Freedom In Islam Research Articles

On Human Rights and the Qur’anic Perspective: Freedom of Religion and the Rule of Apostasy

It is often argued that Islam is not compatible with modernity. This can be seen for instance in the fact of the problem that Islam faces to the challenge of universal values of human rights. Built on this supposition, the present article discusses on the great extent the question of religious freedom in Islam. As freedom of religion in the framework of universal declaration of human rights can mean as freedom to change religion, this contradicts to Islamic prohibition of apostasy, punishable with death penalty. The author argues that Islam in fact guarantees religious freedom. This is clear from the Quranic injunctions assuring the freedom of choice whether to embrace Islam or not. Such a freedom is however often contradicted to one prophetic tradition sanctioning death penalty for apostasy. In her view, the author believes that the hadith more in attunes to the political strategy of the prophet to safe Muslim community from any acts of treason or sedition. Death penalty for apostasy is thus not related to the mere personal crime of changing religion but more that of public law related to war or crimes against state. More relying on the modern interpretation of the Quranic verses as well as the prophetic traditions, the author concludes that Islam is in conjunction with the modern values of religious freedom in which personal choice of religion or belief is the backbone of human rights.

Freedom and justice in Islam

B y common consent among historians, the modem history of the Middle East begins in the year 1798, when the French Revolution arrived in Egypt in the form of a small expeditionary force led by a young general called Napoleon Bonaparte--who conquered and then ruled it for a while with appalling ease. General Bonaparte--he was not yet Emperor-proclaimed to the Egyptians that he had come to them on behalf of a French Republic built on the principles of liberty and equality. We know something about the reactions to this proclamation from the extensive literature of the Middle Eastern Arab world. The idea of equality posed no great problem. Equality is very basic in Islamic belief: All true believers are equal. Of course, that still leaves three "inferior" categories of people--slaves, unbelievers, and women. But in general, the concept of equality was understood. Islam never developed anything like the caste system of India to the east or the privileged aristocracies of Christian Europe to the west. Equality was something they knew, respected, and in large measure practiced. But liberty was something else. As used in Arabic at that time, liberty was not a political but a legal term: You were free if you were not a slave. The word liberty was not used as we use it in the Western world, as a metaphor for good government. So the idea of a republic founded on principals of freedom caused some puzzlement. Some years later an Egyptian sheikh--Sheikh Rifa'a Raft' al-Tahtawi, who went to Paris as chaplain to the first group of Egyptian students sent to Europe--wrote a book about his adventures and explained his discovery of the meaning of freedom. He wrote that when the French talk about freedom they mean what Muslims mean when they talk about justice. By equating freedom with justice, he opened a whole new phase in the political and public discourse of the Arab world, and then, more broadly, the Islamic world. Is Western-Style Freedom Transferable? What is the possibility of freedom in the Islamic world, in the Western sense of the word? If you look at the current literature, you will find two views common in the United States and Europe. One of them holds that Islamic peoples are incapable of decent, civilized government. Whatever the West does, Muslims will be ruled by corrupt tyrants. Therefore the aim of our foreign policy should be to insure that they are o u r tyrants rather than someone else's--friendly rather than hostile tyrants. This point of view is very much favored in departments of state and foreign offices and is generally known, rather surprisingly, as the "pro-Arab" view. It is, of course, in no sense pro-Arab. It shows ignorance of the Arab past, contempt for the Arab present, and unconcern for the Arab future. The second common view is that Arab ways are different from our ways. They must be allowed to develop in accordance with their cultural principles, but it is possible for them--as for anyone else, anywhere in the world, with discreet help from outside and most specifically from the United States--to develop democratic institutions of a kind. This view is known as the "imperialist" view and has been vigorously denounced and condemned as such. In thinking about these two views, it is helpful to step back and consider what Arab and Islamic society was like once and how it has been transformed in the modern age. The idea that how that society is now is how it has always been is totally false. The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein in Iraq or the Assad family in Syria or the more friendly dictatorship of Mubarak in Egypt--all of these have no roots whatsoever in the Arab or in the Islamic past. Let me quote to you from a letter written in 1786--three years before the French Revolution--by the Count de Choiseul-Gouffier, the French ambassador in Istanbul, in which he is trying to explain why he is making rather slow progress with

Comptes rendus / Reviews of books: Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004. 227 p

The publication of a work on freedom of religion is always a welcomed event, but even more so when it deals with Islam and Islamic law of apostasy and its punishment.This work will provide a reference of sorts on the debate over religious freedom in Islam and, more particularly, on the contemporary Malaysian laws of apostasy and the social, political and legal implications of The Perlis Bill of 2000, the government’s response to increasing pressures from Muslim groups to introduce stricter religious and apostasy laws. Similar studies should be undertaken for other Muslim countries to see if the Malaysian case represents only the beginning of a new trend.