Apostasy, known as Ridda in Arabic, refers to the act of abandoning or renouncing one’s faith in Islam. An apostate called a murtad, is someone who was once a Muslim but later rejects Islamic beliefs and converts to another religion (1). Before delving into the debates surrounding apostasy, it is essential to note that Islam is often cited as the religion with the highest number of converts globally. Platforms like Quora and Reddit frequently highlight this, and data from the Pew Research Center supports it. According to a 2017 Pew report, Muslims are projected to remain the fastest-growing major religious group in the coming decades (2). The same report found that 23% of Muslims in America are converts. Additionally, a 2011 study by Faith Matters revealed that over 100,000 Britons had converted to Islam in the UK over the past decade (3).
While it is true that some individuals leave Islam for other religions, global trends indicate that more people convert to Islam than leave it. This dynamic reflects Islam’s appeal as a faith tradition while also raising questions about the treatment of those who choose to leave the religion.
Punishment for Apostasy in Islam
The Quran primarily addresses apostasy in terms of spiritual consequences. For example, it states:
“And whoever of you reverts from his religion and dies while he is a disbeliever – for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.” (Qur’an 2:217)
These verses emphasize the consequences of apostasy in the Hereafter rather than prescribing earthly punishments. However, earthly punishments for apostasy are derived from the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). For instance, a well-known Hadith states:
“Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” (Sahih Bukhari 6922)
Islamic tradition generally stipulates that an apostate be given three days to reconsider and revert to Islam before the prescribed punishment of death is carried out. It is worth noting that similar punishments for apostasy exist in other religious traditions. For example, the Torah prescribes stoning for Jews who forsake the God of Israel (Deuteronomy 13:8-9, 17:2-7).
Does the Hadith Conflict with the Qur’an?
Critics often cite the Qur’anic verse “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256) as conflicting with the death penalty for apostasy. However, such critiques often fail to consider the historical and political context in which these rulings emerged. During the Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) time, apostasy was not merely a private decision to change faith but was often seen as an act of betrayal or treason against the Muslim community.
Joseph Schacht, a prominent Western scholar of Islamic law, argued in An Introduction to Islamic Law that the punishment for apostasy was deeply rooted in the political context of early Islamic governance. Apostasy was considered a threat to the unity and stability of the nascent Muslim state (4).
Apostasy in Islamic Jurisprudence and Policy Reasons for Such a Severe Punishment:
In early Islamic jurisprudence, apostasy was treated differently due to its political implications. For example, Abu Ishaq al-Shirazi, in his foundational Shafi Jurisprudence text categorized apostasy under rebellion rather than as a hudud (fixed) crime(5). Similarly, Hanafi scholars such as Al-Sarakhsi (6) and Ibn Humam (7) placed apostasy within chapters on interstate politics rather than under hudud.
This perspective reflects the reality of pre-modern societies, where religion was deeply intertwined with governance. Apostasy was viewed as a public act of betrayal akin to treason, threatening societal stability. Al-Sarakhsi likened an apostate who publicly renounced Islam and encouraged others to do so to a violent criminal threatening societal stability. Al-Sarakhsi argued that earthly punishments for apostasy were not for disbelief itself—which is a matter between the individual and God—but for the disruption it caused to public order (ibid). Ibn Humam echoed this sentiment, justifying the death penalty for apostasy as a means of maintaining societal peace (ibid). Shaykh Mahmud Shaltut further clarified that Islam does not punish disbelief (kufr) itself with death but punishes actions that threaten the Muslim community’s stability(8). So, the problem was not with denouncing Islam rather it became a problem when this denunciation was coupled with public acts that threatened the newly formed Muslim community.
In modern times, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a leading scholar, distinguished between two forms of apostasy (9):
In his view, earthly punishment is only reserved for transgressive apostasy and it has nothing to do so with non-transgressive apostasy because there is no compulsion in religion in Islam.
