These are all questions apostates – people who leave religion – have reported being asked during their asylum interviews with the UK Home Office. In my ongoing PhD research, I have conducted in-depth interviews with 11 apostates who were ultimately granted asylum in the UK.

In many countries, being non-religious can make someone a target for vicious persecution. This leads some to seek sanctuary elsewhere. But once they have claimed asylum, apostates can face trivial or confusing questions that often have no relation to the experience of someone who has lost faith. Such questions do not delve into the core reasons for their lack of belief or the persecution they fear.

Freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental human right enshrined in several human rights laws. Claiming asylum on religious grounds should, in principle, include non-religious beliefs.

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights protects theistic, nontheistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. Religion is also among five protected grounds for asylum in the 1951 refugee convention, to which the UK is signatory.

But, as I argue in my research, the government’s approach to religious asylum claims focuses more on people who have converted to a religion that is not accepted in their home country.

The Home Office policies and guidance that I have examined suggest that this is most often those who convert from Islam to Christianity and fear persecution if they return to their Muslim-majority home.

But the population of apostates is often ignored, as others have found. The system is mostly designed with believers of different stripes in mind, not for those who have no stripes. And yet, it is the non-religious who often face the most credible threats to their safety should they be denied asylum and forced to return home.

As documented by Humanists International, globally, most countries infringe on the rights of the non-religious. For example, states may deny citizens the right to identify as atheists, or revoke citizenship as punishment for being a non-believer. They may also restrict marriage only to those who conform to an approved religious tradition.

In the most severe cases, countries may persecute someone for being non-religious. Some 13 countries have the death penalty for blasphemy or apostasy, 40 have prison sentences and 18 more have some other criminal restrictions. In total, that makes 71 countries with some kind of criminalisation for being non-religious.

As Ahmed Shaheed, the former UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion put it: “In my observations, humanists, when they are attacked, are attacked far more viciously and brutally than in other cases.”

Proving disbelief

Religion-based asylum claims are complex cases due to difficulties of assessing someone’s inner beliefs. How can an immigration official know, with certainty, whether someone believes what they say they believe? Christian converts can provide a baptism letter from a church that has supported them, but apostates often do not have the equivalent support to evidence their beliefs.

The UK Home Office, which does not publish data specifically on religion-based asylum claims, says an applicant must be able to demonstrate they “genuinely” hold persecuted beliefs.

Through my research, including interviews with refugees and legal professionals, I have found that non-religious asylum-seekers are at a disadvantage when trying to demonstrate their credibility. They are often treated with suspicion or pressed with odd questions that do not reflect the reality of many apostates’ experiences.

Take, for example, the case of the persecuted humanist Hamza bin Walayat. Upon seeking asylum in the UK after fleeing persecution in Pakistan, bin Walayat was asked during his Home Office interview to name ancient Greek philosophers with humanist belief systems. His case was denied on the basis that he wasn’t able to name Aristotle or Plato. This was a particular irony, because both ancient philosophers were, themselves, religious believers. He was ultimately granted asylum after appealing to an immigration tribunal.

I have also found that non-religious asylum claimants are subjected to inaccurate questioning. For example, officials sometimes refer to atheism as though it’s a form of religious conversion – it’s not – and wrongly see atheism as analogous to adhering to a religious doctrine.

My interviewees have told me of non-religious asylum claimants being asked to recite the Amsterdam declaration (a statement of the fundamental principles of modern humanism), or quote prominent western European atheist intellectuals such as Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens.

This leads to an unfair burden of evidence where the non-religious must materialise their claims, in ways not compatible with atheistic beliefs. While it’s difficult to prove a lack of belief, the situation is made worse by poor guidance of the Home Office, which favours Christian convert cases.

Asylum decisions are often the difference between life and death for the most at-risk claimants. The next time someone accuses you of believing something you don’t, consider how you would try to prove otherwise.