Classical Islāmic Views on the Punishment for Apostasy

[Deleted L]

Classical Islāmic Views on the Punishment for Apostasy​

By Abu Amir

Comments on Classical Islāmic Views on the Punishment for Apostasy

Classically, there has been consensus amongst the Muslim jurists that, in an Islāmic polity, an apostate from Islām who refuses to return back to the religion will be executed. The famous Ḥanbalī jurist, Muwaffaq al-Dīn ibn Qudāmah (541 – 620 H), for example, said: “The people of religious knowledge have reached consensus on the obligation of executing apostates. This has been reported from Abū Bakr, ‘Uthmān, ‘Alī, Mu‘ādh, Abū Mūsā, Ibn ‘Abbās, Khālid and others, without any disapproval – hence, there was consensus.”[1] The famous scholar of ḥadīth and jurisprudence, Ibn Daqīq al-‘Īd (625 – 702 H), said: “Apostasy is a cause of making the blood of a Muslim licit by consensus with respect to a male [apostate].”[2]

There are some explicit ḥadīths which state that a Muslim who renounces the religion should be put to death. Some of these will be mentioned below.

Due to the current political climate, many Muslims feel compelled to reject this ruling and to interpret the statements of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the jurists as punishments relating to treason and not apostasy. They also claim, there has historically been disagreement on this ruling.

In light of a recent defence of this revisionist take on the Islāmic law of apostasy,[3] the following will address the opinions of ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, Ibrāhīm al-Nakha‘ī and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz, as statements of all three have been misrepresented to support the claim that there was no consensus. A few more relevant issues will then be touched upon.

‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb

An incident has been quoted in some collections of ḥadīth that ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb denounced the execution of an apostate or a group of apostates. This has been misrepresented by some individuals to support the claim that ‘Umar rejected the death penalty for apostates altogether. What ‘Umar in fact denounced was the execution of apostates without affording them the opportunity to repent and return back to the religion. I will quote a few narrations below, showing explicitly that ‘Umar was in support of the death penalty for apostasy, so as to leave no doubt over his opinion on this matter.

On the very incident in question, Sufyān ibn ‘Uyaynah (d. 198 H) narrates from Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn ‘Abd al-Qārrī from his father, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn ‘Abd (d. 80), that he narrates:

When the news of the conquest of Tustar reached ‘Umar, he asked them: “Any news?” They said: “There was a man amongst the Muslims who joined the idolaters so we captured him.” He said: “What did you do with him?” They said: “We executed him.” He said: “Why did you not put him in a room and lock the door, feed him a loaf of bread each day, and then ask him three times to repent: then if he repents – good and well –, and if not, execute him?” Then he said: “O Allāh, bear witness, I did not order this nor was I happy when its news reached me.” [4]

With respect to the chain of narration, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn ‘Abd al-Qārrī was from the senior Tābi‘īn, born in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him). He is known to have accompanied ‘Umar, and is regarded as a trustworthy transmitter found in the six famous collections of ḥadīth. His son, Muḥammad, is amongst those known to have narrated from him. [5]

It is clear from this version of the report that ‘Umar did not contest the death penalty for apostasy. He only disapproved of the procedure that was followed. An apostate must be afforded the opportunity to repent before he is sentenced to death. After being given this opportunity, however, ‘Umar himself said the apostate will be executed if he refuses to repent.

Below are two further reports which prove that ‘Umar supported the death penalty for apostasy:

‘Abd al-Razzāq al-Ṣan‘ānī reports in his Muṣannaf from his teacher, Ma‘mar ibn Rāshid (d. 153), from his teacher, al-Zuhrī (d. 124), from ‘Ubaydullāh ibn ‘Abdillāh ibn ‘Utbah (d. 98), one of the seven great jurists of Madīnah, from his father, a Ṣaḥābī by the name of ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Utbah, that he said:

Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd captured a group of men from the inhabitants of ‘Irāq who had apostatized from Islām. He wrote concerning them to ‘Umar. He wrote back to him: “Offer to them the true religion and to bear testimony that there is no deity but Allāh. If they accept, release them. If they do not accept, execute them.” Some of them accepted so he released them and some did not accept so he killed them. [6]

This is an authentic report.

