Importance of Prayer & Ruling of its Abandonment
Facing the Qiblah & Intention in the Prayer
Etiquettes of Walking to Prayer and its Description
Description of Prayer Continued
Description of Prayer Continued
Description of Prayer Continued
Pillars and Mandatory Acts of Prayer
Two Prostrations of Forgetfulness
Supererogatory (Voluntary) Prayers
Supererogatory (Voluntary) Prayers Continued
Times of Prohibition of (Supererogatory) Prayer
Congregational Prayers & Latecomers
Jumu'ah (Congregational Friday) Prayer
Introduction & Commercial and Selling
Selling of Primary & Secondary Commodities
Cancellation Options in Transactions
Cancellation Options Continued
Debt Transference & Guarantor-ship
Mortgaging & Security Deposits
Partnership & Companies Continued
Reviving Barren Lands & Per-Job Wage
Lost and Found Property & Foundlings
Prize Money & Deposits for Safekeeping
Appendix 7: Can the Punishment for Apostasy Be Suspended?
The punishment for apostasy in Islamic law (Sharia) is one of the most frequently raised questions about Islam. This discussion will not focus on the controversy within contemporary Islamic scholarly circles over the validity of this punishment; it will focus instead on a more practical inquiry: Is this punishment binding on the authorities in Muslim countries, or can they suspend it?
In the past, not only were Muslim countries like those in nearby Christendom, in terms of punishing apostates, but the punishment for apostasy or heresy was less of a phenomenon in Muslim lands than in Medieval Europe, for example. However, the current conditions in Europe, its offshoots, and the bulk of Christian majority countries are very different from the past, with more religious freedoms granted to the citizens of those countries now. Although this is a positive development, it was not merely a show of courtesy to people of other faiths, but rather a conviction that Europeans came to adopt about the importance of religious relativism for the civic good. This conviction came about after centuries of religious wars and fanatic bloodshed; one of the last such wars was the Thirty Years’ War between 1618 and 1648. 1794
Regardless of how and why religious relativism and pluralism became the norm in Europe, the contrast now between the practices in European countries and Muslim-majority ones makes the Sharia’s treatment of apostates a favorite theme for many, as well as an agenda item in most debates. The fact that apostasy is still criminalized in many Muslim-majority countries (even though the statutes are rarely enforced) continues to have serious political ramifications. This discussion will attempt to answer the following questions:
. Was Islam the only religion that prescribed a punishment for apostates?
. If not, why are the Muslim countries the only states where a punishment for apostasy is still canonized? (Note that the Islamic law pertaining to this matter can only be enforced by the courts in Muslim lands.)
1795
1794. Meister, C. (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity. Oxford University Press.
1795. Ibn Qudâmah, A. I. (1388 AH/ 1968 CE). Al-Mughni. Cairo: Maktabat al-Qâhirah, vol. 9, p. 8.
. Finally, is upholding this punishment binding on Muslim legislatures, or can they suspend it?
The discussion here focuses on the Abrahamic faiths. The Eastern philosophies have been more accepting of religious relativism, pluralism, and even syncretism; this is to be expected since the founders of those philosophies, as human beings, cannot claim a monopoly on the truth. The Abrahamic faiths have a completely different paradigm: a messenger who brings a Divine message to humanity. It would not be expected that God would be indifferent to human being’s choice of a deity.
There is no doubt that the Biblical teachings (particularly in the Old Testament, which is the Word of God according to both Jews and Christians) are explicit on the capital punishment for apostasy. The following Bible verses call for the killing of apostates and heretics.
