Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Nov 28, 2021 15:25:33 GMT
Answering Modernist Objections to the Punishment for Apostasy
Muftī Muḥammad Taqī Usmani
Since the matter of executing an apostate is amongst the issues on which there is a lot of commotion in our time from the Westerners and those who agree with them, we wanted to explain this issue in some detail. Allāh grants ability and assistance.
The issue of executing the apostate is a matter of consensus amongst Muslims from the time of the Ṣaḥābah up until today. The jurists agree that apostasy in the Islāmic Territory (Dār al-Islām) is a capital crime. We know of no one who disagreed with this from the jurists and the scholars of the Ummah. This was until the fourteenth century arrived, and the Westerners attacked this ruling, claiming it opposes free thought and freedom of belief, and then some who are infatuated with Western ideas from those who subscribe to Islām tried to ward off this attack by denying that in Islām the punishment of an apostate is execution, as if this rule is a blemish on the forehead of Islām which these people want to eradicate – and refuge is taken from Allāh, the Great! They composed articles on account of this, claiming in them that Islām did not stipulate execution as a punishment for apostasy but, rather, assigned it as a punishment for banditry and rebellion.
All of what these people take as support condenses into a few issues: one, the statement of Allāh (Exalted is He):
“There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256),
“Whoever amongst you turns back from his religion, and then dies a disbeliever, their deeds will go to waste in this life and the next. Those are companions of the Fire. Therein they will reside forever.” (2:218)
“There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256),
“Thus whoever rejects false deities and believes in Allāh has held onto the trustworthy handle that does not break. Allāh is Hearing and Knowing.” (2:256)
All narrations that have been reported on the context of the revelation of this verse and its applicability demonstrate that what we said is true.
From them is that which Abū Dāwūd reported from Ibn ‘Abbās. He said:
“This was revealed about the Anṣār. [In Jāhiliyyah], when a woman’s children would not survive, she would take it upon herself that if a child of hers survived she would convert him to Judaism. [After Islām came], when [the Jewish tribe of] Banu ‘l-Naḍīr were expelled, many of the children of Anṣār were amongst them. So the Anṣār said:
So, Allāh (Exalted is He) revealed:
‘We will not leave our sons (i.e. we will not let them remain Jewish, rather we will force them into Islām).’
‘There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become clear from deviation.’”
“We only did what we did when we considered their religion superior to what we were upon. Now that Allāh has brought us Islām, we will force them into it.”
“There is no compulsion in religion.”
Ibn ‘Abbās’s statement about this verse is the best statement given its chain is authentic, and such a thing is not based on reason.
From them is that which Ibn Jarīr narrated in his Tafsīr (3:9) via Sa‘īd ibn Jubayr from Ibn ‘Abbās. He said:
“It was revealed about a man from the Anṣār of Banū Sālim ibn ‘Awf, called al-Ḥusayn. He had two Christian sons. He was a Muslim man. He said to the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace):
So Allāh revealed this about him.”
‘Should I not compel them? They refuse anything but Christianity.’
“I was a Christian slave belonging to ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb. He offered Islām to me and I refused. He said:
And said:
‘There is no compulsion in religion.’
‘Oh Asbaq, had you become Muslim we would have taken your assistance in some administrative matters of the Muslims.’”
Furthermore, this verse is not taken in its general sense by consensus, because nothing besides Islām or the sword was accepted from the idolaters and Zoroastrians of the Arabian peninsula. Had the verse been taken in its general sense, it would not have been permissible to compel them to Islām in the Arabian peninsula. Based on this, some exegetes have mentioned that this verse is abrogated by His (Exalted is He) statement:
“Oh Prophet, combat the disbelievers and hypocrites.” (9:73)
“Fight them until there is no more temptation.” (2:193)
The ḥadīths on this are many, some of which we will cite.
Ḥadīths Proving the Execution of the Apostate
1. Al-Bukhārī related in Kitāb Istitābat al-Murtaddīn, Bāb Ḥukm al-Murtadd (no. 6922) via ‘Ikrimah from Ibn ‘Abbās, quoting the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace):
“Whoever alters his religion, execute him.”
2. Mālik related in al-Aqḍiyah of his Muwaṭṭa’ from Zayd ibn Aslam, as a disconnected report, that the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said:
“Whoever alters his religion, strike his neck.”
3. It is reported from Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī (Allāh be pleased with him) that he said:
“Mu‘ādh came to me while I was in Yemen. There was a man who was Jewish and had embraced Islām and then apostatised from Islām. When Mu‘ādh arrived, he said:
He had been asked to repent before this.”
‘I will not dismount from my conveyance until he is executed.’