Second, Ibn Abī Shaybah reports in his Muṣannaf from ‘Abd al-Raḥīm ibn Sulaymān from Ḥajjāj ibn Arṭāt from ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb from his father from his grandfather, ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr ibn ‘Āṣ, that he said:

Amr ibn ‘Āṣ wrote to ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb that a man had converted to disbelief after belief. ‘Umar wrote back to him: “Ask him to repent. If he repents, accept it, and if not strike his neck.” [7]

There is some weakness in the chain of this report due to Ḥajjāj ibn Arṭāt. However, it is acceptable as a supporting narration.

In short, the view of ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb does not negate the consensus on the death penalty for apostasy. His position is clearly in agreement with the death penalty. He only believed that apostates should be afforded the opportunity to repent, in which he has historically been supported by the vast majority of jurists.

Classical Islāmic Views on the Punishment for Apostasy

By Abu Amir Comments on Classical Islāmic Views on the Punishment for Apostasy Classically, there has been consensus amongst the Muslim jurists that, in an Islāmic polity, an apostate from Islām wh…

theislamiclens.wordpress.com

 

[Deleted L]

Ibrāhīm al-Nakha‘ī

Ibrāhīm al-Nakha‘ī is a famous jurist of Kūfah from the era of the Tābi‘īn. The cause of confusion here is a report from him stating that an apostate will be asked to repent indefinitely.[8]

However, this does not mean an apostate should never be executed, but that if a Muslim apostatises, he will be asked to repent, and if he repents he will be released. If the same person apostatises again and then repents, he will be released a second time. According to al-Nakha‘ī, this can potentially go on indefinitely. However, if he does not repent, he will be executed according to al-Nakha‘ī too, as mentioned in clear reports from him (see below). Ibn Ḥajar explains this in his Fatḥ al-Bārī.[9] In fact, in one version of this statement of al-Nakha‘ī, it states: “An apostate will be asked to repent indefinitely every time he relapses [into disbelief]”,[10] making the intent of his statement very clear.

Mughīrah ibn Miqsam (d. 133 H) narrates from Ibrahīm al-Nakha‘ī with regards to the apostate: “He will be asked to repent. If he repents he will be released, and if he refuses, he will be killed.”[11]

Al-Nakha‘ī even advocated the view that a female apostate will be executed if she refuses to repent, as mentioned in a couple of reports.[12]

Hence, al-Nakha‘ī’s view also does not negate the transmitted consensus.

‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz

A narration is quoted from ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz, the famous righteous Muslim caliph, that a group of people left Islām after having accepted it briefly and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ordered that the jizyah tax be re-enforced on them and they be left alone.[13]

However, this was his policy with respect to a group of people who accepted Islām without knowledge of its basic teachings. In an authentic narration, it is reported that ‘Urwah wrote to ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz asking about a man who accepted Islām and then apostatised. ‘Umar wrote back to him: “Ask him about the basic teachings of Islām. If he was aware of them, offer Islām to him, and if he refuses, strike his neck. If he was not aware of them, harshen the jizyah tax and release him.”[14]

This report makes his position clear. He was in favour of the death penalty, but in the case where a person came into Islām without an understanding of its basic teachings, he did not regard apostasy in this case to be true apostasy.

In short, the view of all three of these personalities from the early generations of Muslims was clearly in favour of the death penalty for apostates, and can in no way be advanced to suggest that there was no consensus.

Classical Islāmic Views on the Punishment for Apostasy

By Abu Amir Comments on Classical Islāmic Views on the Punishment for Apostasy Classically, there has been consensus amongst the Muslim jurists that, in an Islāmic polity, an apostate from Islām wh…

theislamiclens.wordpress.com

 

[Deleted L]

“Parting From the Community”

Some people exploit the wording found in a famous ḥadīth, “the blood of a Muslim is not licit except in three cases,” with the third being, “the one who leaves the religion, parting from the community” (al-tāriku li dīnihī, al-mufāriqu li l-jamā‘ah), by claiming that “parting from the community” implies rebellion, treason and an act of war, something over and above leaving the religion. But this is incorrect. Parting from the community is simply an explanation of what it means to leave the religion: the one who apostatizes is no longer from the Muslim community, but is now from the non-Muslim community.

