Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani was arrested in 2009 and sentenced to death for apostasy in Iran – various Human Rights groups are now pleading for his release. Although the ruling itself is said to be questionable in light of the Iranian civil code, the ruling was passed under the Shariah.
The Shariah, as we know it today, is an amalgamation of five sources, only one of which is unanimously believed to be divinely revealed (the Qur’an). The rest (Sunna, Ijma, Qiyas and Ijtehad) are all transmitted and understood by people following the Prophet years after his passing; therefore, arguably prone to human error. Whether or not the additional sources to the Shariah are legitimate is a separate argument – one that is not up for debate today. What is essential to understand is that all schools of thought agree, theoretically, if a concept contradicts the Qur’an and the actual actions of the Prophet, it cannot be accepted as a part of the Shariah – much less deemed divinely ordained law (which is the connotation “Shariah” takes today).
Chapter 2 verse 256 of the Qur’an states “There shall be no coercion in matters of faith.” This verse is often quoted to prove that Islam can not be spread by might, or what many jurists call “conversion by the sword”. All Islamic jurists agree that conversion under oppression is void, and in fact, that if a non-Muslim is coerced to convert, the oppressor has sinned. If this is so, how could the converse not similarly hold true?
When studying the Qur’an in light of the times each revelation was received, I find two clear examples of where the Qur’an clearly speaks of apostasy, even specific apostates, and does not prescribe a punishment for them – clearly proving that no divinely ordained legal requirement exists within Islam for the state imposed punishment of apostasy. Let me cite those examples:
1) The Hypocrites of Uhad
When members of Muhammad’s army at the battle of Uhad turn back and run from the battle field, the Qur’an says, “those who were tainted with hypocrisy… Unto apostasy were they nearer on that day than unto faith” (3:167). The verse continues to talk about how God knows what is truly in their hearts; it does not say whether those who had turned away should be cast out of the society, let alone hung. In chapter 33, the Qur’an refers to these people again, calling them “hypocrites” and saying that God is just in His retribution. Again, it says nothing of a punishment to be met out in this life and such retribution, mentioned throughout the Qur’an, alludes to punishment in the after-life.
2) The Truce of Hudabiya
During the famed Truce of Hudabiya, when the Muslims of Medina and the pagan Arabs of Mecca entered into a treaty of peace, a clause of the treaty stated that minors of either side that had gone over to the other without the consent of their guardian, were to be returned. The Meccan’s held married women to be subject to the guardianship of their husbands, therefore, returnable. At this time, many women had secretly converted to Islam and fled to Medina and some women from Medina had returned to Mecca. In line with the practice of “khul” – a form of annulment initiated by the woman in accordance with Islamic injunctions (in the practice of which the woman leaving her husband would have to return her dower money), if a woman was leaving Mecca and moving to Medina, she would return her dower money and in cases where she did not have the means, the treasury of Medina would help pay. In the cases where the women were returning to Mecca and abandoning Islam, in chapter 60 verse 11 of the Qur‘an, we find clear instructions that the treasury of Medina is required to pay out the amount of dower to the man whose wife has left him to return to Mecca.
Undoubtedly, the women moving to Mecca were apostates, they had abandoned their homes and lives that they established as Muslims to return to their pagan culture and belief, but instead of ordering they be hung, the Qur’an gives them the leverage and allows the state to step in and pay their annulment dower.
If a divine law were to be created, it would have been created either at Uhad or during the Truce of Hudabiya or at another time as deemed appropriate. It was not.
That said, most schools of thought in Islam prescribe life imprisonment in cases of high treason (as is the case in most countries to date); and in cases where the accused is not deemed dangerous, no punishment is recommended at all. Very few jurists believe capital punishment should be adopted, and that too only in cases where it is believed that the apostate is attempting to harm the Muslim community, or the “Ummah.”
Mehdi Hasan, writing for the Guardian, asks a very essential question: “Muslims have to ask ourselves: Is the God we worship so weak and needy that he requires us to force our fellow humans to worship him? Is our religion so frail and insecure that it cannot tolerate any rejection whatsoever? And why are we silent as an innocent Christian is sentenced to death in the name of Islam? To hang a man for refusing to believe in Islam is theologically and morally unjustifiable; it is not just un-Islamic but anti-Islamic.”
Keeping in mind that any rule/law under the Shariah that is contrary to the Qur’an must be struck down as invalid, I believe it is safe to say that capital punishment is not the penalty for apostasy. I think it’s time to let Youcef go home.