2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them…
5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5, KJV)
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods…
9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God… (Deuteronomy 13:6-10, KJV)
1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams…
5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death... (Deuteronomy 13: 1-5, KJV)
The Bible itself tells us about the most famous case of applying the death penalty to apostates, when the three thousand Levites who had worshipped the calf were condemned to death:
27 And he [Moses] said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. (Exodus 32:27-28, KJV)
The history of inquisitions shows that European Christians, represented by the papacy, have implemented capital punishment for apostasy and heresy for centuries. 1796 In Inquisition, Edward Peters states:
When faced with a convicted heretic who refused to recant, or who relapsed into heresy, the inquisitors were to turn him over to the temporal authorities – the "secular arm" – or animadversio debita, the punishment decreed by local law, usually burning to death. 1797
One of the most popular executions carried out as a consequence of those inquisitions was that of Giordano Bruno, an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, and astrologer who was known for his cosmological theories. He was found guilty of heresy by the inquisitors and burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori in 1600 CE.
In addition to the punishment inflicted upon conviction, in 1252, a papal bull (decree issued by Pope Innocent IV) entitled Ad extirpanda authorized the use of torture by the inquisitors. 1798
It is important to note that in the history of Islamic legislation, torture was never sanctioned to extract a confession of apostasy, because according to the vast majority of scholars, an outward denial of apostasy (or repentance) was sufficient to end the case. 1799
The four schools of Sunni Islam are seen as the representatives of the classical Islamic views on matters of law, and their agreement is that the male apostate should be killed if he fails to repent. There are some reports from ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭâb, Ibrâheem an-Nakha‘i, and Sufyân ath-Thawri that his repentance should be sought indefinitely. 1800 Such reports are sometimes
1796. The punishment of the heretics and apostates did not start with the inquisitions, for sure, but the era of the inquisitions was the most recent segment in the history of this punishment in Christendom.
1797. Peters, E. (1989). Inquisition. University of California Press, p. 67.
1798. Bishop, J. (2006, May). Aquinas on Torture. New Blackfriars, 87 (1009), 229-237.
1799. al-‘Asqalani, A. i. (1379 AH/ 1959 CE). Fatḥ al-Bâri. Beirut: Dâr al-Ma‘rifah, vol. 12, p. 269.
1800. Ibn Ḥazm, ‘Ali. (n.d.). Marâtib al-Ijmâ‘. Beirut: Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyah, p. 127.
countered by other reports supporting the position of the four schools, and there are other reports from ‘Umar and Ibrâheem that are counter to those cited above. 1801 Otherwise, they are considered invalid interpretations by the majority.
The discourse of contemporary scholars can be divided into four main positions:
1. The punishment is valid.
2. The punishment is not valid.
3. There is a distinction between apostates who actively threaten the community (by assaulting the religion) and those who do not.
1802
4. The punishment was established, but Muslim legislatures are not bound to uphold it because it is not a ḥadd (fixed punishment designated by the Divine). 1803
As for the scholars who validate the punishment and those who deny it, I will summarize their arguments here.
The deniers cite the following verses of the Qur’an:
{There is no compulsion in the religion; right-mindedness has already been evidently (distinct) from misguidance.} (al-Baqarah 2: 256, translated by Ghali)
لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ ۖ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ ۚ فَمَن يَكْفُرْ بِالطَّاغُوتِ وَيُؤْمِن بِاللَّهِ فَقَدِ اسْتَمْسَكَ بِالْعُرْوَةِ الْوُثْقَىٰ لَا انفِصَامَ لَهَا ۗ وَاللَّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ
{And say, “The Truth is from your Lord; so whoever decides, then let him believe, and whoever decides, then let him disbelieve.”} (al-Kahf 18: 29, Ghali)
وَقُلِ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكُمْ ۖ فَمَن شَاءَ فَلْيُؤْمِن وَمَن شَاءَ فَلْيَكْفُرْ
{So remind them! Surely you are only a constant Reminder; You are not in any way a dominator over them.} (al-Ghâshiyah 88: 21-22, Ghali)
فَذَكِّرْ إِنَّمَا أَنتَ مُذَكِّرٌ لَّسْتَ عَلَيْهِم بِمُصَيْطِرٍ
1801. al-‘Asqalani, A. i. (1379 AH/ 1959 CE). Fatḥ al-Bâri. Beirut: Dâr al-Ma‘rifah, vol. 12, p. 268.