Ibn Ḥajar explains in his Fatḥ al-Bārī that “parting from the community” is an explanatory attribute (ṣifah mufassirah) and not an extra, independent attribute (ṣifah mustaqillah). He quotes al-Bayḍāwī who said the phrase “parting from the community” is an attribute confirming the previous phrase, and merely means, “he ceases to be part of them” (kharaja min jumlatihim). Ibn Ḥajar further explains that this is supported by the fact that another version of this narration, reported by ‘Uthmān, only mentions “the one who disbelieves after having accepted Islām,” which al-Nasa’ī narrated with an authentic chain. The same narration appears in a ḥadīth from ‘Āishah with the words: “disbelieves after having accepted Islām” and in a ḥadīth from Ibn ‘Abbās with the words: “apostatizes after having believed.”[15]

Legal Cause

Some people misunderstand what some of the classical jurists mentioned regarding the legal cause of this ruling. While the majority state that a female apostate should be sentenced to death if she refuses to repent just like a man, the Ḥanafīs famously say that she should be imprisoned and forced to return to Islām, but not killed. One justification given for this distinction by the Ḥanafī jurists is that a man is a potential enemy combatant (muḥārib). In a territory governed by Islāmic law, religious affiliations naturally bring with them political affiliations. And since only a male non-Muslim can add force to a non-Muslim army, some Ḥanafī jurists argued that this is the reason why male apostates are killed to the exclusion of female ones. But no Ḥanafī jurist stipulated a further condition to apostasy (besides the refusal to repent) for the death sentence. A male apostate could easily have been asked to join the non-Muslim residents of a Muslim-governed region, i.e. the Ahl al-Dhimmah. But he is not, even if he gives assurances that he will not threaten the Islāmic regime in any way. The simple reason for this is that the actual legal cause for the death penalty is, as the Ḥanafī jurists themselves stated, “remaining firmly on disbelief after accepting the faith” (iṣrār ‘ala l-kufr).

One very famous late Ḥanafī jurist, Ibn ‘Ābidīn al-Shāmī, stated that the wisdom behind the death penalty is the greater objective of preserving the religious belief of the Muslim residents. If a person who leaves the faith is allowed to live freely amongst the residents, this could be an impetus for the weak believers to follow suit, and renounce the religion. [16]

Pardoning Like Other Offences

Some people argue that if apostasy is a capital offence, then it should not be pardonable just like other punishable offences, like theft and murder. Ibn ‘Ābidīn also explains that it is not apostasy per se that is a capital offence, but remaining firmly on disbelief after having accepted the faith. That is, the capital offence is the refusal to return back to the religion after committing apostasy, not apostasy alone.[17]

Classical Islāmic Views on the Punishment for Apostasy

By Abu Amir Comments on Classical Islāmic Views on the Punishment for Apostasy Classically, there has been consensus amongst the Muslim jurists that, in an Islāmic polity, an apostate from Islām wh…

theislamiclens.wordpress.com

 

[Deleted L]

Addendum: Apostasy, Islām and Nation States

“Logical” Analysis and Hypothesis

Logical proofs are advanced to undermine the ruling of apostasy. It is argued that disagreeing with Islām attracts no sanction, yet doing so once accepted, deserves death. This, the argument goes, is as irrational as arguing “fornicating before accepting Islām attracts no sanction yet doing so after becoming Muslim does”, and therefore the original ruling is logically flawed and incoherent. The argument is in fact a non-argument.

It is further argued that, hypothetically, were such “discriminatory laws” enacted in modern states like the UK, US and France, the people adhering to the classical view would be complaining about human rights violations. In other words, there is a double standard at play.

This argument is the weakest and demonstrates ignorance of the conception of the nation state. Such an argument confuses the ruling between two paradigms and effectively imposes a western secular liberal epistemology of so-called “rationalism” upon Shari’ah. It also presumes that “discrimination” on the basis of beliefs do not occur.

Firstly, the law applies to Muslims, not non-Muslims. Due the foundation of governance being Islām itself, religious affiliations naturally bring with them political affiliations. This bring us to a fundamental point.

Nation State and Belief

There is a paradigmatic difference between Islām and the conception of the modern Nation State. With the onset of the 20th century, artificial boundaries were imposed on the world based upon the Eurocentric experience. From the ashes of WWI and II emerged countries which were created loosely in the image of the Western nation state. Secularisation meant that all religions became subordinate to and excised from the state political realm. However, this paradigm shift deposed traditional religions as a basis for governance with a new religion, the “nation state” itself.

