Apostasy in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was looking at the article Apostasy in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. An Islamic jurist was attempting to justify the traditional response to apostasy in Islam. The traditional response is to kill people for leaving Islam. Jurists disagree on whether or not women should be killed or merely imprisoned until they recant. Under some interpretations people who convert to Islam are imprisoned for a short time and given a chance to recant in order to save their lives. Those who were born to Muslim parents are less likely to be able to save their lives in this manner. Sometimes they are given a chance to recant so that they can save their souls according to the claims of the faith.

The basic argument is to compare apostasy to treason. Islam is said to be more than a religion. It is a complete way of life. I would point out that Islam is hardly unique among religions in seeing itself as being more than just a religion. In any case the word that Muslims use for religion carries with it shades of meaning that are similar to our concept of law. So that by acting against the religion the apostate also act against the state.

I don't think that this is a valid argument. Under our constitution treason is limited to actually waging war against the state or helping others to do so. Saying that you think that the constitution is evil, burning the American flag or saying that you no longer consider yourself to be an American don't qualify as treason. You are free to hate the United States and can leave the country with impunity. These behaviors don't constitute treason.

By defining treason in this manner these jurists make me wonder whether we should re-define our own concept of treason so that it includes becoming a Muslim. Islam has the potential to pose a threat to any form of government that includes separation of church and state and freedom of religion. For those of us who do not want Islamic law to govern our lives this poses a problem. Perhaps we should resolve it by giving Muslims a choice. Islam is either to be treated as a religion or a form of law. If it is to be treated as a religion, then Muslims can enjoy all of the freedom to practice this religion that adherents of any other faith enjoy. I hope they will make this choice. However, I cannot control how they decide. If they chose to cling to this idea that Islam is a form of law and to punish people with death on the basis that leaving Islam constitutes treason, then it is hypocritical of them to demand that we respect their religious freedom. If leaving Islam can constitute treason, then embracing Islam can as well.

However, I am not persuaded that this is the way to go. Changing the way that we treat religion just to respond to Islam is a very expensive solution to a problem that really isn't that large. I think we would be using a sledgehammer to swat a fly. Muslims constitute a small minority in this country and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Most of our immigrants come from Latin America and are not Muslim. If we carve out an exception to the principle of religious liberty in order to deal with Islam, what group are we likely to target next? We would be inflicting damage to our liberal institutions in order to avert possible dangers that may or may not materialize in the future.

We are seeing that under modern conditions even under Islam, political repression becomes increasingly difficult. Muslim countries will find that they have to deal with the same types of problems that we have been dealing with for years. We live in a world where ideas can easily cross borders. As long as they maintain laws that punish those who leave the faith with death, they will be exposed to our just indignation. Perhaps those who do business with non-Muslims will be motivated to press for tolerance, since adopting that approach is bound to make their customers more comfortable.

Do we really have so little confidence in freedom that we are prepared to conclude that when tolerance meets intolerance, that the latter must give way to the former? Can't we see tolerance as a virtue? I don't think that our belief in liberty will make us weaker. I think it will make us stronger.