Some people believe that religion, like fashion, sport, music, and food, is “a matter of taste”; everybody must be allowed to freely adopt any religion of his/her choice, and be free to switch to another religion, or to renounce religion altogether if he/she so desires, because there is no truth or falsehood involved when it comes to taste!
Is the belief, “Religion is a matter of taste!”, true? We ask this question because “belief”, unlike “taste”, is subject to either “true” or “false” judgement. We can categorize belief into true and false belief, but we cannot do the same thing to taste, although one may, to certain extent, talk about taste being either good or bad.
Answering “yes” or “no” to the question above would betray a person’s real opinion and attitude towards religion.
To answer “yes” means to suggest that one’s choice of religion, much like one’s choice of fashion, sport, music, and food, is purely arbitrary and subjective. It means to hold the opinion that just as there is no element of truth or falsehood attached to fashion, sport, music, and food, consequently there is no element of truth or falsehood in religion.
To answer “no” means to affirm exactly the opposite, i.e., “Religion, unlike fashion, sport, music, and food, is not a matter of taste!” It means one’s choice of religion is either right or wrong; right if one chooses truth, and wrong if one chooses falsehood. It means to hold the view that religion is a matter of truth, and that truth can be known objectively, hence, one’s choice of religion reflects either truth or falsehood.
Now let us consider the belief that “there is no true or false religion”, and examine whether it may be defended or not. If what is being denied is the possibility of knowing the truth or falsehood of anything, including religion, then, the proposition “there is no true or false religion” itself becomes absurd because we can never know whether it is true or false.
If what is being denied is not the possibility of knowledge in general, but only the possibility of knowing which religion is true and which is not, then, the real issue is the criteria used to judge whether a religion is true or not. Until that is settled one cannot simply jump to the hasty conclusion that nobody can ever know which religion reflects truth and which one does not.
Let us, for the sake of argument, put aside questions with regard to which religion is true and which is false, and consider instead the individual propositions made by different religions on certain major issues related to human life. In this way we have a better chance of proving the soundness of those propositions made by each religion with regard to the issues at hand.
A sensible human being would not take the uncalculated risk by betting his only life on some unexamined propositions, just as he would not invest his life savings in unknown companies. Ideas, whether they come from religion, science, or philosophy, have consequences. The famous adage of Socrates: “an unexamined life is not worth living” is addressed to men and women of reason who treasure life, and would not let it be shaped and determined by those unexamined ideas, precepts and ideologies. Echoing similar sentiment another philosopher says: “to be a human being dissatisfied is preferable than to be a pig satisfied!”
Coming back to the question: is religion a matter of taste? The answer given by Islam to this question is a definitive “no!”. A true Muslim, by definition, is the one who submits to God consciously and willingly. Consciousness refers to the recognition of the truth by the soul, whereas willingness is the soul’s acknowledgement of the truth through internal and external actions. The Qur’an makes it very clear to all mankind that there is no compulsion in religion (Islam), which means, as long as there is compulsion, there is no true submission, i.e., Islam. Compulsion is a condition when one acts contrary to his will; it means lack of conscience, and resolve.
Islam ultimately is what an individual desires for himself or herself, not what the family or the society desires of him or her. Being a Muslim is not an inherited social status; it is rather a state of the soul, and no external authority can make it exist or disappear. Hence, he in whom Islam never takes hold, has never been a Muslim regardless of whether his name is Muhammad or Abdullah. Apostacy will never happen to a true Muslim, it only “happens” to one who has never been a Muslim.
Having said that, the true solution to the problem of apostacy is to have a proper education for the Muslim community. Unconfirmed reports that thousands of Muslims in our country have become apostates betrays the fact that we have failed to educate them properly, resulting in them being led astray and making a “choice for the worse”. We must say “choice for the worse”, without any hesitation, because it is supposed to reflect the fact that “one’s choice” to remain Muslim is real freedom. Unless we ourselves are conscious of the fact that Islam is the truth, we would naturally hesitate to categorically assert that the decision to openly or secretly renounce Islam is a decision made in error.
Although we realize the fact that it is ultimately an individual’s decision whether or not to accept the truth of Islam, it is our moral responsibility to guide one in making a choice for the better. That is only possible through proper education. Law and punishment cannot stop apostacy; it may even exacerbate the matter. Law and punishment may prevent someone from declaring openly that he is not a Muslim, but it cannot instill in him the consciousness of knowing what being a Muslim entails.
If we define apostasy as the act of rejecting truth we must agree that it is an evil act warranted of condemnation. The true followers of other religions, namely the faithful, cannot disagree with this argument unless they themselves are in doubt with regard to the truth of what they believe; or are of the opinion that to follow the teachings of religion is one thing and to believe in the truth or falsehood of what is being adhered to is something else. If that were the case, then it would be nothing more than “blind following”, or to condone “an adherence to any teaching regardless of whether it is true or not”, or to be indifferent to truth or falsehood. If one were to subscribe to the notion of blind faith, it would necessarily contradict the purpose of being faithful!
One cannot be defined as a faithful believer, for example, if he doubts the truth of that believe. He may be following all the teachings of that believe but without faith the best he can be is a “faithless believer”. This absurd contradiction is antithetical to Islam. External observance of the commands and prohibition of Islam does not make one a Muslim if he does not truly believe (i.e. have knowledge and certainty) in the tenets of Islam. So a faithless Muslim, is an oxymoron.
That being the case, it is rather absurd, for a group of the “faithful” among the Muslims as well as the followers of other religions, if they are truly faithful, to condone the behaviour of people who treat religion like a sport, music, fashion, and food, by citing unqualified freedom as the foundation of the articles of faith. Unless we all agree that religion is a matter of taste, the freedom to choose a religion or to renounce it must mean that it is somehow founded upon certain criteria of knowldege. And that will make us look at the problem of apostacy from a different angle altogether, that of reason guided by Revelation.