The forging of a “national identity” means coercing the people over time to believe in ethereal symbols which helps unify a nation. Renowned Professor Emeritus of Nationalism and Ethnicity and one of the founders of nationalism studies, British sociologist Anthony Smith elucidates in his text, Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era,

“For the nation and its identity is expressed and revealed in the ‘authentic’ memories, symbols, myths heritage and vernacular of the ‘people’ who form a community of history and destiny and whose intellectuals and professionals seek to authenticate, safeguard and embody that heritage and culture through cultural and educational institutions in an autonomous homeland. The need for protection, recognition and belonging encourages the nation and its members, especially its intellectual and professionals, to seek to institutionalize their symbols, culture and heritage in and through a nation state which will both embody that heritage, symbols and culture and fulfil these needs.”[18]

“Undermining” the National State belief system

Philosophically contested, and vague ideas of liberalism, for instance become necessary tools for the state to foster a criteria of “integrated” and dissident citizens. We saw how nationalism was powerfully exploited in a cult like fashion by Hitler. A contemporary manifestation of this can be found in the famous case of Refah Partisi. In 2003, the European Court of Human Rights supported the Turkish court in expelling the party due to the fact that they were likely to win the elections, but wished to introduce Islāmic principles, including allowing women to wear the Hijab again in public institutions. The underlying reason for this ruling was the threat to the secular nature of the regime.

A local example can be found in David Cameron’s speech in Birmingham, in which the Prime Minister called for everyone to rally under “British values”, against “extremism”.[19] Cameron previously stated that,

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens ‘as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone’… It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance…”[20]

The PM thus encouraged the people to promote State beliefs of “British values”. Those who do not (i.e. “vocally oppose”) are excommunicated to the nebulous realm of “extremism” and subjected to various “discriminatory” measures. “Extremists”, thus are the “apostates” of the nation state religion. Whilst it is ostensibly true that these “apostates” are not “put to death”, for holding dissenting views, the incongruity of the secular model is that, whilst it propounds equality regardless of personally held beliefs, those who hold views denoted by the State to be “extreme”, will be disadvantaged in public life, resulting in a loss of earnings, social standing etc. The reason is the “undermining of democracy”, as articulated by Theresa May.[21]

Discrimination on the basis of belief and culture in Western states does occur, however due to the presumed, encultured normalcy of the secular nation state model, we rarely recognise it. The criteria utilised for “discriminating” is different. The grounds and criteria for it is nationalism – i.e. the “discrimination” of non-nationals versus national, or non-EU nationals versus EU nationals. Nationalism even encourages discriminatory treatment of nationals too if they differ from “beliefs” promoted by the state. After citing French treatment of minorities and noting the crisis of nation states, the professor writes,

“Not only ethnic but civic nationalism may demand the eradication of minority cultures and communities qua communities, on the common assumptions, shared by Marxists and liberals, not just of equality through uniformity, but that ‘high cultures’, and ‘great nations’, are necessarily of greater value than ‘low’ cultures and small nations and ethnies… the civic equality of co-nationals destroys all associations and bodies that stand between the citizen and state, and the ideology of civil nationalism relegates the customary vernacular to the margins of society, to the family and folklore. In doing so, it also delegitimizes and devalues the ethnic cultures of resident minorities and immigrants alike, and doing so consciously and deliberately.”[22]

We can equally argue in accordance with the proposed “rational argument” advanced against Islāmic apostasy laws, that this is outrageous too.

Classical Islāmic Views on the Punishment for Apostasy

By Abu Amir Comments on Classical Islāmic Views on the Punishment for Apostasy Classically, there has been consensus amongst the Muslim jurists that, in an Islāmic polity, an apostate from Islām wh…

theislamiclens.wordpress.com

 

[Deleted L]

Nation State and National Security

Varying systems of governance have their own measures to preserve social order. In the theological explanation above, it was explained that some ‘ulama’ did refer to the effect of the ruling (not the cause), in that it acted as a means to deter and prevent social unrest and, ultimately, preserve the spiritual health of the community.

Where someone leaves the faith it can be construed as a threat to the spiritual health and by extension the social and political security of the community. As such, a strong deterrent is required to prevent this. Thus, when a Muslim who understands the faith makes a conscious decision to leave it, he will be subject to capital punishment after being reasoned with and given the opportunity to recant. The legal process is made clear to all, as is the fact that the jurisdiction of this law is limited to a land governed through Islām.

In the modern nation state paradigm, the discourse of “national security” has become prevalent particularly after WWII. It entails political and societal security, the latter requiring social order. Social order according to David Cameron for instance, necessitates defeating “extremism”,[23] or an ideological threat to the state. His British values and counter-extremism strategy has already been discussed above.

Where a person is deemed a security threat, he will be pursued often using secret evidence, without a fair hearing, due process and in judicially murky waters. Furthermore, this defence of national security manifests in a borderless manner. Britain for instance, has recently started engaging in “banishment”. Measures are now in place to strip the nationality of individuals who are under mere suspicion of being a threat to national security, i.e. individuals who are not criminals and therefore not put through a judicial process.[24] In 2013, the Home Secretary Theresa May had removed the passports of British nationals while they were abroad, only for them to be killed in drone attacks.[25] The treatment of whistleblowers like Edward Snowden also brings to light the modern implication of perceivably “undermining” national security. Snowden is unable to return to his country because he fears the death penalty.[26]

Under the same premise (threat to national security), Muslim citizens have been “put to death” through “clinical killing” due to their “apostasy” in terms of the values promoted by the nation state.[27] And again, under the same premise, the west will engage in wars to “protect” and project Western values.

In other words the leading proponents of secular liberal democracy “put to death” people based upon a criteria of “national security” rooted in the belief system of the nation state.

The law in Islām is clear and constrained by an extensive legal process. Each model of governance has its own criterion which determines what constitutes societies’ best interests. All states seek to protect themselves and their citizenry for their own reasons. Islām in its spiritual and political capacity is no different, except that its implementation is transparent, and less intrusive (Islām actively discourages spying on its citizens, and encourages providing alternate explanations to statements and actions which may seem to violate the Islāmic creed) than the Western implementations.

Endnotes

[1] al-Mughnī, Dār ‘Ālam al-Kutub, 12:264

[2] Fatḥ al-Bārī, Dār al-Salām, 12:251

[3] This has been drafted in reference to statements recently made on Facebook by Abu Layth of Birmingham, UK

[4] Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah, Dār al-Qiblah, 14:594

[5] Siyar A‘lām al-Nubalā’, Mu’assasat al-Risālah, 4:14-5

[6] Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq, al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 10:169

[7] Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah, Dār al-Qiblah, 17:438

[8] Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq, al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 10:166

[9] Fatḥ al-Bārī, Dār al-Salām, 12:337

[10] al-Sunan al-Kubrā, Dār al-Kutb al-‘Ilmiyyah, 8:342

[11] Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah, Dār al-Qiblah, 14:594

[12] Muṣannaf Ibn Abī Shaybah, Dār al-Qiblah, 14:599; Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq, al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 10:176

[13] Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq, al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 10:171

[14] Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq, al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 10:171

[15] Fatḥ al-Bārī, Dār al-Salām, 12:251

[16] Majmū‘ah Rasā’il Ibn ‘Ābidīn, 1:319

[17] Majmū‘ah Rasā’il Ibn ‘Ābidīn, 1:319

[18] Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era, “Problems of civic and ethnic nationalisms”, 1995

[19]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ech-read-the-transcript-in-full-10401948.html

[20]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...eoples-lives-says-david-cameron-10246517.html

[21]http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/30/theresa-may-tory-government-snoopers-charter

[22] Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era, “Problems of civic and ethnic nationalisms”, 1995

[23]https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/extremism-pm-speech

[24]http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ay-terror-suspects-citizenship-clegg-approval

[25]https://www.thebureauinvestigates.c...led-by-drone-strikes-after-passports-revoked/

[26]http://www.catholic.org/news/politics/story.php?id=55578

[27]http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...es-in-syria-against-britons-fighting-for-isis

 

[Burbax]

what's the usage for this in the modern era?

 

[Deleted L]

what's the usage for this in the modern era?

Very simple, it’s the law of God and we implement them in our Muslim polities when we have the ability to do so. As for the wisdom of executing apostates, they deserve to be killed by the state after due process since they are a threat to the spiritual health of the Muslim community and within a Muslim society, they can cause social unrest and division. For more wisdom on the execution of Apostates, you can refer here:

https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/of_course_apostates_should_be_killed

 

[Burbax]

Very simple, it’s the law of God and we implement them in our Muslim polities when we have the ability to do so. As for the wisdom of executing apostates, they deserve to be killed by the state after due process since they are a threat to the spiritual health of the Muslim community and within a Muslim society, they can cause social unrest and division. For more wisdom on the execution of Apostates, you can refer here:

https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/of_course_apostates_should_be_killed

your first point about killing them is similar to how dictators get rid of their dissidents so that they aren't able to be questioned and can rule with absolute authority

I don't see any use in murdering people for leaving Islam. if you are muslim, you should just let Allah handle it

your society and belief in religion isn't very strong if someone doubting it is a threat to you so much you have to kill them

 

[Deleted L]

your first point about killing them is similar to how dictators get rid of their dissidents so that they aren't able to be questioned and can rule with absolute authority

I don't see any use in murdering people for leaving Islam. if you are muslim, you should just let Allah handle it

your society and belief in religion isn't very strong if someone doubting it is a threat to you so much you have to kill them

The short and simple answer to your objection is very simple. It’s the law of God and the Prophet ﷺ and it was practiced by his companions رضي الله عنهم As Muslims, we don’t question the Shariah, instead we submit to the Shariah and implement them in our societies when we are practically able to do so.

“O you who have believed, obey Allāh and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allāh and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allāh and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result.” (Surah An-Nisa 4:59)

Say, [O Muḥammad], "If you should love Allāh, then follow me, [so] Allāh will love you and forgive you your sins. And Allāh is Forgiving and Merciful." (Surah Al-Imran 3:31)

It was narrated from Anas that: Ibn 'Abbas said: "The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (Sunan an-Nasa’i 4064)

Narrated `Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn `Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." (Sahih al-Bukhari 6922)

Narrated 'Ikrimah: That 'Ali burnt some people who apostasized from Islam. This news reached Ibn 'Abbas, so he said: "If it were me I would have killed them according to the statement of Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'Whoever changes his religion then kill him.' And I would not have burned them because the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: 'Do not punish with the punishment of Allah.' So this reached 'Ali, and he said: "Ibn 'Abbas has told the truth." (Jami at-Tirmidhi 1458)

It was narrated from 'Ikrimah: "Some people apostatized after accepting Islam, and 'Ali burned them with fire. Ibn 'Abbas said: 'If it had been me, I would not have burned them; the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'No one should be punished with the punishment of Allah.' If it had been me, I would have killed them; the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (Sunan an-Nasa'i 4060)

The famous Ḥanbalī jurist, Muwaffaq al-Dīn ibn Qudāmah (541 – 620 H), for example, said: “The people of religious knowledge have reached consensus on the obligation of executing apostates. This has been reported from Abū Bakr, ‘Uthmān, ‘Alī, Mu‘ādh, Abū Mūsā, Ibn ‘Abbās, Khālid and others, without any disapproval – hence, there was consensus.” (al-Mughnī, Dār ‘Ālam al-Kutub, 12:264)

The famous scholar of ḥadīth and jurisprudence, Ibn Daqīq al-‘Īd (625 – 702 H), said: “Apostasy is a cause of making the blood of a Muslim licit by consensus with respect to a male [apostate].” (Fatḥ al-Bārī, Dār al-Salām, 12:251)

Every nation has a right to preserve the welfare of it’s citizens and preserving the spiritual health of the Muslim community is the state’s biggest priority.

I’ll quote a great example from Bassam Zawadi’s article:

https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/of_course_apostates_should_be_killed

He said:

If someone tells you that the state executed a man who was guilty of murdering someone by stabbing him repeatedly, would you shout "This is injustice! Why did you execute this man! His crime wasn't that great!"?

I believe that many of us would not say so. I believe many of us would say that the murderer deserved to be executed because of the gravity of his heinous crime. Not too many of us would sympathize with such a man. This man made his innocent victim suffer greatly each time his knife penetrated his flesh. He caused him so much physical pain that the man suffered greatly even though it was only for a matter of a few minutes.

Now let us come to the apostate. A person who would openly declare his apostasy affects the people around him. The people around him might ask themselves "Why on earth did this Muslim leave Islam? Is he out of his mind? Or maybe he discovered something wrong with Islam? Maybe Islam isn't that clear after all!" These people would then start to doubt their religion. If they seriously doubt their religion, they cease to be Muslims. If they cease to be Muslims that would very likely land them up in the blazing fire of Hell for eternity.

With all honesty, which crime is worse? Stabbing a person for a few minutes or making him burn for eternity? The answer is obvious and we know that it is the latter. If the latter crime is much worse, why are we insisting that it is difficult to grasp why Islam would call for the killing of apostates then?

 

[Shaafici Mujaahid]

Now let us come to the apostate. A person who would openly declare his apostasy affects the people around him. The people around him might ask themselves "Why on earth did this Muslim leave Islam? Is he out of his mind? Or maybe he discovered something wrong with Islam? Maybe Islam isn't that clear after all!" These people would then start to doubt their religion. If they seriously doubt their religion, they cease to be Muslims. If they cease to be Muslims that would very likely land them up in the blazing fire of Hell for eternity.

With all honesty, which crime is worse? Stabbing a person for a few minutes or making him burn for eternity? The answer is obvious and we know that it is the latter. If the latter crime is much worse, why are we insisting that it is difficult to grasp why Islam would call for the killing of apostates then?

Astaghfirullah! According to you, the truth is so easily refutable and unconvincing compared to disbelief. This directly goes against the Quranic verse that truth stands out clearly from error and that there is no compulsion in religion. Your sad logic is that our religion is so fragile that we are commanded to kill those who chose not to follow the religion. Even worse, a person can make many believers disbelieve based upon the reasoning they left according to you. I wonder if that would apply to you. Would you leave Islam had a murtad given you the reasonings for his kufr. I think so, because you deep down are struggling with heavy doubts trying to reconcile your literalist view with logic but had you used your logic, you wouldn't kill a person you disagree with.

 

[Sheikh Google]

"Now let us come to the apostate. A person who would openly declare his apostasy affects the people around him. The people around him might ask themselves "Why on earth did this Muslim leave Islam? Is he out of his mind? Or maybe he discovered something wrong with Islam? Maybe Islam isn't that clear after all!" These people would then start to doubt their religion. If they seriously doubt their religion, they cease to be Muslims. If they cease to be Muslims that would very likely land them up in the blazing fire of Hell for eternity.

With all honesty, which crime is worse? Stabbing a person for a few minutes or making him burn for eternity? The answer is obvious and we know that it is the latter. If the latter crime is much worse, why are we insisting that it is difficult to grasp why Islam would call for the killing of apostates then?"

You dont need article upon article of nonsense just to justify the unjustifiable. There is no wisdom in looking for drips and drabs to find meaning in killing someone just for not believing. This whole article reeks of insecurity and is laugh out loud hilarious.

 

[Omar del Sur]

a lot of the responses here ignore that this isn't something OP or any modern day people just made up. this is just an old rule in the sharia that has been around for over 1,400 years. it's silly to say "LOL SHOWS U ARE INSECURE IN UR DIN" to someone affirming the simple factual truth that this is part of sharia. because OP is insecure in his din, he built a time machine and time travelled to over 1,000 years ago to get scholars to form a consensus that this is part of sharia? if that's the case, the news here isn't that he's insecure as to the truth of his din- the news is that he has a time machine.

 

[Omar del Sur]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_C%C3%B3rdoba

Modern day Muslims who believe in this ruling, in accordance with the consensus of the scholars... we are so insecure in the truth of our din that we built a time machine and time travelled to Al-Andalus to talk the government there into executing the so-called "martyrs of Cordoba" for apostasy?

I think it's interesting to note- this occured:

Between 850 and 859, Córdoba, Al-Andalus (modern day Spain)

just think it's an interesting bit of history. this was over 1,100 years ago- and alhamdulilaah the same ruling has been passed down even to today. it isn't that the ruling is something any of us made up, but it's a big deal that the din has been passed down and preserved in the way it's been. I know for a fact that the Christianity of today is pretty much unrecognizable if you were to see what it looked like back then.

 

[Omar del Sur]

your society and belief in religion isn't very strong if someone doubting it is a threat to you so much you have to kill them

"you lack belief in your religion if you believe in following what your religion says!"

note: as is well-known, this ruling is to be carried out BY THE MUSLIM RULER. it is not to be carried out in a vigilante style by ordinary Muslims nor by ordinary Muslims living in countries not ruled by the sharia. so if anyone wants to claim that those of us who correctly believe in this ruling- that we call for any vigilante harming of apostates without state approval- that is a blatant falsehood. ordinary Muslims cannot carry out this ruling without state approval and in places like the West. HOWEVER- we correctly recognize that under a Muslim government ruling by the sharia, this would be the law of the land carried out by the ruler.

 

[MT Foxtrot]

this ruling is to be carried out BY THE MUSLIM RULER

That really doesn't make it any better. People shouldn't be killed for something as innocuous as changing their mind.

 

[Omar del Sur]

That really doesn't make it any better. People shouldn't be killed for something as innocuous as changing their mind.

it doesn't matter what anyone thinks. the apostasy law is part of the sharia. if you want to worship a cow or reject a part of the sharia, it's your own loss. even a non-Muslim who studies the history and the works of the scholars would have to admit that it is a part of the sharia historically throughout history and a consensus of the Muslim scholars. it isn't something that anyone is just making up. now if you don't want to believe in what Islam says, it's your problem.

 

[MT Foxtrot]

even a non-Muslim who studies the history and the works of the scholars would have to admit that it is a part of the sharia historically throughout history and a consensus of the Muslim scholars. it isn't something that anyone is just making up.

I understand that. I'm just saying executing someone for simply changing their beliefs is deeply dystopian and oppressive. Couldn't we just choose to not enforce this aspect of the faith? Leave it to God in the hereafter?

 

[Izzy77]

I understand that. I'm just saying executing someone for simply changing their beliefs is deeply dystopian and oppressive. Couldn't we just choose to not enforce this aspect of the faith? Leave it to God in the hereafter?

Helll noooo

If you want to destroy any nation without war, make adultery or nudity common in the young generation.”​

— Saladin

U can see it in America the females are running naked dancing twerking astagffurlah while the men are a dayooths not caring and even sometimes allowing to happen in their faces. This what happens when a nation is finished look at Mexico there are females getting reported lost and mostly likely are being trafficked Remember this a nation which allows sex to happen in public . These West nations are finished. Why allow degeneracy build up in your nation or even ideologies which dont correspond with islam to coexist in a muslim nation.

If they dont want to be muslim they can leave. Cause their impact on a nation and who ever look up to em is a huge threat to the new generation and after that.

Why u might ask what if this person is a parent a teacher someone who has inflence to kids.
Kids when being exposed to something alot they will accept it even sometimes embrace it. If someone is wearing revealing clothe what do you think a child might think when she doesn't understand the importance of awrah.

 

[Izzy77]

your first point about killing them is similar to how dictators get rid of their dissidents so that they aren't able to be questioned and can rule with absolute authority

I don't see any use in murdering people for leaving Islam. if you are muslim, you should just let Allah handle it

your society and belief in religion isn't very strong if someone doubting it is a threat to you so much you have to kill them

Apostates wouldnt have an inflence or threat to practicing muslim adults. The kids is where they can impact and shape their minds to make west values feel normal. Plus not every kid has a 2 parents who can hide this from them. The actions of them are massive on a young kids mind.

A girl might see another lady where revealing clothes or do things which are haram and is too gain attention. The girl might look up to her and she might have insecurities of it this isnt uncommon and she might astagfurllah seek this attention when

Or a teenager might commit zina cause the people around the only thing they do is speak and glorify it.

Plus dont u think these apostates will once be parents or have jobs which might infleunce the new generation

Not everyone has perfect iman but it is something we strive for inshallah. And finding a kid in primary school who has such strong belief in the west is hard to find. Which they can be subject to being influenced by western values and actions which don't correspond with Islam.

 

[HiraanBorn]

"you lack belief in your religion if you believe in following what your religion says!"

note: as is well-known, this ruling is to be carried out BY THE MUSLIM RULER. it is not to be carried out in a vigilante-style by ordinary Muslims nor by ordinary Muslims living in countries not ruled by the sharia. so if anyone wants to claim that those of us who correctly believe in this ruling- that we call for any vigilante harming of apostates without state approval- that is a blatant falsehood. ordinary Muslims cannot carry out this ruling without state approval and in places like the West. HOWEVER- we correctly recognize that under a Muslim government ruling by the sharia, this would be the law of the land carried out by the ruler.

Unfortunately, the reason why vigilante harming of apostates occurs can be seen as a consequence of the Sharia being relegated to personal law in most Muslim nations. There is no proper court system using the Sharia as a full guideline because of the infiltration of European legal codes dating back to the colonial administrations of the 19th and 20th centuries. If there is no state-sanctioned carrying out of the Sharia then people often take it into their own hands, which is clearly an error.