No sane person can accept that there should be a death penalty for changing religion. Thus Islamic apologists fabricated a lame excuse, where they started claiming:
The act of apostasy in Islam can be seen as equivalent to committing treason against a modern-day state. Just as a state would punish its citizens who support its enemies and betray the constitution, Islamic law also provides consequences for those who abandon the religion.
Response:
It's important to distinguish between two types of laws:
- A State Law
- And Personal Beliefs
State laws regulate INTERACTION between individuals and are applicable when two or more people have to deal with each other. On the other hand, personal beliefs pertain to an individual's values, and practices, and are not concerned with dealings between people.
The Islamic apologist's argument that apostasy in Islam is equivalent to committing treason against a modern-day state is flawed because it blurs the line between state laws and personal beliefs. While a state may punish its citizens for supporting its enemies or betraying the constitution, religious beliefs and affiliations fall under personal values. The decision to change one's religion is a matter between an individual and their deity, and does not involve any harm or injury to others (i.e. it does not deal with other individuals). Therefore, it is not possible for the state to impose penalties for apostasy.
The Islamic apologists are trying to impose those non-human laws today, against which their own Prophets REBELLED. Yes, Muhammad himself rebelled against his own community and he called their idol Gods to be false deities and refused to follow them. Yes, Ibrahim himself broke the idol gods of his community. Why didn’t then Muhammad and Ibrahim become worthy to be killed for APOSTASY?
Instead of calling Muhammad and Ibrahim to be TRAITORS and worthy of being killed, Islamic apologists start presenting them as innocent oppressed (مظلوم) figures, and pagans as tyrants (ظالم), while they tried to stop them from criticizing their gods.
These are only Double Standards of Muslim apologists. Islam itself started following the Sunnah of Pagans in this case (actually, much worse as pagans didn’t kill him or other Muslim converts, but they only tried to stop them from criticizing their gods, which was itself a wrong thing to do).
An Analysis of the Arguments of "The Muslim Lantern"
The Muslim Lantern is also a famous Islamic apologist. He presented the following excuses:
The First Excuse: Democracy Allows the Majority to Make Any Law
In a recent video, The Muslim Lantern presented the argument that:
- Liberals believe in democracy.
- Democracy allows the majority to establish any rule for their state.
- Therefore, it is hypocritical for liberals to criticize the decision of a Muslim majority in an Islamic state to enact apostasy laws.
Our Response:
Muslims like The Muslim Lantern either misunderstand the Western system or deliberately misrepresent it.
The reality is that the Western system is not primarily based on democracy but on secularism. Democracy is merely a branch of secularism and cannot override core secular values.
So, what are these secular values? Understand that:
- Secularism is a system that prioritizes humanity.
- It respects all individuals, regardless of their religion, race, or language.
- It guarantees equal human rights to all its citizens, irrespective of their religion or race or language, or irrespective of being from a majority group or a minority group.
Yes, humanity within us is ENOUGH to guide us towards what is right and what is wrong. Thus, BASIC Human Rights are primary issues, and they are not based upon the dictatorship of majority, but they are based upon the guidance of humanity. The majority decision in democracy is only limited to 'secondary' issues which we have to solve in our daily lives.
Thus, in a secular system, the majority does not have the right to infringe upon the equal rights of minorities. This is why, in a true secular society, it would be impossible for a majority to pass unjust laws like the apostasy laws seen in many Islamic countries, where the majority acts as a dictator and unilaterally strips non-Muslim minorities of their right to change their religion.
The Second Excuse: An Open Apostate Incites Others to Commit Crimes Like Stealing and Drinking
This argument from The Muslim Lantern is completely baseless:
- An open apostate does not incite others to commit crimes like stealing or killing. As for drinking alcohol, it is the right of non-Muslims, just as Indian Muslims have the right to eat meat in a predominantly Hindu country.
- Expressing one's religious beliefs or ideology to others is not INCITEMENT; it is known as PREACHING.
- Preaching is a fundamental human right that falls under freedom of expression.