In the report of al-Bukhārī in Istitābat al-Murtaddīn and the report of the author (Muslim) in Kitāb al-Imārah:
“When Mu‘ādh came to Abū Mūsā, he said:
And he put down a cushion for him. It happened that a man was tied up besides him. He said:
He said:
He said:
He said:
He said:
He said this three times. Hence, the command was given for him to be executed.”
‘Dismount.’
‘What is this?’
‘He was Jewish and then embraced Islām and then went back to his evil religion and became Jewish.’
‘I will not sit until he is executed: the decree of Allāh and His Messenger.’
‘Sit, indeed [he will be executed].’
‘I will not sit until he is executed: the decree of Allāh and His Messenger.’
4. It is reported from ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd (Allāh be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said:
“The blood of a Muslim man that gives witness that there is no deity but Allāh and that I am Allāh’s Messenger is not licit except on the basis of three things: the adulterer, a life for a life and the one that left his religion and parted from the community.”
5. It is reported from Abū Umāmah ibn Sahl ibn Ḥunayf from ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān that he was looking over [the people] on the day his house [was besieged], and said:
“I ask you by Allāh! Do you know that Allāh’s Messenger (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said:
By Allāh, I have not fornicated neither in pre-Islāmic Ignorance nor in Islām. I did not apostatise since I pledged myself to the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). Nor have I killed a person that Allāh has made inviolable.”
‘The blood of a Muslim man is not licit except on the basis of three things: fornication after a consummated marriage, disbelief after being Muslim or killing a person without right for which he is executed’?!
6. It is reported from Jarīr (Allāh be pleased with him) that he said: I heard the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) say:
“When a slave flees towards idolatry, his blood is licit.”
7. It is reported from Mu‘āwiyah ibn Ḥaydah (Allāh be pleased with him) that he said:
The Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said:
“Whoever alters his religion, execute him.”
8. It is reported from Abū Hurayrah (Allāh be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said:
“Whoever alters his religion, execute him.”
9. It is reported from ‘Iṣmah that he said:
The Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said:
“Whoever alters his religion, execute him.”
10. It is reported from ‘Abd al-Raḥmān ibn Thawbān that the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) said in his sermon:
“Indeed two qiblahs are not suitable for this city”,
“so any Christian that becomes Muslim and then turns to Christianity, strike his neck.”
“Al-Ṭabarānī narrated it and it contains [narrators] I do not recognise”,
11. It is reported from Ibn ‘Abbās that he said:
“‘Abdullāh ibn Sa‘d ibn Abī Sarḥ would write for the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). Satan caused him to slip and he joined the disbelievers. The Messenger of Allāh (Allāḥ bless him and grant him peace) ordered his execution on the Day of the Conquest of Makkah. ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān sought sanctuary for him, so the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) granted him sanctuary.”
“‘Alī ibn al-Ḥusayn ibn Wāqid is in its chain, about whom there is criticism. ‘Ali ībn al-Ḥusayn ibn Shaqīq followed him up, and he is amongst the trustworthy narrators.”
“When it was the Day of the Conquest of Makkah, ‘Abdullāh ibn Sa‘d ibn Abī Sarḥ hid with ‘Uthmān ibn ‘Affān. He brought him until he made him stand at the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). He said:
He lifted his head and looked at him thrice, refusing each time. Then he accepted his pledge after the third. Then he turned to his companions and said:
They said:
He said:
‘Oh Messenger of Allāh, accept ‘Abdullāh’s pledge [of Islām].’
‘Was there not a smart man amongst you that would come to him when he saw that I am holding back my hand from accepting his pledge and execute him?’
‘We did not know Oh Messenger of Allāh what was in your heart. Why did you not signal to us with you eye?’
‘It is not fitting for a prophet to have a deceptive eye.’”
“Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Suddī is in its chain. Muslim narrated his ḥadīths and Imām Aḥmad declared him trustworthy, but several have criticised him.”
12. It is reported from Ḥārithah ibn Muḍarrib (Allāh be pleased with him) that he came to ‘Abdullāh ibn Mas‘ūd in Kufah and said:
“There is no enmity between me and any of the Arabs. I passed by a Masjid of Banū Ḥanīfah, and it turned out they believe in Musaylimah!”
“I heard Allāh’s Messenger (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) say to you:
Today you are not a messenger.”
‘Had you not been a messenger I would have struck your neck.’
“Whoever wishes to see Ibn al-Nawwāḥah, let him see him dead in the market.”
13. It is reported from ‘Ikrimah that he said:
“Renegades were brought to ‘Alī and he burned them. This reached Ibn ‘Abbās. He said:
‘If it were me, I would not have burned them given the prohibition of the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). He said:
I would indeed have executed them [however], given the statement of Allāh’s Messenger (Allāh bless him and grant him peace):
Do not punish using Allāh’s punishment.
Whoever alters his religion, execute him.’”
