I have been trying to find an authoritative source on what makes a person a Muslim. The dominant answers have been theological – e.g., one who believes in God, accepts Muhammed as His prophet, and accepts the authority of Islamic law (even if one sins in the observance of such law).
Muslim acquaintances have told me that one belongs to the Umma (the Muslim faith community) if one has a Muslim father. They have told me that one cannot convert out – any attempt to do so makes one an apostate. In other words, they tell me, a person born of a Muslim father is obligated to be a Muslim, according to Islamic law.
I have read in many sources that the punishment for apostasy is execution. Just for clarity’s sake, I assume this really means attempted apostasy? Meaning, would Islamic law accept that a (former) Muslim had become, e.g., a Christian, or would Islamic law treat him as a political state might treat a traitor?
If it is not so that one is born a Muslim and must stay a Muslim according to Islamic law, is there some analogy to baptism in Islam where one is entered into the community of faith?
How would Islamic law treat a person of mixed heritage, e.g., Muslim mother, but Jewish or Christian father? Would having a non-Muslim mother have any effect on identity, if there indeed is a patrilineal rule?
I hope someone can answer these questions and point me to sources on the web that refer to the Quran, Shaaria or Hadith, or some other authoritative source.
I really don’t want a debate here – just some clear guidance on answering the question.
In order to identify an authoritative source you would first have to identify the Muslim authority, and there just isn’t one. There is no religious hierarchy as in, for instance, the Catholic religion.
Koran only Muslims would object to the last qualification. (There are more and more Koran only Muslim organizations, in Southeast Asia for example, and not just Submitters.)
The separation of culture and religion seems impossible when people think of Islam. I daresay that those who said this are of Arabic descent. Yet Islam is a worldwide religion. Which country has the most Muslims? (India.)
Again, culture vs religion. The Koran says there is no obligation in religion.
According to the Koran all those who believe in God and do good works enter Paradise. More information.
In Malaysia it is illegal for a Moslem to convert. If you are not a Moslem, it is illegal to have any sort of religious discourse with a Moslem. If you are a Moslem, it is illegal not to practice the religion. You can be jailed for eating pork or eating during the day during Ramadan or not praying at the appropriate times. It is illegal for a non-Moslem to marry a Moslem. The non-Moslem must convert. I imagine it is similar in most Moslem countries.
I would like to add that the link I supplied lists Quran only sites and it is for that reason that I supplied it. However, many (if not most) Muslims would not consider the author of that site a Muslim since he believes in the incarnation of God.
I’ve been asking my Muslim friends and acquaintances about this very issue because I’ve read some right-wing bizarro spam about Barack Obama lately. I’ve learned this much from these Muslims:
Muslim people born in majority-Muslim countries do say that having a Muslim father makes you a Muslim.
If Barack Obama says he’s a Christian, then he’s a Christian and no harm no foul.
They did not know that Barack Obama’s father was Muslim.
The Prophet Muhammad said, “No babe is born but upon Fitra (as a Muslim). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist.” (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6426)
I haven’t seen any sign anywhere that any Muslim in the world is calling for the execution of Barack Obama for apostasy.
It is perfectly okay for Muslim men to marry non-muslim women. The women are supposed to convert to Muslims, but there doesn’t seem a lot of pressure on them to do so.
An example from my own family. My ex-sister in law was raised catholic, but was mostly atheist by the time she married her Muslim husband, Moroccan immigrant in Holland, Ali. My SIL and Ali have a friendly, tolerant marriage. They both abstain from pork, and both drink very little alcohol. They celebrate Christmas with the gifts and the tree, but not the Mass, or the Christian religious symbols. Ali observes the fasting of Ramadan, SIL doesn’t. Their two boys are encouraged to do Ramadan and Muslim class, but they aren’t forced to, and are welcome to join in the Dutch culture stuff like Mardi gras.
Last year saw the birth of very interesting Dutch political movement, the Central Comittee for ex-muslims.
Hereis a link to a NY Times article about the same Comittee. It is interesting that, according to traditional Muslim law, people who officially denounce their Muslim faith “deserve death” according to Sharia, but sSharia is fuzzy about how exactly, and by whom, they should be killed. The comittee foundr, a young Dutch Iranian, has police protection, but he has been beaten up by a coulpe of young moslim thugs a few months ago.
I am well aware of that. It’s written in huge red letters on the entry form. Those are drug laws though, not religious ones.
Both? They have two different police forces. One is the normal police who enforce laws for everyone. The other is religious police who enforce Moslem law. They go to the bars and massage parlors to make sure that there aren’t any Moslems there. (If you’re a sultan or a member of a sultan’s family, they let you slide.) They go to the lover’s lanes and arrest unmarried Moslems.
Everyone has to carry a national ID card. Moslems, by law, must have a name that is on the list of acceptable Moslem names. (Abdul, Mohammed, Tariq, Fatima, …) If you convert, you have to officially change your name.
A Moslem, by law, can’t convert. A non-Moslem can convert to anything they want. If a non-Moslem converts to Islam, they must change their name to one of the names on the list unless they already happen to have an acceptable name.
Actually, your snipped verse has two problems. The first is that it has been snipped and delivers a different message than the complete verse and the second is that it has a specific historical context* that is lost when it is quoted out of context of history.
(Particularly the numbered sections at the end of the article.)
It’s more complicated than that in Malaysia. Malaysia is a federation, and conversion from Islam is illegal in five Malaysian states. In seven states, it’s not illegal, but the law doesn’t recognize it, and in one state it’s legal. The federal status is more up in the air.
More generally saying "I imagine it is similar in most Muslim countries (that Muslims can’t convert to another religion) isn’t an assumption you can make, I don’t think.
Here’s the 2006 State Department report on Religious Freedom.
From reading this thread, I glean two things. First that Muslims believe that everyone is born Muslim and is diverted from the true path by evil parents. And second, that apostates must be killed. The first fact would imply that all non-Muslims are apostates and it follows that it is open season on non-Muslims.
That would be a ( sort of ) logical derivation - but as far as I know not even the most fanatical jihadist would argue this. As Will Repair noted there is no unanimity on virtually anything in Islam. But generally speaking there are often cited three broad exemptions to accusations of apostasy from Islam:
1.) The forcibly converted - as this is technically forbidden, it is not considered possible to be an apostate of a religion you have not realy accepted in your heart in the first place. Of course that such a rule would have to be created is evidence that the issue has arisen in the past.
2.) The mentally ill - diminished mental capacity renders charges of apostasy moot.
3.) Children - generally a child is not considered capable of making an informed decision to be an apostate.
While everyone might be “born a Muslim”, that doesn’t mean they’re an actual apostate for being raised, say, Jewish. Just that they were born into a state of grace.
And beyond that of course the argument over which, if any genuine apostates merit death is an ongoing one. It might be worth looking up the arguments of Hassan al-Turabi of Sudan for instance.
The upshot is that the “apostates” referred to in Sura 9:5 were specific tribes that had formed, and then violated, a peace treaty with Muhammad’s group. They were specific enemies against whom Muhammad had specific grievances.