There has been some discussion in the blogosphere relating to the extent to which Grand Mufti of Egypt has said anything particularly new when he declared:
The essential question before us is can a person who is Muslim choose a religion other than Islam? The answer is yes, they can, because the Quran says, “Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion,” [Quran, 109:6], and, “Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve,” [Quran, 18:29], and, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is distinct from error,” [Quran, 2:256].
These verses from the Quran discuss a freedom that God affords all people. But from a religious perspective, the act of abandoning one’s religion is a sin punishable by God on the Day of Judgment. If the case in question is one of merely rejecting faith, then there is no worldly punishment. If, however, the crime of undermining the foundations of the society is added to the sin of apostasy, then the case must be referred to a judicial system whose role is to protect the integrity of the society. Otherwise, the matter is left until the Day of Judgment, and it is not to be dealt with in the life of this world. It is an issue of conscience, and it is between the individual and God. In the life of this world, “There is no compulsion in religion,” in the life of this world, “Unto you your religion and unto me my religion,” and in the life of this world, “He who wills believes and he who wills disbelieves,” while bearing in mind that God will punish this sin on the Day of Judgment, unless it is combined with an attempt to undermine the stability of the society, in which case it is the society that holds them to account, not Islam.
All religions have doctrinal points that define what it is to be an adherent of that religion. These are divine injunctions that form the basis of every religion, but they are not a means for imposing a certain system of belief on others by force. According to Islam, it is not permitted for Muslims to reject their faith, so if a Muslim were to leave Islam and adopt another religion, they would thereby be committing a sin in the eyes of Islam. Religious belief and practice is a personal matter, and society only intervenes when that personal matter becomes public and threatens the well-being of its members.
In some cases, this sin of the individual may also represent a greater break with the commonly held values of a society in an attempt to undermine its foundations or even attack its citizenry. Depending on the circumstances, this may reach the level of a crime of sedition against one’s society. Penalizing this sedition may be at odds with some conceptions of freedom that would go so far as to ensure people the freedom to destroy the society in which they live. This is a freedom that we do not allow since preservation of the society takes precedence over personal freedoms. This was the basis of the Islamic perspective on apostasy when committed at certain times and under certain circumstances.
From my limited understanding of Islamic jurisprudence, this is not an innovation. Conservative religious scholars do not tend to innovate. Islamic jurisprudence has long been divided on whether apostasy is better understood as a form of sedition. The logic is that, by changing your religion, you fundamentally undermine the authority of the state as a "muslim" state. Goma has in any case denied that he said that muslims could change their faith without punishment:
"What I actually said is that Islam prohibits a Muslim from changing his religion and that apostasy is a crime, which must be punished," Goma’a said.
Ho hum.
Nevertheless, there is a wider point to be made here, and I have made it as a contribution to the discussion of the issue in Khaled Diab’s column at CiF.
As far as I am concerned, what a particular religion requires is no more and no less than what those who identify as its adherents say it requires.
Therefore, if Gomaa (and others) say that there should be no religious penalty for changing or abandoning the muslim religion, then that is what it means for them.
We need to be very clear that apostasy is neither a crime per se, nor a form of sedition. It should not be punished by law at all. Anybody who argues otherwise is not a liberal or progressive. They are a form of clerical fascist.
Clearly, there are some muslims who will disagree. To the extent that they are able to control or influence the content of a State’s laws or the actions of its officials, they need to be resisted.
Secularists oppose the enactment of religious law, and the privileging of religious institutions over democratic ones. Secularists are not athiests, although some may not believe in god. Many religious people are secularists, because they do not believe that the state has the authority to impose divine will, and because they believe that an open society which respects human rights is better than an authoritarian one.
What is needed, therefore, is a coalition of people of different faiths, and no faiths, to oppose attempts to enact laws which offend against basic democratic requirements, or universally recognised human rights norms.
So, how do we go about ensuring that religious law is not enacted.
One thing which could help is if liberals and progressives, muslim and non muslim, around the world, gave their support to muslim secularists, liberals and progressives.
We should not be backing, or allying with, groups which seek to establish or maintain a state which is not a secular one.
We should be asking those with whom we make common cause to make it very clear that they support basic human rights requirements and universally recognised human rights norms.
We should judge their sincerity by seeing whether they oppose the creation of, and human rights abuses occasioned by, states which enforce - or claim to enforce - religious laws which conflict with those human rights norms.
http://www.tariqramadan.com/spip.php?article1163#forum68578
