Apostasy Punishment In Islamic Scholarly Discourse: Perspectives And Implications In The Malaysian Context

This study explores the current academic debate on the punishment for apostasy within Islamic scholarship, focusing specifically on the Malaysian context. Traditionally, classical fiqh literature has prescribed the death penalty for apostasy, based on the view that renouncing Islam is both a theological error and a threat to community security and political stability. However, modern Muslim scholars are increasingly questioning this stance, arguing that it contradicts Qur’anic principles of freedom of belief and human dignity. The issue addressed in this study is the tension between classical legal positions, emerging reformist perspectives, and the existing legal framework in Malaysia, where laws vary from punitive measures in some states, such as Pahang, to counselling-based approaches in Negeri Sembilan. This research aims to analyse contemporary reinterpretations of the punishment for apostasy and assess their implications for Malaysia’s pluralist legal system. It particularly evaluates the viewpoints of three influential reformist scholars, Abdul Mutaal al-Soidi, Taha Jabir Al-Alwani, and Ahmad al-Raisūnī, who oppose capital punishment by emphasising the principles of Maqasid al-Shariah, including the protection of intellect, dignity, and freedom of belief. Methodologically, the study employs qualitative content analysis of primary legal texts, complemented by semi-structured interviews with officials from the Federal Territories Mufti Office and practising Syariah lawyers. Findings reveal a strong theoretical basis for reinterpreting apostasy as a matter of personal conscience rather than political rebellion, and for advocating a shift from coercive legal measures to education and dialogue. While classical jurists linked apostasy to political treason due to the sociopolitical realities of early Muslim societies, contemporary nation-states operate within different legal, constitutional and human rights frameworks. This makes a punitive approach less compatible with modern governance and more aligned with historical contingencies rather than universal principles. The study makes a global contribution by proposing an Islamic legal reform framework aligned with constitutional rights and international human rights standards, demonstrating how Islamic jurisprudence can evolve while maintaining its ethical foundations.