272, "Not upon thee are their guidance, but God guide whom He please." This verse reinforces the idea that humans do not have the authority to enforce religious conformity, as guidance is a divine prerogative. Finally, the Quran acknowledges that some may leave Islam but does not prescribe retribution in verse 5:54, "O ye who believe! if any among you turn back from his Faith, soon will God produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him." This verse suggests that apostasy does not harm the faith community and that God will ensure the continuity of Islam without human intervention. Historical Context and Misinterpretation The enforcement of apostasy laws in many Muslim-majority countries is often rooted in historical and political contexts rather than Quranic teachings. During the early Islamic period, apostasy was sometimes conflated with treason, particularly when individuals who left Islam also allied with enemies of the Muslim community. This historical context has led to the misinterpretation of apostasy as a capital offense, despite the absence of clear Quranic support for such punishments. Contemporary scholars like Abdullah bin Bayah have argued that the original rationale for apostasy laws was tied to political betrayal, not merely the act of changing one's faith. Similarly, Dr. Jonathan Brown has highlighted that the traditional Islamic punishment for apostasy was more about maintaining social and political order in pre-modern societies than about enforcing religious conformity. The Case for Abandoning Apostasy Laws Abolishing apostasy laws in Muslim nations is essential for aligning with Quranic principles, upholding human rights, promoting a progressive image of Islam, and encouraging intellectual and spiritual growth. As demonstrated by the Quranic verses cited above, Islam emphasizes freedom of religion, personal accountability, and the absence of coercion in matters of faith. Apostasy laws, which impose penalties for leaving Islam, are fundamentally at odds with these principles. Abandoning such laws would align Muslim nations more closely with the Quran's teachings. Moreover, apostasy laws violate fundamental human rights, including the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, as enshrined in international human rights instruments. By abolishing these laws, Muslim nations can affirm their commitment to human dignity and global human rights standards. The continued enforcement of apostasy laws perpetuates a negative image of Islam as a rigid and oppressive religion. By abandoning these laws, Muslim nations can demonstrate that Islam is compatible with modernity, pluralism, and respect for individual freedoms. This, in turn, would promote a more progressive image of Islam, showcasing its capacity for adaptability and evolution. Ultimately, abolishing apostasy laws would create an environment where Muslims can engage in critical thinking, spiritual exploration, and genuine religious commitment without fear of persecution. A faith that is freely chosen is more meaningful and resilient than one that is enforced. By encouraging intellectual and spiritual growth, Muslim nations can foster a more vibrant, diverse, and inclusive Muslim community. Critique of Hadiths Used to Justify Apostasy Laws Apostasy laws in some Muslim-majority countries are justified using certain hadiths that prescribe capital punishment for those who leave Islam. However, these hadiths stand in stark contrast to the Quran’s clear affirmation of religious freedom. This essay critically examines the hadiths often cited in favour of apostasy laws, demonstrating their inconsistencies, contradictions with Quranic principles, and potential historical fabrications. Cited Hadiths in Favour of Apostasy Laws: The legitimacy of apostasy laws in Islam is often justified by referencing specific hadiths, which are deemed to support the traditional view that apostasy warrants the death penalty. Five hadiths, in particular, are commonly cited: Firstly, Sahih Bukhari (9:83:37) reports that the Prophet purportedly stated that a Muslim's blood can only be shed in three cases: murder, adultery, and apostasy. This hadith is frequently invoked to justify the execution of apostates. Secondly, Sahih Muslim (16:4152) contains a concise yet unequivocal statement: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." This hadith is often cited as a clear endorsement of the death penalty for apostasy. Thirdly, Sahih Bukhari (9:83:17) recounts a case where the Prophet allegedly ordered the execution of an apostate. This narration is sometimes used to demonstrate the Prophet's purported stance on apostasy. Fourthly, Sunan Abu Dawud (38:4359) reports a hadith that states, "If someone (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." This narration is similar to the one found in Sahih Muslim. Lastly, Sahih Bukhari (9:83:36) reiterates the execution of apostates, mirroring the first hadith. These five narrations are frequently cited to justify the traditional view that apostasy warrants the death penalty. However, a critical analysis of these hadiths reveals significant contradictions and ethical concerns, which challenge the traditional interpretation and raise important questions about the legitimacy of apostasy laws in Islam. Contradiction with the Quran’s Absolute Stance on Freedom of Belief The Quran unequivocally upholds religious freedom, emphasizing that faith is a personal choice and that the Prophet's role was solely to deliver the message. This is evident in several verses that underscore the importance of individual autonomy in matters of faith. For instance, Quran 2:256 states, "There is no compulsion in religion," highlighting that faith must be a voluntary and willing choice. Similarly, Quran 18:29 emphasizes the personal nature of faith, saying, "Say, 'The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills—let him believe; and whoever wills—let him