1802. al-Qaraḍâwi, Y. (1417 AH/ 1996 CE). Jareemat ar-Riddah wa ‘Uqoobat al-Murtadd fee Ḍaw’ al-Qur’ân was-Sunnah (first ed.). Jordan: Dâr al-Furqân, pp. 52-53.
1803. al-‘Awwa, M. S. (1427 AH/ 2006 CE). Fee Uṣool an-Nidhâm al-Jinâ’i al-Islâmi (2nd edition). Cairo: Safeer ad-Dawliyah, pp. 179-210.
They also argue that some of the reports supporting punishment for apostates are not specific, and they may be understood in the context of rebelling against the community, as in the following hadith of the Prophet (SA):
It is not permissible to take the life of a Muslim who bears testimony that there is no god but Allah, and I am the Messenger of Allah, but in one of three cases: the married adulterer, a life for life, and the deserter of his religion (Islam), abandoning the community.>> (Ṣaḥeeḥ Muslim Book 28, Hadith 34)
لاَ يَحِلُّ دَمُ امْرِئٍ مُسْلِمٍ يَشْهَدُ أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَأَنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلاَّ بِإِحْدَى ثَلاَثٍ الثَّيِّبُ الزَّانِ وَالنَّفْسُ بِالنَّفْسِ وَالتَّارِكُ لِدِينِهِ الْمُفَارِقُ لِلْجَمَاعَةِ.
Some contemporary scholars argue that the addition of “abandoning the community” at the end is consequential to the meaning of the hadith, and they cite classical scholars who pointed out the distinction, like Ibn Taymiyah, who indicated the difference, not to deny the punishment for apostasy, but to affirm the death penalty for armed rebellion. 1804
The most explicit hadith on the punishment of apostasy is a report that the Prophet (SA) said:
If someone changes his religion, kill him.>> (Bukhari Book 56, Hadith 226)
لاَ يَحِلُّ دَمُ امْرِئٍ مُسْلِمٍ يَشْهَدُ أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَأَنِّي رَسُولُ اللَّهِ إِلاَّ بِإِحْدَى ثَلاَثٍ الثَّيِّبُ الزَّانِ وَالنَّفْسُ بِالنَّفْسِمَنْ بَدَّلَ دِينَهُ فَاقْتُلُوهُ
This seems to be the strongest proof for the punishment of apostasy. Those who denied the punishment argued that it is counter to the Qur’an, and that its implication is controversial since it means that anyone who changes his religion, regardless of his original one, is to be killed. They also cite that it is a singular report, 1805 and that in the domain of ḥadd punishments, some scholars do not accept those as proof. 1806 Finally, they argue that the Prophet (SA)
1804. Ibn Taymiyah, Aḥmad. (n.d.) Aṣ-Ṣârim al-Maslool ‘alâ Shâtim ir-Rasool. Saudi Arabia: al-Ḥaras al-Waṭani as-Su‘oodi, p. 319.
1805. Reported by a small number (the threshold is controversial) in each layer of the chain of narration, making the transmission speculative, not certain, even if the chain is deemed acceptable and the hadith is deemed authentic.
1806. Shaltoot, M. (1421 AH/ 2001 CE). Al-Islâm ‘Aqeedah wa Sharee‘ah (18th edition). Cairo: Dâr ash-Shurooq, p. 281.
himself never applied that punishment in his life, and this is true, as will be discussed later.
The arguments of the deniers, however, did not find much support in Islamic orthodoxy of the past, for the following reasons:
• As for the argument of the reports being singular, it is important to point out that the scholars who invoked this point in this particular discussion did not deny the authority of those reports in general; 1807 they only pointed out that the ḥudood may be beyond their scope of operation. This is not always true, though, and the simplest proof for this is the agreement of all madh-habs on using them here. 1808
· As for the argument of the hadith(s) contradicting the Qur’an, one must acknowledge some contradiction between the punishment for apostasy, as related in the Sunnah, and the apparent implications of the Qur’an verses mentioned above. It is also true that the Qur’an has no mention of a worldly punishment inflicted by the judiciary, but this contradiction can be reconciled. The earlier scholars indicated that the verses of the Qur’an forbid forcing people to change their religion into Islam, but they do not give a license to Muslims to abandon Islam. Finally, the absence of any mention of the punishment in the Qur’an still has practical consequences, particularly the fact that denying this punishment does not amount to an act of disbelief.
. Admittedly, the agreement of the four schools is not a valid consensus, but there is no doubt that it carries weight in Islamic orthodoxy, and they agreed on the punishment for men. It is hard to find someone before the four Imams who explicitly denied it, except in some questionable reports from one or two
1807. The singular reports are those transmitted to us by a lesser number of narrators than that needed to justify certainty in their transmission. Although not definitive in their transmission, they are definitely binding on us in the domain of ‘amal (practice), by consensus. They are also authoritative in the domain of ˊaqeedah (belief), according to the stronger position – in the author’s view. A small number of scholars questioned their authority in the area of ḥudood. Their rejection in the area of practice is an assault on the entirety of Islam. Having said that, if someone rejected the transmission of one of those reports, he would have not committed an act of disbelief. In summary, while one is not supposed to have a certain belief that the Prophet (SA) uttered those words, all of us Muslims are bound to comply with the hadith, and act upon it, once it is deemed authentic.
1808. Ibn al-Mundhir, A. B. (1425 AH/ 2004 CE). Al-Ishrâf ‘alâ Madhâhib al-‘Ulamâ’. Ra’s al-Khaymah: Maktabat Makkah ath-Thaqâfiyah, vol. 8 p. 54.
· Although there is only one explicit hadith on this punishment, there are a few others that support it, albeit with some controversy over their establishment and meaning. There is also the early practice of the Companions, such as one report from Abu Moosâ and Mu‘âdh while they were in Yemen, in which Mu‘âdh said about the punishment, “It is what Allah and His Messenger decreed.” This could possibly have been Mu‘âdh’s own understanding of what Allah and His Messenger (SA) decreed, but it still corroborates the reports traceable to the Prophet (SA).
· Additionally, while we do not take the rulings of our religion from the Bible, the legislations of those before us are invoked as a secondary source of legislation as long as they are not counter to our sources and their authenticity is verified by our revelation. In this case, the Qur’an mentions the story of the Levites who were commanded by Moosâ (AS) to kill themselves, and there are hadiths that agree with the explicit text of the Bible.
. To summarize this part… In order to challenge the validity of the orthodox position, one must reject the consensus (reported by three verifying scholars) and the agreement of the four schools (as far as male apostates are concerned), and one must have an esoteric interpretation of the reported hadiths. Furthermore, one must reject the action of the Companions, question the transmission of reports related to us by the most authentic sources, or decline the authority of singular reports in this domain. The deniers failed – in the author’s view – to mount a formidable argument that could justify all this. Moreover, while I do not doubt that some of the deniers are well-meaning scholars, their arguments could have serious consequences for our
1809. This consensus is also not definitive. However, when verifying scholars report a consensus that was not confirmed in the time of the Companions, it must still be treated as a speculative proof. It adds a huge burden on its opponent to refute it and validate his argument.
1810. Ibn al-Mundhir, A. B. (1425 AH/ 2004 CE). Al-Ishrâf ‘alâ Madhâhib al-‘Ulamâ’. Ra’s al-Khaymah: Maktabat Makkah ath-Thaqâfiyah, vol. 8 p. 54; Ibn Rushd al-Ḥafeed, A. a.-W. (1425 AH/ 2004 CE). Bidâyat al-Mujtahid wa Nihâyat al-Muqtaṣid. Cairo: Dar al-Ḥadeeth, vol. 4, p. 242; Ibn Qudâmah, A. I. (1388 AH/ 1968 CE). Al-Mughni. Cairo: Maktabat al-Qâhirah, vol. 9, p. 8.
understanding of the religion and our approach to the law in general, not only concerning this issue.
This discussion was presented for completeness, and to make the reader aware of some of the discourse on the punishment itself and its validity. However, the main thesis of this discussion is whether the punishment, established as valid in the four schools of Sunni Islam, is binding on the rulers/legislatures to uphold.