These are simply double standards on the part of some Muslims, who call it preaching when they do it but label it incitement when non-Muslims do the same.
Consider this: Was Muhammad preaching to the Meccan pagans, or was he inciting them? Were the Meccans justified in torturing and killing Muslims simply because they were preaching Islam?
The reality is, Islamic apologists have not way to escape, except for showing Double Standards.
An Analysis of Daniel Haqiqatjou's Arguments:
Here is the video of Daniel where he is defending the Islamic Apostasy Law of killing people.
All his justifications for killing apostates (i.e., those leaving Islam) hinge on the argument that colonizers also restricted freedom of speech and punished those who spoke against the Crown and the State.
However, there are two major flaws in Daniel's reasoning:
- Firstly, what colonizers did was based on "State Law" and concerned matters between individuals and the state. In contrast, colonizers did not execute people for changing their personal religious beliefs, as these beliefs do not constitute treason against the state.
- Secondly, even the colonizers' "State Laws" were flawed, which is why modern secular states have abolished those barbaric practices and now allow criticism of both state laws and the crown.
The issue with Islam is its rigidity and inability to reform. It turned a personal matter into a state crime and shows no capacity to correct this mistake. Muslims are forced to live with these severe errors in Islamic law, as they cannot alter Sharia rulings on their own.
Moreover, Sharia orders Muslims if any non-Muslim state does not allow Muslims to preach Islam, and to let people convert to Islam, then it becomes obligatory for Muslims to wage war against that non-Muslim state (link). Therefore, the questions are:
- Should non-Muslims today also wage a war against Islamic countries and punish them for not allowing non-Muslims to preach and to let people leave Islam?
- And why should non-Muslim states today allow Muslims to immigrate in their countries, instead of waging a war against them? And why should they allow Muslims to preach and let people convert to Islam?
In simple words, Muslim excuses of treason etc. are not correct, and Islamic Sharia is only based upon Double Standards, Hypocrisy, and the rule of Might is Right.
An Analysis of Zakir Naik's Argument:
To paraphrase Dr Zakir Naiks answer to this direct question.
Teaching about Islam is like teaching people 2+2=4. Now with that in mind should we allow people to teach to people 2+2=5? We know islam is true, so why should we allow anyone to teach something that is not true. Nobody would allow anyone to teach to people 2+2=5. So why should we allow people to teach other religions than islam knowing they are all untrue.
Our Response:
There is no PROOF that 80% of the world's population (i.e. non-Muslims) is making the mistake of 2+2=5. It is equally possible that these are Muslims who are making the mistake of 2+2=5.
Isn't it your own Quran that says:
Quran 2:111:
قُلْ هَاتُوا۟ بُرْهَٰنَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَٰدِقِينَ
"Say, 'Produce your proof, if you should be truthful.'"
However, Zakir Naik is not providing proof; he is ONLY making an empty CLAIM that all non-Muslims are wrong.
So, we ask Zakir Naik and his followers: Where is the proof?
Since no one truly knows if there is a god (or gods) in the heavens, everyone has the right to "bring their proof." If the evidence presented by Muslims holds any weight, then non-Muslims will naturally accept Islam. Conversely, if the evidence goes against Islam, people will naturally leave it.
Consider this:
- What if 80% of the world’s population (i.e., non-Muslims) also made an empty claim that Islam is false and that Muslims are teaching 2+2=5? Does this give them the right to ban the preaching of Islam?
- If not, why do Islamic apologists want to apply double standards?
As for Zakir Naik's argument about treason, we've already addressed it: it's a weak excuse. Religious beliefs fall under "personal values and practices," not "state laws," and therefore cannot be considered treason against the state.
The Story of the Bloodthirsty WOLF and the LAMB:
Do you remember that story where the wolf kept on making lame excuses one by one, that the lamb was making his drinking water dirty, or he abused him last year, or it was his father who abused him. And at the end, the wolf killed the lamb on the basis of those lies.
Muslim apologists are exactly those bloodthirsty wolves. They will tell every type of lie and make every type of lame excuse in order to achieve their wicked plans.
Hassan Radwan