disbelieve.'" This verse reinforces the idea that individuals have the freedom to choose their beliefs without coercion or force. Furthermore, Quran 88:22 reminds the Prophet that he is "not a controller over them," emphasizing that his role is not to enforce faith but to guide and deliver the message. Even in cases of apostasy, the Quran does not prescribe execution or punishment. For example, Quran 4:137 mentions multiple instances of apostasy without mandating the death penalty. Instead, the verse leaves judgment to God in the afterlife, stating that those who repeatedly reject faith will face divine consequences. The absence of a clear Quranic mandate for the death penalty in cases of apostasy is significant. If apostasy truly warranted capital punishment, the Quran would have explicitly stated so. However, the Quran's silence on this matter suggests that apostasy is not a crime punishable by death, but rather a personal choice that will be judged by God in the Hereafter. Internal Inconsistencies and Fabrications A closer examination of the hadiths on apostasy reveals conflicting narratives that challenge the traditional view that apostasy warrants the death penalty. For instance, Sunan Abu Dawud (3052) reports that the Prophet said, "Whoever harms a Dhimmi (non-Muslim under Muslim protection), I will be his opponent on the Day of Judgment." This hadith implies that non-Muslims under Muslim protection are granted certain rights and safeguards. If this is the case, it raises questions about why a Muslim who changes their faith would be given lesser rights. Shouldn't they be entitled to the same protections and freedoms as non-Muslims? Another conflicting hadith can be found in Sahih Muslim (37:6673), which recounts the story of Abdullah ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarh, a former scribe of the Prophet who apostatized and mocked Islam. Despite calls for his execution, the Prophet ultimately forgave him. This narrative is puzzling, as it suggests that apostasy was not necessarily a capital crime. If apostasy was indeed punishable by death, why did the Prophet pardon an apostate? Furthermore, the hadiths that advocate for the execution of apostates conflict with the Prophet's own practice. There is no historical record of the Prophet executing anyone solely for leaving Islam. This omission is significant, especially considering that the Quran discusses apostates multiple times but never prescribes capital punishment. Additionally, the Munafiqun (hypocrites) openly conspired against Islam during the Prophet's lifetime, yet he never executed them. These inconsistencies raise important questions about the legitimacy of using certain hadiths to justify the death penalty for apostasy. Many hadiths regarding apostasy laws emerged after the Prophet’s time, particularly under rulers who sought to suppress dissent. The Ridda (apostasy) wars under Abu Bakr were primarily against political rebels, not peaceful apostates. The expansionist Islamic state had a vested interest in criminalizing apostasy to maintain political unity. Ethical and Theological Problems with these Hadiths The practice of executing individuals solely for changing their beliefs raises significant moral and ethical concerns, violating the principles of justice. Even within the framework of Islamic law, the implementation of hudud (fixed punishments) requires clear Quranic support, which is notably absent in the case of apostasy. This omission underscores the inconsistency of punishing individuals for apostasy, highlighting the need for a more nuanced understanding of Islamic law. Furthermore, modern scholars emphasize the importance of contextualizing apostasy laws within their historical framework. They argue that the hadiths often cited to justify the execution of apostates likely referred to instances of political betrayal, rather than personal changes in belief. A closer examination of the language used in these narrations reveals that the phrase "leaves the Muslims" may imply political treason or abandonment of the community, rather than mere religious conversion. This distinction is crucial, as it suggests that the historical context of these hadiths was more complex than a simple change of faith. The Quran Overrules These Hadiths: 1. The Quran contradicts these hadiths by repeatedly affirming freedom of conscience (2:256, 18:29, 10:99). 2. The Prophet never executed an apostate, even when he had the opportunity. 3. The hadiths themselves conflict, raising doubts about their authenticity. 4. Early Islamic rulers weaponized apostasy laws for political suppression, not religious doctrine. 5. Modern Islamic thought and human rights principles reject coercion in faith, aligning with the Quranic spirit. Analysis of Jamal al-Banna Jamal al-Banna, the younger brother of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, offered a thought-provoking analysis on the issue of apostasy in Islam: “The hadith, narrated by ‘Ikrima from Ibn ‘Abbas, states, ‘Whoever changes his religion, put him to death.’ In contrast to the text of this hadith, notes al-Banna, there are more than one hundred verses in the Quran which affirm freedom of conscience and religion and signify acceptance of a plurality of religions and ways of life. On the question of apostasy specifically, several verses in the Quran undermine the command in the previously cited hadith. For example, Q.2:108 states, ‘Whoever substitutes unbelief for belief has certainly missed the straight path’; another verse Q.2:217 states, ‘Whoever among you retreats from his religion and dies an unbeliever, they are those whose actions are in vain in this world and the next’. Other verses (Q.47:25; 16:109; 24:55) similarly criticise relapse into unbelief and warn of divine retribution in the next world but prescribe no worldly punishment. To those who would respond that this is an example of a case where the Quran is silent and the Sunna