There are no more inquisitions in Europe and the Western countries in general. The last case in Spain, for instance, was in 1826, when Cayetano Ripoll, a school teacher, was executed by garroting for allegedly teaching Deism.1811 Killing the apostates has not completely stopped in non-Muslim communities, but it is true that the vast majority of countries with non-Muslim majority do not currently criminalize apostasy, while many Muslim countries still do. In a few of them, it is a capital punishment, although rarely enforced.
There are several explanations that could be offered for this phenomenon. Some conservative Muslims might say that this punishment was established in all Divine revelations and was previously practiced by all of their followers, so the mere fact that Western countries abandoned the practice in favor of religious pluralism should not cause Muslim countries to automatically follow suit. Others, particularly those labelled ‘political Islamists’, argue that the despotic governments in Muslim countries do not have the legitimacy needed to take courageous steps to suspend that punishment. Another group argues that the main reason behind the criminalization of apostasy is that the Muslims have been under pressure for centuries to abandon their religion. First, there were crusades, then colonialism, and now a perceived Western hegemony. There is also the economic factor and the exploitation of poverty by some missionaries who prey on people’s needs. When people feel threatened, they become more keen to close the gates and protect their identity. For instance, a discussion about suspending this punishment in Algeria during the French occupation would have sounded ludicrous. Even though the punishment was not enforced anyway, no scholar of any caliber could have suggested its suspension, on an
1811. Law, S. (2011). Humanism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, p. 23.
There are no more inquisitions in Europe and the Western countries in general. The last case in Spain, for instance, was in 1826, when Cayetano Ripoll, a school teacher, was executed by garroting for allegedly teaching Deism.1811 Killing the apostates has not completely stopped in non-Muslim communities, but it is true that the vast majority of countries with non-Muslim majority do not currently criminalize apostasy, while many Muslim countries still do. In a few of them, it is a capital punishment, although rarely enforced.
intellectual level, while two million of his compatriots were being martyred. While Europe was progressing towards religious pluralism and liberty for all of its citizens, it was simultaneously conquering and occupying the vast majority of Muslim lands. Finally, there are Muslims who reject the validity of the punishment for apostasy, considering all laws which criminalize it to be un-Islamic. To them, the continuation of this punishment is a mere failure of judgment on the part of the Muslim scholars and legislatures that uphold it.
The more practical and consequential question is whether the punishment for apostasy can be suspended or whether it is binding on Muslim legislatures and judiciaries. I believe it is not binding, for the following reasons:
1- Although the specificity of the cause does not restrict the general applicability of the statements of the revelation, knowing the context of the legislation at the time of its foundation can facilitate the understanding of the ‘illah/manât (effective cause) of the ruling and enable the mujtahid to apply it within its accurate scope of operation. In the case of the punishment for apostasy, Shaykh Muhammad Rasheed Riḍâ (may Allah have mercy on him) said the following regarding its context (translation by the author):
The apostates among the disbelievers of Arabia used to return to fighting against the Muslims and oppressing them. Therefore, the legitimacy of killing them is more apparent than killing the rest of the disbelievers who were at war against Islam. Some of the Jews would even pretend to accept Islam and then apostatize to defame the religion. Allah described those when He said, “And a section of the People of the Book said, ‘Believe in that which has been sent down upon the ones who have believed in the early part of the daytime and disbelieve at the last part of it, that possibly they would return (that is to your religion)’”. (Âl Imrân 3: 72, Ghali) It appears that the command to kill the apostates was meant to deter the evil of the disbelievers and the plotting of those Jews. It was for reasons dictated by the political
environment of that time, which may be known now as part of the politico-military rules of engagement, but it was not to oppress the people. Do you not see that when some Muslims attempted to force their own children to accept Islam, after having earlier converted to Judaism, the Prophet (SA) prevented them due to a revelation from Allah. 1812
So far, nothing can be deduced from this clarification of the context, but it is important to keep the context in mind while we address the other points that are more legally consequential. It is equally important to keep in mind that there is not a single authentic report of the Prophet (SA) enforcing a punishment on any apostate, as will be discussed.
1- It is known that a ḥadd punishment cannot be waived. If we can establish that some people abandoned Islam during the time of the Prophet (SA) and were not punished, then we may have a good reason to say that this punishment is not required by the Divine to be upheld at all times. A few cases can be cited here.
A) Allah said:
{You will find others who wish to obtain security from you and [to] obtain security from their people. Every time they are returned to [the influence of] disbelief, they fall back into it. So if they do not withdraw from you or offer you peace or restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you overtake them. And those – We have made for you against them a clear authorization.} (an-Nisâ’ 4: 91, Saheeh International}
سَتَجِدُونَ آخَرِينَ يُرِيدُونَ أَن يَأْمَنُوكُمْ وَيَأْمَنُوا قَوْمَهُمْ كُلَّ مَا رُدُّوا إِلَى الْفِتْنَةِ أُرْكِسُوا فِيهَا ۚ فَإِن لَّمْ يَعْتَزِلُوكُمْ وَيُلْقُوا إِلَيْكُمُ السَّلَمَ وَيَكُفُّوا أَيْدِيَهُمْ فَخُذُوهُمْ وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ ۚ وَأُولَٰئِكُمْ جَعَلْنَا لَكُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ سُلْطَانًا مُّبِينًا
1812. Riḍâ, M. R. (n.d.). Asilah min Ba‘d Ahl il-‘Ilm bi Tunis. Al-Manâr, 10, 285.
Commenting on this verse, Ibn Katheer relates from aṭ-Ṭabari that he said:
Mujâhid said that the verse was revealed about a group from Makkah who used to go to the Prophet (SA) in Madinah, pretending to be Muslims. However, when they went back to Quraysh, they reverted to worshipping idols. They wanted to be at peace with both sides. Allah commanded they should be fought against, unless they withdrew from combat and resorted to peace.
The point here is that this group, even though were going in and out of Islam, were not to be fought if they withdrew from combat and resorted to peace.
B) Bukhari and Muslim reported from Jâbir ibn ‘Abdullâh (RA) that a Bedouin took an oath of allegiance in Islam with the Messenger of Allah (SA) and then got a fever in Madinah. He came to the Messenger of Allah (SA) and said, "Release me from my pledge," but the Messenger of Allah (SA) refused. He came to him again and said again, "Release me from my pledge." The Messenger of Allah (SA) refused again. Then he came a third time and said, "Release me from my pledge." After the Bedouin left, the Messenger of Allah (SA) said:
Madinah is like the blacksmith's furnace. It removes the impurities and purifies the good.>> (Saḥeeḥ al-Bukhâri Book 93, Hadith 71)
سَتَجِدُونَ آخَرِينَ يُرِيدُونَ أَن يَأْمَنُوكُمْ وَيَأْمَنُوا قَوْمَهُمْ كُلَّ مَا رُدُّوا إِلَى الْفِتْنَةِ أُرْكِسُوا فِيهَا ۚ فَإِن لَّمْ يَعْتَزِلُوكُمْ وَيُلْقُوا إِنَّمَا الْمَدِينَةُ كَالْكِيرِ تَنْفِي خَبَثَهَا وَيَنْصَعُ طِيبُهَا
In this authentic report, we see that the Messenger of Allah (SA) was not intent on chasing after apostates so he could punish them. He clearly indicated that if someone did apostatize, then it was
his loss, and it was also the work of Allah, Who removed him from the community of the believers.
C) It has also been narrated, on the authority of Anas (RA), that Quraysh made peace with the Prophet (SA) and set the condition that if any of the Muslims joined them, the Makkans would not return them, but if any of their people joined the Muslims, the Muslims would have to send them back to Makkah. The Companions (RAHUM) said, “Messenger of Allah, should we write this?” He said:
Yes. The one who goes away from us to join them – may Allah keep him away! And the one who comes to join us from them (and is sent back), Allah will provide him relief and a way of escape.>> (Ṣaḥeeḥ Muslim Book 32, Hadith 114)
نَعَمْ إِنَّهُ مَنْ ذَهَبَ مِنَّا إِلَيْهِمْ فَأَبْعَدَهُ اللَّهُ وَمَنْ جَاءَنَا مِنْهُمْ سَيَجْعَلُ اللَّهُ لَهُ فَرَجًا وَمَخْرَجً
In this report, it is clear that the Prophet (SA) favored peace with Quraysh even if it meant that some members of the community of the believers were returned to them. In pursuit of that peace, he even accepted a one-sided treaty where Quraysh would keep those who became Muslim, yet he could not prevent those who returned into disbelief from rejoining Quraysh. In our times, if other nations offered to keep the gates between the religions open and allow the historical conflicts to be transferred to the intellectual domain, should we refuse? I believe that we should not, but we must ensure that they hold true to their offer, as we will discuss later.
D) It was also reported by Bukhari that once when the Prophet (SA) distributed something among his followers, a man said, “This distribution has not been done justly and is not for the sake of Allah.”
went to the Prophet (SA) and told him (of that). He became so angry that I saw the signs of anger on his face. Then he said, “May
Allah bestow His Mercy on Moosâ (AS), for he was harmed more than this, yet he endured patiently.”>> (Ṣaḥeeḥ al-Bukhâri Book 60, Hadith 78)
This man had accused the Prophet (SA) of injustice, which amounts to disbelief, yet the Prophet (SA) left him without punishment. Commenting on this, Ibn Ḥajar agreed that he apostatized, but he said that the Prophet (SA) left him to reconcile his heart.1813 The justification Ibn Ḥajar (may Allah have mercy on him) provides for not punishing this man is one, among many others, that would allow the Muslim legislatures to suspend that punishment.
E) Ibn Salool once said, “When we go back to Madinah, the mighty (meaning himself) will drive out the humiliated (referring to the Prophet [SA]).” ‘Umar asked the Prophet (SA) for permission to kill Ibn Salool for this and other previous demonstrations of his disbelief and rebellion, but the Prophet (SA) replied, “Leave him, ‘Umar, lest the people say that Muhammad kills his Companions.” (Ṣaḥeeḥ al-Bukhâri Book 60, Hadith 430)
Again, this person made an open statement of disbelief, and he was not punished. Now, the question is whether we are in greater need, in our times, of reconciling hearts and avoiding the negative impressions that might result from killing apostates.
F) There were other instances where individuals committed acts of disbelief and were not punished, such as when a man
1813. al-‘Asqalani, A. I. (1379 AH/ 1959 CE). Fatḥ al-Bâri. Beirut: Dâr al-Ma‘rifah, vol. 12, p. 299.
accused the Prophet (SA) of favoring his cousin az-Zubayr when judging between them. Again, the same explanation of reconciliation was used by Ibn Ḥajar. 1814
G) Finally, I also agree with those who deny the punishment that there was not a single case where the Prophet (SA) commanded the killing of a particular apostate. The report about Umm Marwân (or Umm Roman) is weak according to the most notable Hadith scholars, such as Ibn Ḥajar. 1815
3- In al-Mughni, Ibn Qudâmah makes a distinction between the punishment for apostasy and the ḥudood punishments. 1816 In Sharḥ al-‘Aqeedat as-Safâreeniyah, the late Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen denied that the punishment for apostasy, which he validates, is a ḥadd. He pointed out that the ḥadd punishments are not dropped if one repents, whereas the punishment for apostasy is dropped upon repentance.1817 I believe the punishment of apostasy belongs to the category of as-Siyâsat ash-Shar‘iyah more than it belongs to the ḥudood. After all, if it were a ḥadd, the Prophet (SA) would have meted it out in all of the cases mentioned above. He said:
Forgive the ḥadd punishments among yourselves (because) once it (the case) reaches me, it becomes binding.>> (Sunan Abi Dâwood Book 40, Hadith 26)
تَعَافُّوا الْحُدُودَ فِيمَا بَيْنَكُمْ، فَمَا بَلَغَنِي مِنْ حَدٍّ فَقَدْ وَجَبَ
سَتَجِدُونَ آخَرِينَ يُرِيدُونَ أَن يَأْمَنُوكُمْ وَيَأْمَنُوا قَوْمَهُمْ كُلَّ مَا رُدُّوا إِلَى الْفِتْنَةِ أُرْكِسُوا فِيهَا ۚ فَإِن لَّمْ يَعْتَزِلُوكُمْ وَيُلْقُوا إِنَّمَا الْمَدِينَةُ كَالْكِيرِ تَنْفِي خَبَثَهَا وَيَنْصَعُ طِيبُهَا
1814. Riḍâ, M. R. (n.d.). Asilah min Ba‘d Ahl il-‘Ilm bi Tunis. Al-Manâr, 10, 285.
1815. al-‘Asqalâni, I. Ḥ. (1419 AH/ 1989 CE). At-Talkheeṣ al-Ḥabeer. Beirut: Dâr al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyah, vol. 4, p. 136.
1816. Ibn Qudâmah, A. I. (1388 AH/ 1968 CE). Al-Mughni. Cairo: Maktabat al-Qâhirah, vol. 9, p. 8.
1817. ‘Uthaymeen, M. I. (1426 AH/ 2005 CE). Sharḥ al-‘Aqeedat as-Safâreeniyah. Riyadh: Dâr al-Waṭan, vol. 1 p. 670.
This distinction is consequential to our discussion, because the application of ḥudood was more emphatically required of the Muslim judiciaries, who were instructed to be strict in their execution.
1- If ‘Umar (RA) suspended the agreed-upon ḥadd for theft during a year of famine, because of reasons pertaining to its manâṭ (effective cause) and its other declarative rules (aḥkâm wad’iyah), including al-mawâni’ (hindrances of application), then it is quite acceptable to re-examine the punishment for apostasy in light of the same thinking.
Suspending such punishments would not be a matter of abandoning a ruling merely on the basis of public interest; rather, it is based on the very manâṭ of the ruling. It is like ‘Umar’s choosing not to divide the annexed lands among the conquerors, despite the objections of some Companions who took a more literalist approach to the matter. It is also similar to ‘Uthmân’s ordering the lost camels to be picked up instead of being left, because the Prophet’s command to leave them came at a time when there was ample security in Madinah, so there was little concern that they would be stolen.
In this case, we will be choosing the way of the Prophet (SA) if we overlook the apostasy of people, as described above, because it suits our current conditions. The societies and legislatures in Muslim-majority countries will then need to find appropriate methods for deterring people from insulting the religion and its symbols. The fact that some Christian-majority countries recognize the freedom to curse a prophet like Jesus (AS) does not make it binding on Muslim-majority countries to do the same. The dominant powers in today’s world need to understand that different nations have different value systems. Continuing to ignore this fact and seeking complete conformity with one value system will only result in more contention and conflict. All people should be given the right to choose for themselves how to prioritize and apply their values.
Islam’s punishment of apostasy is not an anomaly. The Bible is more explicit on this than is any part of the Islamic tradition, and the Jews and Christians upheld this practice before the Muslims did. Now, at least officially, it is almost exclusively canonized in some Muslim countries, and the reasons behind this apparent discrepancy are not easy to break down. There are multiple reasons, some of which are theological, while many are political. The
established position on this issue in Islamic orthodoxy was not substantially challenged by Muslim scholars until recently. While I do not support the challenges to the orthodox position (maintaining the validity of this punishment), I do find that it is not a ḥadd (fixed punishment designated by the Divine), and thus it can be suspended by Muslim legislatures. Finally, it remains to be said that Muslim communities will need to find other ways to prevent the many forms of subtle coercion and diversion of the masses away from their religion, by powers that use their military and economic superiority to pave the road for well-orchestrated (and often politically motivated) missionary campaigns exploiting the despair and poverty of the overwhelmed masses.
( Page : no 189)