Scholars like Al-Qaradawi have likened the punishment for apostasy to contemporary penalties for treason. In many modern states, treason is still punishable by severe penalties, including death. For example, in the United States, treason is punishable by death or life imprisonment (10), while in the UK, it was historically punishable by death until the death penalty was abolished. Today penalty for treason in the UK is life imprisonment (11). Most nations impose harsh penalties for treason to preserve national security and public order.
Another factor influencing the punishment for apostasy was the issue of hypocrisy. During the early days of Islam, hypocrites (munafiqin) posed a significant threat to the nascent Muslim community. Some individuals outwardly professed Islam while secretly working to undermine it, often abandoning Islam and collaborating with its enemies. Prominent figures like Abdullah
Ibn Ubayy, used such tactics to destabilize the Muslim community from within (12). The death penalty for apostasy was thus seen as a safeguard against potential adversaries who might exploit their nominal conversion to Islam to harm the community.
Punishment for Apostasy and the Modern Policies of the West:
The two main reasons discussed above; public order and treason, perfectly align with the modern policies of the West. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the freedom to choose his religion and this right includes freedom to change his religion either publicly or privately. However, Article 29 of the same Declaration states that the freedoms outlined in the Declaration can be restricted on the grounds of morality, public order and the welfare of the democratic society. So, both the Modern Western World and Islam view religious freedom as an extremely important right of a person but it can be restricted on grounds of public order and morality. This preservation of public order is the reason the so-called modern societies and advocates of freedom ban Muslim women from wearing face veils in public and wearing Hijabs in Schools (13)
If we examine apostasy from the lens of treason as stated by Al Qaradawi then again unsurprisingly modern countries follow the footsteps of Islam. For example, in the United States treason is punishable by death though life imprisonment with a fine is also an option. Methods of punishment vary but most federal executions are carried out via lethal injections. In the United Kingdom the punishment for treason was at one time death however since the abolishment of the death penalty the punishment is now life imprisonment. Similar sort of severe penalties are applied in every nation of the world. So, questioning Islam’s punishment for treason just seems a little odd and biased.
The Prophet’s Actions Regarding Apostasy
Despite the strong language in some Hadith, historical evidence suggests that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) rarely, if ever, executed individuals solely for leaving Islam. Instead, his actions reflected leniency and concern for repentance.
For example:
The Approach of Early Caliphs
The early Caliphs, following the Prophet’s example, demonstrated a nuanced approach to apostasy.
Although instances of execution for apostasy have been reported in Islamic history what distinguishes them from the above examples is the public and provocative nature of the incidents. It is narrated that Caliph Ali (RA) executed a man named al Mustawrad for converting to Christianity but Muslim scholars emphasize that the reasoning behind this execution was tied to public acts of insulting Islam. However, this narration is considered weak amongst Muslim scholars. Later, in times of the Ottoman Empire, a Muslim who had converted to Christianity was brought before a judge to repent. However, he insulted the judge and cursed Islam. He was executed after three more such public incidents of cursing Islam.
These examples reflect Islam’s broader principle of rehabilitation and preferring leniency over punitive measures. So, Despite Apostasy being a Hud crime. the acts of the Prophet (SAW) and the early caliphs show that severe punishments are only used as a last resort.
Conclusion
So, it is safe to conclude that Islam does not compel adherence to its faith. Rather, its approach towards apostasy reflects the balance between individual rights and collective stability. The historical context and rationale behind the punishment for apostasy in Islam—namely, the preservation of public order and the prevention of treason—align with principles found in modern legal systems. While Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes religious freedom, Article 29 acknowledges the necessity of restricting such freedoms in the interest of public order and morality. Similarly, modern nations impose severe penalties for treason, reflecting a comparable understanding of the balance between individual rights and societal stability.
Critiques of Islam’s approach to apostasy often overlook these nuances, focusing solely on religious doctrine without considering the broader historical, social, and political contexts that shaped Islamic jurisprudence.
References: