Muslims not allowed to convert?

hairyheretic

There's a story on the BBC news website that I noticed, and would appreciate some commentary on.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6703155.stm

Malaysia rejects Christian appeal
Ms Joy was disowned by her family and forced to quit her job
Malaysia's highest court has rejected a Muslim convert's six-year battle to be legally recognised as a Christian.

A three-judge panel ruled that only the country's Sharia Court could let Azlina Jailani, now known as Lina Joy, remove the word Islam from her identity card.

Malaysia's constitution guarantees freedom of worship but says all ethnic Malays are Muslim. Under Sharia law, Muslims are not allowed to convert.

Ms Joy said she should not be bound by that law as she is no longer a Muslim.

Death threats

Malaysia's Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim said the panel endorsed legal precedents giving Islamic Sharia courts jurisdiction over cases involving Muslims who want to convert.

About 200 protesters shouted "Allah-o-Akbar" (God is great) outside the court when the ruling was announced.

"You can't at whim and fancy convert from one religion to another," Ahmad Fairuz said.

Ms Joy's case has tested the limits of religious freedom in Malaysia.

She started attending church in 1990 and was baptised in 1998.

In 2000, Ms Joy, 42, went to the High Court after the National Registration Department refused to remove "Islam" from the religion column on her identity card. The court said it was a matter for Sharia courts. Tuesday's ruling marked the end of her final appeal.

Ms Joy has been disowned by her family and forced to quit her job. She went into hiding last year. A Muslim lawyer who supported her case received death threats.

Sharia courts decide on civil cases involving Malaysian Muslims - nearly 60% of the country's 26 million people - while ethnic minorities such as Chinese and Indians are governed by civil courts in the multi-racial country.

Is it the case that under Sharia law a Muslim cannot convert to another religion? Is this a general thing, or specific to Malaysia.

If someone no longer has a belief in Islam, surely they are better off being allowed to find their own way?

If civil law allows for the change of religious belief, does this superceed religious law?

the_new_mr

As far as I know, there's no Islamic backing for Muslims not being allowed to convert. I've no idea when this started really but it has unfortunately found its way into the law in a lot of Muslim countries.

Indeed, at the time of the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him), there were some people that became apostates after the journey of Al-Issra' wa Al-Miraj. Some people just couldn't believe that he traveled to Jerusalem and back in one night. Abu-Bakr Al-Sadeeq (one of the prophet's companions) attained his nickname of Al-Sadeeq (the one who believes) when this happened as he said "I believe that he is receiving messages from God so it's not hard for me to accept that he could have gone on this journey".

Also, a verse from the Quran says the following:

An-Nisaa:137

"Behold, as for those who come to believe, and then deny the truth, and again come to believe, and again deny the truth, and thereafter grow stubborn in their denial of the truth - God will not forgive them, nor will He guide them in any way."

So, this verse clearly shows that someone can leave the faith if they don't believe.

And anyway, I don't see the point in forcibly stopping someone from officially changing their religion. It's a question of the heart after all.

Schuhart

hairyheretic wrote:

Is it the case that under Sharia law a Muslim cannot convert to another religion? Is this a general thing, or specific to Malaysia.

There’s a collection of articles here on islamonline.net on the topic of apostasy.

Cutting to the chase, the situation would seem to be that scholars have traditionally argued that Muslims who convert should be punished and many have said that punishment should be death. The idea of execution for apostasy does not seem to be specified in the Quran, but they base their argument on Hadith or sayings attributed to the Prophet. A sound Hadith is usually felt to be a good basis for forming a religious judgement.

Some scholars argue against this interpretation, saying in particular that the death penalty only applies if the apostate does ‘harm’ to Islam. However, doing ‘harm’ would seem to potentially include open practice of a new faith, presumably as this might undermine the faith of other Muslims. Other scholars, in fairness, do see that this view is effectively an argument for hypocrisy that they cannot accept as valid.

hairyheretic wrote:

If civil law allows for the change of religious belief, does this superceed religious law?

As I understand it, this only applies in countries where Sharia law applies, or where it applies to Muslims. Hence, there’s no question of an apostate being subject to some penalty in, say, Luxembourg (just to pick a country at random). In Malaysia, if you are Muslim (or – more correctly in this case – if you have ever been Muslim), Sharia applies. Hence this situation of the civil courts handing your case on to religious court.

In the specific case of Malaysia, while clearly this article illustrates in a practical way that religious freedom is curtailed by application of the Sharia, I understand that there is also a political dimension at stake. Malaysia has a very large non-Muslim Chinese and Indian population, meaning that Malays are only barely in the majority. That raises a sensitivity over any reduction in the cohesiveness of that majority.

Just to get a handle on it, (and without labouring the example) picture a united Ireland where Catholic/Republicans were only a bare majority. If a significant amount of Catholics started to convert to, say, Buddhism then that bare majority would start to evaporate. That would raise difficulties down the line - say, for the status of the Irish language. Hence, there’s a similar practical political reason why Sharia might be applied to prevent or dissuade people from converting.

But, of course, that doesn’t take away from the fact that there is a mainstream tradition in Islam which the political system can enlist to obstruct converts.

the_new_mr

Well, let me correct you a little there Schuhart. People should avoid making statements like "Sharia says this and sharia says that" because, to be fair, the Sharia is only really what Islamic law should be and not what it is. In fact, with a number of countries supposedly practicing Sharia law but still having differences in those laws, we can clearly see Sharia is not definitely defined.

As for the hadith, I'm not one to be saying whether or not a hadith is authentic but, thankfully, I don't have to. Scholars have already stated that they are convinced that there is no death penalty for apostates and that there is complete freedom for religion. The link you provided shows this.

Abu Hanfia (the first of the main 4 imams) had a rule when it came to religious rulings and that is if there's something about it in the Quran, you use that. If there's nothing in the Quran (or nothing that can be compared to) then you use a hadith and if there's nothing there (or nothing that you can compare to) then you try to use your common sense backed up with religious knowledge and, God willing, you'll reach the right conclusion. In this case, there are verses from the Quran (as shown earlier).

As I said, I'm not sure how this law found its way into the laws of some Muslim countries. I think the main motivation is to prevent people from converting to Islam and then converting back (or to another religion) for no other reason than to purposefully bring Islam into disrepute. If you ask me, I think forcing people to be Muslims in a legal sense as with the woman in Malaysia brings Islam into more disrepute.

And I'm convinced that if anyone truly knows Islam then they will never want to leave it. From what I've seen, anyone that decided they didn't want to be a Muslim had the wrong idea about it.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

People should avoid making statements like "Sharia says this and sharia says that" because, to be fair, the Sharia is only really what Islamic law should be and not what it is.

Fair enough. How about ‘Sharia to the extent that it is understood by people’. Incidently, the Malaysian law seems a liberal interpretation to the extent that it does not seem to involve a death penalty.

the_new_mr wrote:

Scholars have already stated that they are convinced that there is no death penalty for apostates and that there is complete freedom for religion. The link you provided shows this.

If I might apply a slight correction. Some scholars have said this. However, they seem to be in a minority.One scholar on islamonline.net summarises the overall position as

… Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-`ashriyyah, Al-Ja`fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.

the_new_mr wrote:

As I said, I'm not sure how this law found its way into the laws of some Muslim countries.

Can I suggest its because traditionally scholars have argued that this is a correct interpretation. That seems to be a reasonably clear message from the material linked above.

the_new_mr wrote:

If you ask me, I think forcing people to be Muslims in a legal sense as with the woman in Malaysia brings Islam into more disrepute.

It certainly is counterproductive in the long run.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

If I might apply a slight correction. Some scholars have said this. However, they seem to be in a minority.One scholar on islamonline.net summarises the overall position as

I have to say, I'm not sure how he says "Muslim jurists are unanimous...". I have a lot of respect for Yusuf Al-Qaradawi and he is definitely a great scholar but he's also only human and his words don't have to be taken as the law. It's an opinion to be considered and that's it.

One rule in Islam is that we can accept and reject anything except that which is from God or His messenger and that's central to this whole thing as there is no solid evidence from either the Quran or the hadith that says for sure that an apostate should be killed just for being an apostate and that's what really matters in all this.

Schuhart wrote:

Can I suggest its because traditionally scholars have argued that this is a correct interpretation. That seems to be a reasonably clear message from the material linked above.

Yes but what I meant was how did this happen (and when?).

First of all, the four Imams are kind of 2 schools of thought in a way as Imam Malik was a student of Abu Hanifa and Imam Shafi`i was a student of Imam Malik. That's one important thing to keep in mind.

Another is that their resources were quite limited compared to these days and they did the best they could with the resources they had. Indeed, any one of them didn't think twice to back on a religious ruling or opinion if they found out a new piece of information became apparent.

The resources I have at my fingertips are actually much greater than they had. And these resources are also available to current scholars these days. That's not to say that the four Imams' opinions are not important because they are but I'm just saying that they were only human.

Anyway, I think that Dr. Jamal Badawi will do a better job of discussing the point. I would ask everyone to read the entire article. It references the Quran and hadith very well.

hairyheretic

It would seem to me that attempting to force someone to stay within a religion they have rejected is more likely to cause them to become hostile to it than simply letting them go there own way in peace.

Additionally, if they no longer in their heart believe, does it really matter about outward trappings?

the_new_mr

Yeah, exactly.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

Yes but what I meant was how did this happen (and when?).

That’s fine. I was really just making the point that the main reason we see laws prohibiting or limiting change of religion is because, right up to the present day, respected Islamic scholars say this is how it should be.

You may well wonder how any sensible person could hold such an opinion. So do I.

GUIGuy

In contrast to Lina Joy who tried to avoid the Islamic courts (argiuing their juristiction as she had already converted) this woman question did go down the official route and applied to the Islamic courts... and wasn't treated very well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6278568.stm

Evangelion

I have to say after reading that story, it does seem contradictry to what has happened over here. I remember visiting a Mosque on a school trip about 7ish years ago.
A woman told us all about Islam, who said she was the head of the Islam in Ireland (not sure what the exact title was, but sumthing along those lines). She also told us she was Irish and had converted from being a "devout Catholic" (though I find the devout part had to believe). Do these scholors have opinions on converting to Islam in stead of from it?
Just from what I've seen and heard it would seem like double standards

DinoBot

the_new_mr wrote:

Anyway, I think that Dr. Jamal Badawi will do a better job of discussing the point. I would ask everyone to read the entire article. It references the Quran and hadith very well.

Very good article. IMO thats what Islam needs, a bit of proper discussion on issues in the proper way.

It reminds me of a book I read awhile back called "Disagreements in Islam" (i forget the author) But it was showing how its normal and healthly to have difference of optinion within an Islamic framework. And its good to question some of the views held by the different schools of thought.
Its just sad that this seems to have been lost on muslims today.

InFront

Evangelion wrote:

Do these scholors have opinions on converting to Islam in stead of from it?
Just from what I've seen and heard it would seem like double standards

I think it's fair to say that those who are converts (reverts) to Islam are always very welcome. I don't think that's a double standard, a double standard would be if we were to talk about how great and universal Allah, the Judge and Creator of all was, and in the same breath suggest that his praise and follwing was limited, and only for us.

I see the point of your question with regard to how come we have an issue with an individual rejecting Islam, but not with an individual casting off his old religion to embrace Islam. This is because we are Muslims, and because when you are a Muslim, and Islam is the single truth, then embracing Islam as a single truth is a great thing. I don't know if one can have faith without doubt and simultaneously believe in equality of faiths.

InFront

DinoBot wrote:

its good to question some of the views held by the different schools of thought. Its just sad that this seems to have been lost on muslims today.

Of course, exploring religious principles or teachings and asking questions is always an excellent idea.
I think there just needs to be a balance. While faith is always a very personal issue, I'm not really a fan of the idea of simply questioing/ rejecting the things that don't suit you and accepting the easy bits that don't impinge upon one's social, dietary or personal habits, and so on. That amounts to simply bending and fitting Islam around one's personal life instead of the other way around. Society becomes the limiting factor in an individual's belief, and that isn't Islam at all as far as I can see.

While I agree with you that sticking unnecessarily rigidly to principle and tradition in a changing world is sometimes in error, 'a la carte Islam' is even worse.

donaghs

InFront wrote:

I think it's fair to say that those who are converts (reverts) to Islam are always very welcome. I don't think that's a double standard, a double standard would be if we were to talk about how great and universal Allah, the Judge and Creator of all was, and in the same breath suggest that his praise and follwing was limited, and only for us.

I see the point of your question with regard to how come we have an issue with an individual rejecting Islam, but not with an individual casting off his old religion to embrace Islam. This is because we are Muslims, and because when you are a Muslim, and Islam is the single truth, then embracing Islam as a single truth is a great thing. I don't know if one can have faith without doubt and simultaneously believe in equality of faiths.

There has to be an acceptance of a kind of equality of faiths in a multi-faith society (even among atheists), or else inevitably some "holier than thou" people will use the excuse of their religious superiority to start discriminating against, or worse killing those they disagree with.

I think the double standard is crystal clear. You can convert to Islam, but you can convert from it. This problem existed in countries dominated by branches of Christianity also, until a more Enlightened view was taken. Its a fair debating point to say that if you belief yours is the truth faith (etc), there should be no need for doubts and converting to other religions. However in real world scenarios, I believe Freedom of Conscious is far more important as a Human Right than esoteric religious doctrine.

Schuhart

I’d have thought that the issue, from theist perspective, would be why God would want people to insincerely pretend that they follow a faith that they’ve lost.

The only reason for suppressing dissent is political. Is Islam is just about politics?

InFront wrote:

'a la carte Islam' is even worse.

That brings back memories. That said, I was surprised that a Google for ‘a la Carte Catholic’ yields only 887 results. Of course, Google for ‘a la Carte Muslim’ and you get none so far. But I’ve every confidence that the phrase will catch on.

InFront

donaghs wrote:

There has to be an acceptance of a kind of equality of faiths in a multi-faith society

Well there ought to be equality between individuals, rather. Obviously as a Muslim I don't think Islam has any equals. I do agree that one cannot force an individual into a religious belief, any such effort to such effect would be wrong I think. As for the dilemma over disallowing riddah/ apostasy, I simply don't understand how this could benefit any individual in question, nor benefit the faith and actually I doubt if it would really damage the reputation of Islam (unless they were deliberately defacing Islam, which is another issue altogether)
My point was just a response to dinobot's (fair) point about people questioning theories. I'm just saying they should ideally have the right motives in doing so.

Freedom of Conscious is far more important as a Human Right than esoteric religious doctrine.

I think faith is inextricably wound up in conscience, I don't think there can be one without the other to begin with.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

I’d have thought that the issue, from theist perspective, would be why God would want people to insincerely pretend that they follow a faith that they’ve lost.

Islam is never truly lost in that one is never more than a few moments away from choosing to embrace Islam. I don't think it is our place to say that someone has lost his or her belief in Islam as though it were for good (ie, forever).

But yes, as others have also asked, what's the point in just keeping the outer trappings of the faith intact, isn't that a bit hypocritical? It's a very complex question, I'm not in a position to answer it, but I can strongly relate to the viewpoint that says Islam is about sincere personal submission to God, I think that demanding that a person engage in prayer or other aspects of his faith might merely dilute or undermine what it means to truly submit yourself to Islam.