14. It is reported from Anas ibn Mālik (Allāh be pleased with him) that he said:
“Indeed the Messenger of Allāh entered [Makkah] in the year of Conquest with a helmet on his head. When he removed it, a man came and said:
He said:
‘Ibn Khaṭal is clinging to the sheets of the Ka‘bah.’
‘Execute him.’”
The reason for executing him is what Ibn Isḥāq mentioned. He said:
“‘Abdullāh ibn Khaṭal is a man from Banū Tamīm ibn Ghālib. His execution was ordered because he used to be Muslim and the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) appointed him as a Zakāt-collector and appointed another man from the Anṣār with him. He had a Muslim freed-slave with him to serve him. They dismounted at a stop. He ordered the freed-slave to slaughter a goat for him and prepare food for him. He slept and woke up and he did not prepare anything. So he ravaged him and killed him, and then he apostatised and became an idolater. He had two slave girls: Fartanā and another. They would sing invectives against Allāh’s Messenger (Allāh bless him and grant him peace). The Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) ordered for them to be killed with him.”
It is not possible that the execution of Ibn Khaṭal was as qiṣāṣ for the one he killed, given what Ibn Taymiyyah (Allāh have mercy on him) mentioned in al-Ṣārim al-Maslūl (p. 136):
“The one that was murdered was from Khuzā‘ah. He had his ex-owners. [Ibn Khaṭal’s] status, if he had killed in a manner requiring qiṣāṣ, would be that he be handed over to the ex-owners of the murdered [freed-slave], who will either execute him or forgive him or take blood-money.”
As for not asking him to repent, then the obligation of asking the apostate to repent is differed upon. It appears to me that asking the apostate to repent, although obligatory, if combined with insulting the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) and invectives against him, the obligation falls away. Hence, Ibn Khaṭal was not given respite and nor was he asked to repent before he was executed. Hence, Ibn Taymiyyah (Allāh have mercy on him) said in al-Ṣārim al-Maslūl (p. 136):
“The truth of it is that he was an apostate without disagreement amongst the experts in the knowledge of campaigns. It was ordered he be executed without asking him to repent despite him being subjugated and having surrendered like a prisoner of war. Thus, it is realised that whoever apostatised and insulted will be executed without asking him to repent, as opposed to one who only apostatised.”
15. It is reported from ‘Amr ibn Shu‘ayb from his father from his grandfather that he said:
“‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ wrote to ‘Umar asking him about a man that became Muslim and then disbelieved and then became Muslim and then disbelieved, and did this several times, will Islām be accepted from him? ‘Umar wrote to him:
‘Accept from him as long as Allāh accepts from him. Offer Islām to him. If he accepts (that is good and well). Otherwise, strike his neck.’”
16. It is reported from Qābūs ibn al-Mukhāriq from his father that he said:
“Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr wrote to ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib asking him about two Muslims that turned renegade and about a Muslim that fornicated with a Christian woman and about a Mukātab slave that died and left behind a balance in his payment as well as free children. ‘Alī wrote to him:
‘As for the two Muslims that turned renegade, if they repent (that’s good and well). If they do not, then strike their necks.’”
17. It is reported from Abū ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Sulamī from ‘Alī that he said:
“A group of people from the inhabitants of Shām drank wine. Yazīd ibn Abī Sufyān ruled over them at that time. They said: It is ḥalāl. They argued this based on the verse:
‘Umar wrote:
When they came to ‘Umar, he consulted the people concerning them. They said:
‘Alī was silent. He said:
He said:
So he asked them to repent and they repented, and then he struck them with eighty lashes each.”
‘There is no blame on those who believe and do righteous actions for what they had consumed.’ (5:93)
‘Send them to me before they corrupt those around you.’
‘Oh Commander of the Believers, we believe that they have lied upon Allāh and legislated in their religion what Allāh has not permitted, so strike their necks.’
‘What do you say Abu ‘l-Ḥasan?’
‘I believe you should ask them to repent. If they repent then you whip them with eighty lashes each for drinking wine, and if they don’t repent then you strike their necks as they have lied upon Allāh and have legislated into their religion what Allāh has not permitted.’
Can these Ḥadīths be Referring to a Rebel?
Some people interpret these ḥadīths as referring to the warring rebel, so apostasy on its own does not necessitate capital punishment. It will only necessitate that when it is combined with rebellion and terrorism. But this interpretation is false for two reasons:
1. We have cited the ḥadīths that show the apostate’s blood is licit. There is nothing in any of them which limits the licitness of his blood to rebellion and terrorism. The clearest ḥadīth on this is the first ḥadīth:
“Whoever alters his religion, execute him.”
“Cut the hands of the male and female thief.” (5:38)
“Whoever alters his religion, execute him”,
Further, you have seen in the third ḥadīth, the ḥadīth of Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī (Allāh be pleased with him), that Abū Mūsā did not mention a crime of the apostate man besides him having become a Jew after being Muslim. Had he been a rebel, he would have mentioned it. How can a man be a rebel on his own without power and military strength? Hence, the truth which there is no scope to reject is that he did not commit rebellion. Rather, he committed the crime of apostasy. Further, when Mu‘ādh (Allāh be pleased with him) was informed of his apostasy, he did not ask Abū Mūsā (Allāh be pleased with him) about anything further, and whether he had committed rebellion along with apostasy or nor. Rather, he ruled he be executed merely upon becoming aware of his apostasy and he said the execution of an apostate is the judgement of Allāh and His Messenger, from which it is evident that the obligation of executing an apostate was something widely known amongst the Ṣaḥābah without any reservation.
2. Rebellion and terrorism are a separate crime that necessitates the loss of inviolability of life, whether it is accompanied by apostasy or not. So if apostasy on its own does not cause life to lose its inviolability, there is no sense to mentioning it in the context of something that necessitates execution.
The greatest of what these people argue from is the statement of the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) in the fourth ḥadīth, the ḥadīth of Ibn Mas‘ūd (Allāh be pleased with him):
“the one that left his religion and parted from the community.”
But this argument is null and void. Had the meaning of parting from the community in this ḥadīth been rebellion and terrorism, it would have been sufficient to mention it amongst those things that cause life to lose its inviolability. Then there would be no sense to mentioning apostasy, because there is no need for rebellion to be accompanied by apostasy for it to be a cause of execution being licit. It is on its own sufficient as a cause of losing the inviolability of life. Since he mentioned apostasy along with it, it is recognised that that is the intended cause of making execution licit .
As for “parting from the community”, what is meant by it is not rebellion or terrorism. Rather, what is meant is parting from the community of Muslims in their creed. Hence, the statement of the Prophet (Allāh bless him and grant him peace): “and parted from the community” is an attribute that gives further clarity or emphasis to the statement: “the one that left his religion.”
Rebellion and terrorism were not mentioned in this ḥadīth in the list of things that necessitate execution because the aim of this ḥadīth is to list the capital crimes that a man commits on his own, in the state of peace. As for rebellion, it has no connection with the rules of the times of security and peace, and it relates only to war and jihād. Furthermore, a criminal does not commit it on his own, but commits it with a group that have power and military strength. Hence, it was not mentioned in this ḥadīth. Allāh knows best.
As for their argument that apostasy is not a punishment in the law of this world because Allāh (Exalted is He) did not mention a worldly punishment for it but only mentioned a punishment in the Next Life, this is obviously void, because no worldly punishment has been mentioned for drinking wine in the Qur’ān, but this does not entail that it is not a crime in the law, because the Messenger of Allāḥ (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) established ḥadd for the drinker of wine and ordered he be lashed. The same applies to apostasy. The Qur’ān has not mentioned a punishment for it in the world but it is established from the statements and actions of the Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace).
The truth is that all sins, once established that it is a sin, it is permissible for the Ruler to establish a punishment for it in the world. There is no doubt that apostasy is from the greatest of enormities. Hence, there is nothing stopping it being a crime in the law so long as a text does not oppose it. We have already shown that let alone opposing it, the texts affirm that it is a crime in the law.
As for their argument that executing an apostate goes against the principle of freedom of thought, then the principle of freedom of thought is not at all from the proofs of Sharī‘ah. Islām does not acknowledge absolute freedom of thought. Rather, it limits it with the limits of Sharī‘ah that may not be trespassed. Had this freedom been absolute, it would have been fine for the one who believed in fornication being permissible to not be punished for it, and for someone wealthy who believes it is permissible to steal to not have his hand cut off.
What is strange about these people is that they acknowledge that rebellion is something that makes executing the rebel licit even though that too opposes the principle of freedom of thought, because many rebels secede against their Ruler based on ideological reasons and believe warring against him to be their religious obligation and claim following the Ruler is a sin; hence, forcing them to obey the Ruler opposes freedom of thought.
The truth is that freedom of thought must have limits. Otherwise every abomination and corruption on the earth would be allowed, and the matter would turn to chaos. This is something accepted by the mind which no one can deny. The discussion on the specification of those limits remains. We either leave them to our minds alone or we defer their specification to divine revelation. There is no doubt that the first method is subject to errors and misjudgements and oppression and injustice. The human mind is not able to bring together all people on one foundation, given the variation in people’s minds. Hence, it is necessary we defer it to divine revelation. The Sunnah of the Messenger (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) has limited freedom of thought by banning apostasy, and has treated it as a crime that makes the blood of a person licit. Hence, this must be relied upon, not ambiguous principles that are not founded on anything. And Allāh (Glorified and Exalted is He) knows best.
Takmilah Fatḥ al-Mulhim, 2:272-80