An Issue of
Conversion
By Dr. Abidullah A.
Ghazi
Executive Director
IQRA International Educational Foundation
Skokie, IL
The issues emanating from the
turbulence instigated by the insensitive Danish
cartoons have yet to be settled, and we now find
ourselves staring into the face of another, even
more complicated ordeal: the apostasy case of
an Afghan named Abdul-Rahman. While this case
may seem to have global ramifications, the personal
side to the matter of Mr. Abdul-Rahman deals with
the safety as well as insistence of this individual
to stand up for the faith of his choosing. While
such matters are significant on a small scale,
there is a far-reaching and more formidable issue
hovering over the conversion of an individual
from one faith to another, mainly its legality
and propriety in today’s world. An equally
important matter is the position of the Shari’ah
on the topic of radd, a term which denotes a Muslim’s
abandoning Islam and converting to another faith.
To have a clearer analysis of Mr. Abdul-Rahman’s
plight we must look to all the three of these
dimensions.
It appears from several news reports that Mr.
Abdul-Rahman may not have altogether been a mentally
stable individual. There are reports that prior
to and after his conversion to Christianity he
maintained an abusive relationship with his parents.
He also he failed to support, both financially
and emotionally, his children; the very same children
which he had now, after 16 years, sought custody
of. In 1990 Mr. Abdul-Rahman left his wife and
children in Afghanistan and began working for
an international Christian aid group in neighboring
Pakistan. There are contradictory reports regarding
the location of his conversion, although at this
point such information seems to be immaterial
detail. Mr. Abdul-Rahman could have stayed in
Pakistan, where laws against conversion from Islam
exist on the books but are rarely (if ever) implemented;
he chose to move to Germany, where he stayed for
nearly ten years having little contact with his
family.
In 2002 Mr. Abdul-Rahman decided to return home
following the collapse of the Taliban regime.
From all accounts, embracing the Christian faith
did not seem to have made him a better person.
His return only aggravated all the family problems
that were there before. He began to insist on
gaining custody of the children he left sixteen
years earlier, and at one point even physically
attacked the children’s grandfather when
the family refused to hand them over. Mr. Abdul-Rahman
gave the impression that he took pleasure in using
his conversion as a weapon to further aggravate
the already strained relationship as the family
was obviously distressed at the man’s conversion.
Yet Mr. Abdul-Rahman reportedly took great relish
in rubbing the fact in their faces. The family,
though disappointed with his change of faith,
nevertheless dismissed his claim as a prank designed
to exact revenge and they urged Mr. Abdul-Rahman
not to make a public issue out of it. However
when the family refused to hand over the children
Mr. Abdul-Rahman saw it fit to go public with
his conversion, conceivably to humiliate his familial
adversaries. He went to the local police and forced
the issue of his conversion, ostensibly in the
hope of provoking confrontation. It has been reported
that those police officers at the neighborhood
station who were present during Mr. Abdul-Rahman’s
announcement of apostasy endeavored to persuade
Mr. Abdul-Rahman to go home and not bring trouble
on his head by making it a public issue, but the
man was unrelenting and he managed in the end
to bring worldwide attention to himself.
The law in Afghanistan, as well as in several
other conservative Muslim countries, stipulates
the death penalty for any Muslim who converts
out of Islam. In spite of this seemingly zealous
and archaic law we also find that Afghanistan
has been, and continues to be, on many levels
a hospitable society that accepts a remarkable
degree of religious diversity. There is a large
Shi’ite population in the central part of
the country while sizeable Sikh and Hindu communities
have resided in Jalalabad, Kabul and other major
cities and have done so for centuries. Most of
these Hindus and Sikhs are Afghan nationals and
have freedom to practice their religion. They
also have their own places of worship.
However conversion of a Muslim to other religion
(especially if it is publicized) is not really
part of the story about the tolerance of religious
minorities. Whether or not Mr. Abdul-Rahman’s
public announcement of conversion to Christianity
was done out of a sincere desire to witness for
his faith or out of sheer spite is irrelevant
when we look at the wider issues. Yet within any
traditional society a change of faith (or lifestyle)
is more than just an issue of finding a more satisfying
theology; it is toying with societal norms of
reputation and loyalty, virtues that are even
more perceptible in Afghanistan’s heavily
tribalized society. In much of Afghan society
honor killing and retribution are accepted norms,
irrespective of their clear prohibitions in Islam.
Even as the justices pondered their verdict, Mr.
Abdul-Rahman’s family certainly would have
preferred his execution if for no other reason
than to save them from public humiliation and
shame.
The conversion of Abdur-Rahman has now grown from
being a personal choice of faith to an international
predicament. Many Muslims and non-Muslims view
this as an embodiment of the confrontation between
modern values of freedom of conscience and the
code of Islamic Shari’ah. Despite its long
history of religious intolerance, issues of faith
in Western societies are now primarily a personal
matter. The constitutions of secular societies
around the world guarantee freedom of conscience
and freedom of religion as inalienable human rights.
Secular constitutions provide equal guarantees
and opportunities to all religions within the
state’s borders to practice, teach, publish,
convert and establish institutions. Muslims living
in Europe, North America and even India have been
great beneficiaries of such freedoms.
The phenomenal growth of the Muslim community
in North America, both through immigration and
conversion, as well as the establishment of Muslim
institutions, speaks volumes of the tolerance
and acceptance of religious diversity in the midst
of a primarily Christian society. In company with
the constitutionally authorized equality of all
faiths is the great level of tolerance Americans
possess for religious diversity. Mainstream Christian
and Jewish organizations have opened avenues of
dialogue and cooperation with Muslim groups in
the country. Here in America the mental ghettoes
of religious separatism are disintegrating and
we can see ourselves entering an age of discourse
and mutual respect. The instances of mutual respect
and cooperation afforded those Muslims living
in North America are too numerous, while incidents
of impudence and intolerance, seemingly inspired
by the Shari’ah code, have displayed the
exact opposite in several Muslim-majority lands.
It must also be understood by the reader that
the socio-political situation in each Muslim-majority
land varies from place to place. Despite the seemingly
intolerant atmosphere in several, many positive
inter-faith and cross-cultural exchanges are becoming
increasingly visible in others. Muslim countries
are mosaic of social and cultural diversity. There
has also existed historically a long tradition
of acceptance diversity of culture and faith in
Islamic civilization, a fact that has to be remembered
by those wishing to jettison this value in favor
of insularity and narrow-mindedness.
The question nowadays for the Muslim community
in the West is how we want this very same culture
of freedom and choice that we enjoy as minorities
reflected in Muslim-majority societies. In the
globalized reality of today, Western Muslims have
a special duty to promote similar attitudes of
respect for human rights, tolerance and mutuality
in Muslim-majority societies. I firmly believe
that this can be done within the strictures of
our Islamic obligations and within the bounds
of the Shari’ah.
The final, and most problematical, issue is the
one that needs to be addressed and redressed above
all else: the traditional understanding of radd.
While much has been made of the official radd
penalty in the Western media these days, the fact
is that historically this penalty has been rarely
enforced, and usually when it was, it was due
to some unmitigated political upheaval caused
by the said apostasy. While some may assert that
Mr. Abdur-Rahman brought all of this public uproar
upon himself, in doing so he has forced an important
issue. It is time that we Muslims (both as minorities
and majorities) reflect on the following points:
1. What is the basis of the radd law? Was it laid
down for a specific situation and specific time
or is it an immutable law based upon the Qur’an
and the Sunnah, the tradition of the Prophet?
2. Should such a law now be appraised from the
perspective of the Qur’an and Sunnah in
order to bring it into harmony with new realities
of global interaction?
3. What would be the power of such a law in societies
where Muslims live as minorities?
4. Has the Muslim world (or any single Muslim
country or a group of zealots for that mater)
the religiously sanctioned authority to carry
out a judgment or issue a fatwa for the execution
of an apostate?
5. Should this issue be resolved on the basis
of reciprocity? If Muslims have the freedom to
convert others to their faith, shouldn’t
Muslims also have similar freedoms to be converted
to other faiths?
6. If Muslims living in non-Muslim societies enjoy
religious freedoms as well as the independence
to establish their own Islamic intuitions, should
non-Muslims also be given similar rights in Muslim
countries?
These points are important for all Muslims to
ponder, but they have special significance for
those of us living in free and secular societies
where we enjoy the protection of state laws. Having
presented these questions I respectfully urge
the Fiqh Council in North America as well as other
Islamic scholars and theologians nationwide to
respond to the subject of radd and the issue of
religious freedom and to urgently provide a well
thought-out statement of an Islamic position on
both matters. At the same time I urge various
authorized Dar ul-Ifta (houses of religious decrees)
worldwide to address this issue on a priority
basis and review the Shari’ah in the light
of the ever-shrinking world we live in.
As a believing and practicing Muslim who is deeply
involved in inter-religious dialogue and understanding,
I call on all Muslim judicial systems and legislatures
worldwide (where the radd law exists) to contemplate
the decorum for this modern age in which we live
and bring our age-old and well-tested values in
line with universal values. It is high time that
Muslims learn to respond to all such challenges
intellectually and academically, not through passionate
or repellent reaction. The world has reached a
level of maturity where the majority of its people
are prepared to hear whatever opinions we may
voice and many would even argue our case, provided
we also show a willingness to hear and respect
theirs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