provides the requisite answer and necessary specification (min majalat ikhtisas al-sunna), al-Banna identifies the following problems inherent in this position: 1. The Quran does in fact identify a punishment for apostasy; 2. This punishment, however, is postponed to the next world and is not the prerogative of any human being; 3. The Quran categorically states that no human being, including the Prophet, has the right to forcefully impose religious belief on another human being. Furthermore, the hadith itself does not qualify as an unimpeachable proof-text for the following reasons: first, it is one of the solitary reports (ahad) which are not admissible as proof-texts in matters of doctrine, since by their paucity of narrators and of chains of transmission, they do not conduce to certainty but only to presumption and conjecture. Second, there is no evidence that the Prophet ever put anyone to death for mere apostasy. The evidence instead shows that only when apostasy was coupled with treason and sedition was it considered a punishable offence. Third, the language of the hadith is imprecise, since it does not indicate in which direction the conversion went. With more than a touch of irony, al-Banna remarks that the hadith could potentially be used by priests in churches to proscribe conversion to Islam! The fourth reason is that the hadith is related by ‘Ikrima, who, although one of the most prominent narrators from Ibn ‘Abbas, was held in low esteem by Muslim b. Hajjaj, who transmitted only one report from him concerning the pilgrimage. On such a weighty matter concerning belief and doctrine, it would be more prudent, counsels al-Banna, to not place one’s reliance on a narrator with less than sterling credentials. The fifth and the final reason is that the larger context invoked for this hadith is ‘Ali’s alleged campaign against the zanadiqa (roughly ‘heretics’) whom he is said to have put to death by burning. When news of this purported event reached Ibn ‘Abbas, he is reported to have disavowed the legitimacy of this action because the Prophet had forbidden punishing anyone in this manner. The problem, al-Banna notes, is that the term zanadiqa is clearly being employed here anachronistically since it was not in circulation until well after the time of Ibn ‘Abbas during the waning days of the Umayyad dynasty. Also it is hardly likely that ‘Ali, a close Companion of the Prophet, would not have been aware of the prophetic proscription against burning anyone ¬– all of which create a cloud of suspicion around this report. And finally, attribution of the report to Ibn ‘Abbas is in itself doubtful, given the fact that Ibn ‘Abbas was a mere child during the lifetime of Muhammad, yet almost 1600 reports are attributed to him, many of which were recorded by al-Bukhari and Muslim in their highly respected hadith collections.” (Jamal Al-Banna, al-‘Awda ila ’l-qur’an, Cairo: al-Ittihad al-islami al-duwali li ’l-‘amal, 1984 as quoted in Afsaruddin, p.45-46) Furthermore, this fact significantly undermines the credibility of this often-cited proof-text, which is frequently invoked to justify capital punishment for mere apostasy, or the voluntary renunciation of one's faith. The Imperative of Abolishing Apostasy Laws These hadiths, when critically examined, prove hollow, inconsistent, and inapplicable within a just Islamic framework. The Quran’s message of "no compulsion in religion" (2:256) must prevail over fabricated or politically motivated traditions. Apostasy laws, rooted in political expediency rather than Quranic teachings, must be abolished in Muslim-majority nations. Upholding the Quranic principle of freedom of belief is essential for justice, human dignity, and the true spirit of Islam. As the Quran reminds us: "There is no compulsion in religion." (2:256) Let us not forget that coercive religious edicts ultimately hinder genuine spiritual growth. Instead, they give rise to two issues that John Locke (1632-1704) also noted in his time. Firstly, they foster "hypocrisy," where individuals outwardly display piety without true conviction, merely to conform to societal expectations. The second problem is what John Locke called “contempt of his divine majesty.” (Locke mentions both “hypocrisy” and “contempt”. (Locke, p. 12). It means that when you shove religion down people’s throats, those people may end up detesting religion, which is exactly what is happening today in many corners of the Muslim world. From Iran to Turkey and many parts of the Arab world, a new generation of atheists, deists, and other kinds of ex-Muslims have lost all their faith in Islam mainly because of all the oppression, violence, hate, or bigotry they have seen in its name. Their stories show that by denying people their natural right to liberty, oppressive Islamic regimes and movements are triggering the greatest wave of apostasy the Islamic civilization has ever seen. (Akyol, pp. 5–19) In other words, we have a crisis of religion in the contemporary Muslim world, and at its core lies the notion that there is compulsion in religion. Bibliography Afsaruddin, Asma, Contemporary Issues in Islam, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2015 Akyol, Mustafa, “How Islamists Are Ruining Islam,” in Current Trends in Islamist Ideology, vol. 26, Washington: Hudson Institute, 2020 Griffel, Frank, "Toleration and Exclusion: Al-Shafiʾi and al-Ghazali on the Treatment of Apostates," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Vol. 64, No. 3, 2001 Locke, John, A Letter Concerning Toleration, London: J. Brook, 1796 Sardar, Ziauddin, Reading the Qur'an: The Contemporary Relevance of the Sacred Text of Islam, New York: Oxford University Press, 2011 … V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. He can be reached at vamashrof@gmail.com URL: https://newageislam.com/islamic-sharia-laws/muslim-nations-apostasy-laws/d/134556 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism