Apostasy - The Punishment

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

can any of the brothers or sisters in the forum provide me with accurate sources (books/internet links) or their own understanding on the punishment of apostasy in Islam? [an ahl al-sunna opinion i.e. mu'tamid opinions from the four madhhahib]..

i am currently attempting to correct some of the misinformed views of a non-muslim on islam, and the issue of apostasy arose. I would appreciate some intellectual responses..

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

For apostasy the punishment for men is death (although this can only be carried out under the instructions of the legitimate islamic state/country, which implements the shariah, has judges etc - ie it cannot be done in places like india, pakistan etc).

For women, the punishment is life imprisonment (again only under the islamic rule) until they repent

Note for both though that a certain amount of time would be given for the person to be convicted and efforts would be made to bring them back into the deen.

Now as for the source of my knowledge, i cannot remember 100% to be completely honest. However, I am 90% sure that this is exactly what i read in Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi's "Behesthi Zewar" when i had the book for a brief time (which was april 2003)

Inshallah someone can clarify

Wasalam

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

any further information on:

1. what defines apostasy..

2. the actual method of punishment - beheading based on the hadith - 'strike their necks'?


(by the way bro - its three days - the time given for repentance)..

[Mossy]

There is no punishment for apostacy in this day and age according to the majority opinion.

Under some other age and system there may have been, but there is a difference of opinion as to whether this was only in cases such as those who "became" muslim simply to sow discourse and emnity amongst the muslim populace, before leaving the populace.

As such, those individuals would be subject to the exceptional punishments accordant to, effectively, treason (well, technically sowing discord in the land, arabic styles), which include (as stated in the Qu'ran), crucifixion, chopping off of bits etc.

I can dig up my notes with all the nice references if you like (may take a few days), but in the end I would state that this is a question that doesn't really have any relevance given that the next time it can possibly be applied is when the world is distinctly divided into muslims on one side and non-muslims on the other (ie when the Mahdi arrives) and due to the fact there has been a difference of opinion on this topic historically.

I had an interesting paper on Imam Shafi's view vs Imam al Ghazalis take on apostacy around here somewhere.. Ah, here it is - not a traditional source in the slightest (some would label it orientalist, but some are like that), but I think he touched on some interesting issues..

[Muawiyah]

Sometime ago I asked one of the Shuyukh here, Mufti Zarwali Khan Sahib damat barakaatuhum about this, he said that to deny the death penalty for apostasy is apostacy (because it is proven with certainity)

There is the famous hadith in Sahih Bukhari

من بدل دينه فقتلوه

In sahih Bukhari and Muslim there is the story of Hadhrat Ma'az Radhi Allaahu 'anhu who wouldn't get off his mount till Hadhrat Abu Musa 'Ash'ari Radhi Allaahu 'anhu killed an apostate that he had tied up.

Brother Mossy I assume by the majority opinion you mean the opinion that it is haraam for Muslims living in Britain to carry out vigilante killings of murtadeen?

As for the kalaam -

1) In christianity the punishment for conversion from catholicism to protestantism is burning to death. From the catholic encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

The burning of heretics was first decreed in the eleventh century. The Synod of Verona (1184) imposed on bishops the duty to search out the heretics in their dioceses and to hand them over to the secular power. Other synods, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) under Pope Innocent III, repeated and enforced this decree, especially the Synod of Toulouse (1229), which established inquisitors in every parish (one priest and two laymen). Everyone was bound to denounce heretics, the names of the witnesses were kept secret; after 1243, when Innocent IV sanctioned the laws of Emperor Frederick II and of Louis IX against heretics, torture was applied in trials; the guilty persons were delivered up to the civil authorities and actually burnt at the stake. Paul III (1542) established, and Sixtus V organized, the Roman Congregation of the Inquisition, or Holy Office, a regular court of justice for dealing with heresy and heretics (see ROMAN CONGREGATIONS). The Congregation of the Index, instituted by St. Pius V, has for its province the care of faith and morals in literature; it proceeds against printed matter very much as the Holy Office proceeds against persons (see INDEX OF PROHIBITED BOOKS). The present pope [1909], Pius X, has decreed the establishment in every diocese of a board of censors and of a vigilance committee whose functions are to find out and report on writings and persons tainted with the heresy of Modernism (Encycl. "Pascendi", 8 Sept., 1907). The present-day legislation against heresy has lost nothing of its ancient severity; but the penalties on heretics are now only of the spiritual order; all the punishments which require the intervention of the secular arm have fallen into abeyance.


It is only because the church has lost the power to enforce the law against heretics, they CANNOT enforce the law, that they have stopped doing it.

2) We believe in death penalty for the apostate because we do not believe in the equality of all religions. We believe that our religion is the only truth and the others are false, that is why we hold abandoning the true religion to to be punishable by death. Those who have no punishment for leaving their religion it must be because they are not sure about their religion being the true religion.

[AbuZayd]

Sometime ago I asked one of the Shuyukh here, Mufti Zarwali Khan Sahib damat barakaatuhum about this, he said that to deny the death penalty for apostasy is apostacy (because it is proven with certainity)


I am surprised by this comment. Have the narrations reached the status of Mutawatir in this regard?

[Mossy]

No, I mean it's simply not possible due to the strictures placed upon it in the opinions which indicate it is a prescribed punishment.

What on earth does the Catholic view (now abrogated) have to do with it?

The hadith may be famous, but it's always nice to have a dash of context..

[Muawiyah]

I don't know. The statement in brackets is my assumption. The Mufti sahib gave reference to the "Fataawaa Dar ul Uloom Deoband"

[Mossy]

Out of curiousity, does anyone know the commonly grading of the corresponding narration in Sunan Abu Dawud as to this incident concerning Abu Musa and the JewturnedMuslimturnedJew?

Just wonderin..

Also, what's the right term to use for something like that? I've always wondered as aren't hadith meant to refer to the narrations of the acts/words of the Prophet (pbuh)? Or can they be any ol' narration?

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

I managed to locate an online version of behesthi zewar and indeed it does say in it that the punishment for women is life imprisonment, until she repents. http://www.alinaam.org.za/bahishti/APOSTASY.htm

In regards to whether or not it is applicable today, well i for one do not see why it is not for those countries who implement the shariah to also implement this. Eg, saudi arabia, or formerly in afghanistan under the taliban.

Brother Mossy, in regards to your comments of "the majority opinion", could you expand on this.

And one last thing. I should have mentioned earlier that in regards to women, it is the position of Imam Abu Hanifah and the hanafi madhab that the punishment is life imprisonment, whereas the other schools also prescribe execution for women.

Wasalam.

[Mossy]

Saying Saudi implements the Shariah is debateable in the extreme.. For example, they have kings as leaders. If the Shariah isn't in effect at the top, the underlying structure won't be right..

If there is a hadd punishment for apostascy/apostacy (sp?) then definitive proof is required. Definitive is a tricksome thing, especially as this is not an action which lends itself to witnesses. If there is not definitive proof, no execution can occur. Simple as that - cf hadd ordinance for zina etc.

Some hold that a confession is sufficient (although why on earth someone who decided not to be muslim would want to confess is beyond me), others

If it is a ta'zir punishment, the case is, of course, different.. Especially as if this is the form, then there is the alternative (which occured) punishment of banishment.

The nature of corporeal punishment and the reasoning behind it is something which must be looked at carefully when analysing a scenario such as this. The rights of the accused, the victims and the state must all be considered carefully for example..

The majority indicate that it is a deathable punishment, even though they disagree to some extent on what sort of deathable punishment (as there are two major types). In either case, it is unapplicable given the current state of affairs, nor will there be until there is a khalifah (ie Imam Mahdi returning - you may take a different view on that detail/timeline).

Hence it is a non-issue, especially given the mass variance in the application of this "law" over the years..

Islam does not adapt to the times - Islam is for all times. However, certain aspects are controlled and strictured to fit with the current situation. I'd say this is one of them, similar to slavery - it is not applicable to this society (who knows, one day it might be), and saying it is "people who change their religion should die under Islam" is completely incorrect. As clearly this is an impossibility given the current structures.

Sorry if that doesn't make sense, past bed time.. Zz..

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

jazakum Allahu khairan everyone for their responses.

i believe that ibn taymiyya and al-baji (a maliki scholar) believed that the punishment for apostasy was ta'zir... is the alternative only banishment in this case (as opposed to the hadd)?

i have also heard that the apostate is only the one that rebels against the islamic state [apostasy = treason] e.g. fights against the Muslims alongside non-Muslims..... if there was an islamic state that is.

..and what are the two major types of deathable punishment brother Mossy that you were referring to?

in addition, i have read somewhere that a minor who commits apostasy is jailed until maturity, when he must announce his Islam, or be killed - can anyone confirm this?

[Mossy]

The death penalty is applicable in two "different" types of cases.

Hadd is prescribed - ie murder etc. Ta'zir effectively means discretionary, it is up to the state to decide the punishment for certain offenses as it is not Qu'ranically mandated. Within the remit of this (according to some) are the penalties for sedition and so on, which include the rather nasty ones such as stoning, beheading etc. The same verse that contains these punishments also indicates that banishment is a possibility. Hence it is not prescribed, but can still lead to death under certain circumstances - see 5:32 for an example for sedition.

To quote an excerpt from an essay by Kamali:


A number of prominent ulema across the centuries have taken the view that apostasy is not a hadd offence. Ibrahim al-Nakhai (d. 95 H) and Sufyan al-Thawri (d. 162 H) have held that the apostate should be invited to Islam and should never be condemned to death. The Maliki jurist Ibn al-Walid al-Baji (d. 494) and the Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyyah have held that apostasy is a sin which carries no hadd punishment and that a sin of this kind may be punished only under the discretionary punishment of ta'zir. The late Shaykh of al-Azhar, Mahmud Shaltut, analysed the relevant evidence in the sources and drew the conclusion that apostasy carried no temporal punishment because in reference to apostasy the Qur'an only speaks of punishment in the hereafter. Shaltut also concurred with the analysis that the key factor in the Hadith which prescribed the death penalty for apostasy was "aggression and hostility against the believers and the prevention of a possible fitnah (sedition, civil strife) against the religion and state". Mahmassani has also made a similar observation saying that "the death punishment was not meant to apply to a simple change of faith but to punish acts such as treason, joining forces with the enemy, and sedition".

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

thanks once again for that brother - May Allah reward you

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

i read recently that a 3rd conviction for consuming alcohol and a 5th conviction for theft was also punishable by death. Any truth to these claims?

[Mossy]

i read recently that a 3rd conviction for consuming alcohol and a 5th conviction for theft was also punishable by death. Any truth to these claims?

Sure, if you're shia..

I'll call the difference of opinion card on this one otherwise..

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

can you clarify then Mossy: is apostasy punishable by either stoning, beheading, or even cricifixion?

[Mossy]

There was disagreement on that back when it was possible - as I said, some put it as a hadd (prescribed), others as a ta'zir (discretionary).

Those three punishments you have mentioned are ta'zir, but in the Qu'ran with direct relation to spreading discord in the land.. In the end, if it is not a hadd punishment, it is up to the judge/state to decide.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

sorry bro, what methods come under hadd punishment?

also, does anyone know the incident of someone wanting to commit apostasy visiting the prophet three times, yet the prophet (s) did not sentence him? what are the facts surrounding this event if true?

[Ansari]

It is only because the church has lost the power to enforce the law against heretics, they CANNOT enforce the law, that they have stopped doing it.

2) We believe in death penalty for the apostate because we do not believe in the equality of all religions. We believe that our religion is the only truth and the others are false, that is why we hold abandoning the true religion to to be punishable by death. Those who have no punishment for leaving their religion it must be because they are not sure about their religion being the true religion.

What if other religions still had the same penalty? I dont think many non-muslims would embrace islam.

[AbuZayd]

The link to the Muhammad Hisham Kamali article Mossy has quoted is:


http://www.thefiqh.org/article.php?id=18

[Mossy]

You can actually pick up the expanded version of the piece if you look hard enough - it was written for Institute for Policy Research in Kuala Lumpur. Ah, that reminds me, e-mail time..

Hadd punishment is considered to be fixed for each particular type - it's generally agreed that stoning is the hadd for zina when married for example (although rajm can be applied to taqteel..). Other examples include qazf (falsely accusing someone of zina) with associated lashes etc - no leeway is given once the criterion for evidence have been satisfied according to most, the punishments are set.

[Muawiyah]

"...Apostasy is of two types: ordinary apostasy and extreme apostasy, for which execution is prescribed. In both cases there is evidence that it is Waajib to execute the apostate, but the evidence indicating that the sentence of death may be waived if the person repents does not apply to both types of apostasy. Rather the evidence indicates that that is allowed only in the first case – i.e., ordinary apostasy – as will be clear to anyone who studies the evidence that speaks about accepting the repentance of the apostate. In the second type – i.e., extreme apostasy – the obligation to put the apostate to death still stands, and there is no text or scholarly consensus to indicate that the death sentence may be waived. The two cases are quite different and there is no comparison between them. It does not say in the Qur’aan or Sunnah, or according to scholarly consensus, that everyone who apostatizes in word or deed may be spared the death sentence if he repents after he is a captured and tried. Rather the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and scholarly consensus, differentiate between the different kinds of apostates. "

Shaykh ul Islaam Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah - as-Saarim al-Maslool ‘Ala Shaatim ir-Rasool, 3/696


فان الردة على قسمين ردة مجردة وردة مغلظة شرع القتل على خصوصها وكلاهما قد قام الدليل على وجوب قتل صاحبها والادلة الدالة على سقوط القتل بالتوبة لا تعم القسمين بل انما تدل على القسم الاول كما يظهر لمن ذلك تامل الادلة على قبول توبة المرتد فيبقى القسم الثاني وقد قام الدليل على وجوب قتل صاحبه ولم يات نص ولا اجماع بسقوط القتل عنه والقياس متعذر مع وجود الفرق الجلي فانقطع الالحاق
والذي يحقق هذه الطريقة انه لم يات في كتاب ولا سنة ولا اجماع ان كل من ارتد باي قول او اي فعل كان فانه يسقط عنه القتل اذا تاب بعد القدرة عليه بل الكتاب والسنة والاجماع قد فرق بين انواع المرتدين كما سنذكره

شیخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله - الصارم المسلول على شاتم الرسول، الجزء ٣، صفحة ٦٩٦.

[faqir]

ordinary apostasy, extreme apostasy??

whats that all about?

[Muawiyah]

Esentially what Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah is saying is that there is a mere apostacy and a heavy apostacy which is the same as muharibah (waging war against the deen). It is waajib to punish both these apostacies with death. The only difference between the two is that the mere apostate is to be given three days to repent and if he doesn't, he is to be killed, whereas the muhaarib is to be immediately killed without giving him any time to repent. His death sentence may not be waived despite tawbah.

Kamali claimed that Ibn Taymiyyah held that apostacy is a ta'zir not a hadd punishment i.e it is upto the Qadhi's discretion, he can give death sentence or something else like banishment. I've no doubt his claims on Ibraheem an-Nakhi'i and Sufyan ath-Thawri rahimahumullah are just as false.

[Mossy]

I believe he cites his sources for that statement in his book "freedom of expression in islam" - I believe the reference was his al Siyasah ash Shariyah.

edit: Relevant bit: http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/islam/freedom/kamali_freedom.doc
review by Dr Sherman Jackson: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~vika/TeachPort/islam00/paper/jacksonreview.html

[Omar HH]

Salam,

i read recently that a 3rd conviction for consuming alcohol and a 5th conviction for theft was also punishable by death. Any truth to these claims?

One must remember that there is a HUGE legal tradition and HUGE cannons of fiqh law in our history. We had 13 madhahib at one time! We have also gone through many empires and many states. So it depends on the times and the cases and the places.

It's just like in the United States different things would happen if you did a crime in the 1800s in Texas or in the 1990s in California. Different things would happen if you did a crime in 1200 Morocco or 1900 Turkey.

[iqadeer]

Mufti Shafi Uthmani Deobandi (rahimullah) has proven from the Quran, authentic Ahadith, various famous incidents during the times of the khulafa-e-rashideen, tabieen and others that the punishment has predominantly been "death penalty" in cases where apostasy occurred. The source is his famous book, "jawahirul fiqh" and its in Urdu.

[salman]

I am surprised by this comment. Have the narrations reached the status of Mutawatir in this regard?

Salamu Alaikum

A consensus is in place that the apostate is killed on the basis of the Prophet's saying: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him," narrated in Bukhari (3017, 6922), Musnad al-Tayalisi (2789), Sunan Abu Dawud (4391), Sunan Tirmidhi (1548), Sunan al-Nasa'i (7:104, 105), Sunan Ibn Majah (2535), Sunan al-Bayhaqi (8:195), al-Daraqutni (3:108, 113), Musnad Imam Ahmad (1:282, 283, 322, 323).

Ibn Hajar reports in Fath al-Bari in the commentary of that hadith, and as al-Maqdisi al-Hanbali in "al-`Idda" stated before him in the commentary on the same hadith that there was no difference among the Sahaba regarding this fact.

Wasalam

[Omar HH]

Salamu Alaikum

A consensus is in place that the apostate is killed on the basis of the Prophet's saying: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him," narrated in Bukhari (3017, 6922), Musnad al-Tayalisi (2789), Sunan Abu Dawud (4391), Sunan Tirmidhi (1548), Sunan al-Nasa'i (7:104, 105), Sunan Ibn Majah (2535), Sunan al-Bayhaqi (8:195), al-Daraqutni (3:108, 113), Musnad Imam Ahmad (1:282, 283, 322, 323).

I agree.

But what are the conditions?

Jazakallahu Khayrun

[salman]

I agree.

But what are the conditions?

Jazakallahu Khayrun

Salamu Alaikum

The ruling of apostacy comes into effect when a person publicly makes his apostacy known. This is certainly not only fighting against the Muslims along side the non-muslims, but the "public declaration" can take the form of publicly denying a fundamental aspect of faith e.g. belief in the angels or abandoning and denying the legitimacy of an obligation such as Prayer.

The hadith people use that the Prophet stated:

- The blood of a Muslim is illicit to shed except for one of three reasons: a married adulterer must be stoned; one who wilfully commits murder must be put to death; and a man who comes out of Islam and fights Allah and His Prophet must be put to death or crucified or banished from the earth.

which means the murtadd becomes the same as an enemy soldier in wartime, not that he has to raise arms literally against the Muslim to have the Hadd implemented.

And Allah knows best.

Wasalam

[Omar HH]

Must there be a Khalifa for this punishment? (i.e. only the Khalifa or his representative can do it).

Or could it be in a Muslim area w/o a Khalifa?

Jazakallahu Khayrun

[salman]

Salamu Alaikum


It is forbidden for individuals to enforce any penal law or act of
war whatsoever whether in the presence or in the absence of an
Islamic state except by lawful mandate, but the latter can be de
facto, as in the case of a people's legitimate defense against
aggression.

Hajj Gibril

Wasalam

[Mossy]

...

The hadith people use that the Prophet stated:

- The blood of a Muslim is illicit to shed except for one of three reasons: a married adulterer must be stoned; one who wilfully commits murder must be put to death; and a man who comes out of Islam and fights Allah and His Prophet must be put to death or crucified or banished from the earth.

...

? I'm not following the logic here. Why the or's? Isn't crucifying basically death as conditioned by the appropriate Qu'ranic ayat for civil discord? How can this be extended backwards effectively? Banishment doesn't cause blood to be spilt, right?

I'm assuming fight isn't qitaal styles.

[eTeacher]

On this topic, Shaykh Qaradawi has a book/article titled in Arabic:
جريمة الرد وعقوبة المرتد في ضوء القرآن والسنة

I'm sure it would be an interesting read.

[Ansari]

:salam:
Justice S.A. Rahman has stated in his book 'punishment of apostasy in islam' (p. 134) that 'at least one old exegetist--ibn hayyan andalusi--and one modern jurist--shaikh mahmud Shaltut--have laid down expressly the principle that shedding of a person's blood is not justifiable for simple, peaceful apostasy. Apparently Chalpi and Ibn Hammam also favour this view for they consider that apostasy is not punishable in this world'.

And then he also cites some 'indirect support'.

[Ansari]

Kamali claimed that Ibn Taymiyyah held that apostacy is a ta'zir not a hadd punishment i.e it is upto the Qadhi's discretion, he can give death sentence or something else like banishment. I've no doubt his claims on Ibraheem an-Nakhi'i and Sufyan ath-Thawri rahimahumullah are just as false.

The positions of those 2 imams are also stated in the book of S.A. Rahman (p.105/106). The fuqaha have differed regarding istitabah (calling for repentance). Imam Abu hanifa said for example that this was not obligatory and that the person should be put to death unless he himself asks for consideration in wich case 3 days grace period would be allowed to him. Imam Malik on the other hand considered a demand for taubah to be obligatory. Other ulema make a difference between persons born as a muslim and a disbeliever accepting islam. So there are many differences of opinions on the issue how the punishment must be carried out.

Anyway let me give you the exact quote from the book:

From Sufyan al-thauri the tradition has been handed down that the oppurtunity for repentance should extend over the lifetime of the delinquent, and this was also the opinion of ibrahim al-nakha'i who was the teacher of the teacher of imam abu hanifa. Ibn al-qudamah (al-mughni, vol VIII, p. 125) interprets this dictum of al-Naika'i to mean that the apostate can never be killed (la yuqtal abadan)

[Ansari]

Salamu Alaikum

A consensus is in place that the apostate is killed on the basis of the Prophet's saying: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him," narrated in Bukhari (3017, 6922), Musnad al-Tayalisi (2789), Sunan Abu Dawud (4391), Sunan Tirmidhi (1548), Sunan al-Nasa'i (7:104, 105), Sunan Ibn Majah (2535), Sunan al-Bayhaqi (8:195), al-Daraqutni (3:108, 113), Musnad Imam Ahmad (1:282, 283, 322, 323).

Ibn Hajar reports in Fath al-Bari in the commentary of that hadith, and as al-Maqdisi al-Hanbali in "al-`Idda" stated before him in the commentary on the same hadith that there was no difference among the Sahaba regarding this fact.

- Anyone who deliberately dissents with the Consensus that he knows and understands is in place: he is an apostate and disbeliever by Consensus.

(Ibn Hazm, Maratib al-ijma` p. 126.)

Wasalam
:salam:
Is the last statement a separate quote or does it talks on the issue of apostasy?

And didnt imam abu hanifa believed that a female apostate is not liable to death punishment...

[Striver]

:salam:
Justice S.A. Rahman has stated in his book 'punishment of apostasy in islam' (p. 134) that 'at least one old exegetist--ibn hayyan andalusi--and one modern jurist--shaikh mahmud Shaltut--have laid down expressly the principle that shedding of a person's blood is not justifiable for simple, peaceful apostasy. Apparently Chalpi and Ibn Hammam also favour this view for they consider that apostasy is not punishable in this world'.

And then he also cites some 'indirect support'.
This is not correct, and there is no basis for such a claim (i.e., that an apostate’s punishment is postponed until yawm al-qiyaamah (Day of judgement)/that apostasy is not punishable in this world.). What’s correct is that they are punished in this life for their disbelief and then punished again in the afterlife.

And if this was not the case, then surely aboo Bakr as-Siddeeq, radiallahu ‘anhu, would not have fought against those who apostated from Islam after the death of prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Aboo Bakr fought against them and if they repented, they lived and if they refused, they died.

In any case, i would still like to mention that there are other Ahaadeeth confirming this punishment in islamic law. Imaam Bukhaaree Rahimahullah included an entire chapter specifically dealing with how to deal with apostates and fighting them in his saheeh. It is in the last volume of his compilation, so whoever wishes, they can refer to it.

These penalties – including cutting off the hand of the thief, lashing/stoning of fornicators/adulterers, etc. are only to be carried out by muslim governments. That’s the first thing..

[Mossy]

Um, did any of the groups against whom Abu Bakr fought apostate "peacefully"? It's pretty clear that following seperate "prophets" etc could come under the purview of non-peaceful seperation. And again with the chapter including aspects on fighting - sure, some will apostate and actively work against Islam/muslim society. Those people aren't doing it peacefully.

Additionally in the case of the rebellions following the death of the Prophet (pbuh), we see the example of active rebellion/action ("heavy" apostacy) and the death penalty *not* being enforced for this in the majority of cases (as most of the followers were allowed to live).

The conditions laid out in some of the quoted positions are also interesting.. Rejecting an ijma for example. So that means if I said hijab wasn't a fardh, I'd be an apostate and killed if I didn't retract my opinion within three days? Would making such a statement be a cause of fitnah possibly?

[Ansari]

ediiit

[Ansari]

ediiit...

[Muawiyah]

In his monograph, The Punishment of Apostasy in Islam, S. A. Rahman looks into the evidence in the Qur'an and the Sunnah in detail, and draws attention to the fact that the Qur'an is silent on the question of death as the punishment for apostasy

Typical meaningless Pervezi argument



Rahman then traces the chain of transmission of the Hadith which proclaims 'kill whoever changes his religion' . As this is a solitary Hadith (ahad), Rahman finds some weakness in its transmission (isnad).

This Hadeeth has been declared Sahih by Imam Bukhari and Tirmidhi and narrated also in Sunan Abi Dawood, Ibn Majah, an-Nasai and Musnad Imam Ahmad. link (http://www.binbaz.org.sa/Takreej.asp?f=HadN2852)



Dr. Abd al-hamid, Professor, Law, faculty, Alexandria University of Egypt, says in his Mubadi Nizam al-Hukm fi'l-Islam:

It must be noted that those who talk of apostasy being an offence entailing the death sentence do not class it as among the Jara'im al-Hudud (offences with invite punishment prescribed in the Quran).

Imam Tirmidhi, Imam Abu Dawood and Imam Ibn Maajah rahimahumullah include the Hadeeth "man baddala deenahu faqtuluh" {The one who changes his Deen, kill him} in the Kitaab ul Hudood of their Sunan.

The difference between hadd and Ta'zeer is:


الفرق بين الحد والتعزير أن الحد مقدر والتعزير مفوض


The Hadd is predetermined and the Ta'zir is delegated {Radd al-Muhtar}

Any punishment which has been determined is Hadd, it does not have to be "prescribed in the Quran".

Lastly the claim that the Hadd punishment was never imposed on a non-muharib by the salaf, is wrong, in this same hadeeth



أن ‏ ‏عليا ‏ ‏رضي الله عنه ‏‏حرق قوما فبلغ ‏ ‏ابن عباس ‏ ‏فقال ‏لو كنت أنا لم أحرقهم لأن النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏لا تعذبوا بعذاب الله ولقتلتهم كما قال النبي ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏من بدل دينه فاقتلوه ‏


There occurs:

`Ali may Allah be pleased with him burned a group of people and this news reached Ibn `Abbaas, who said, "It it were me I wouldn't have burned them, as the Prophet Sallallaahu `alyhi wa Sallam said "Do not punish with Allah's punishment" but I would have killed them according to the saying of the Prophet Sallallaahu `alyhi wa sallam "He who changes his Deen, kill him.

In Fath ul Bari it has been narrated that these people were Zanadiqah, who used to do shirk in secret and outwardly appear to be Muslims.

These people were not rebels who had raised arms against `Ali Radhi Allaahu `anhu.

[Hypermodestmuslima]

You know that bit about banishing from the earth...if lets say space exploration extends...and we end up living on the moon...would that person be like banished to the moon?

If its a stupid question tell me and i'll gladly delete my post...curiousity's got me hooked although...

[Mossy]

In Fath ul Bari it has been narrated that these people were Zanadiqah, who used to do shirk in secret and outwardly appear to be Muslims.

These people were not rebels who had raised arms against `Ali Radhi Allaahu `anhu.

Really? They weren't causing sedition/fitnah in the populace?

I don't think that hadith says explicitly banished from the earth. But why not the moon, they can live off the cheese there.

[sultan]

Good Day All,

I am interested in knowing about the ruling and punishment of Islam in regards to those Moslems who leave Islam. I read some Bukhari hadiths that the punishment for an apostate (murtad) in Islam is death. Is this ture?

Thank you in advance,
Sultan.

[eTeacher]

From the Bible, punishment for Apostasy:

DEUTRONOMY 13:8-9

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, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

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 peopleBut 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, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. {Bondage: Heb. bondmen}

11And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.

12If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the LORD thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying,

13Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; {the children…: or, naughty men}

14Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;

15Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

16And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.


Even the cattle must be destroyed? Wow...

link: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=5&chapter=13&version=31

[Muawiyah]

the imams of the muslim did not consider these ahadeeth to be specific for any time. please have a look at the earlier discussion on this subject.
also Ahmadi are not considered to be muslim, much less sunni Muslims because of their denial of multiple necessities of the deen.

[Iqbal Muhammad Raakin]

In regards to whether or not it is applicable today, well i for one do not see why it is not for those countries who implement the shariah to also implement this. Eg, saudi arabia, or formerly in afghanistan under the taliban.

Salaam.
Does Saudi Arabia implement shari'ah? I thought the leaders are Wahabi. Or is it that they apply a distorted version of the shari'ah? Does anyone know anything about selecting the heir of king Fahad?
Salaam.

[Iqbal Muhammad Raakin]

Secondly, pray tell, what are these "multiple necessities of the deen" that I have denied?

Salaam.
Isn't believing in a prophet after the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) one of them? As you are to testify that he (pbuh) is the seal of the prophets.
Salaam.

[Muawiyah]

An incomplete list of the necessities of faith, denied by the Qadiyanis/Ahmadis


1- Disbelief in the shari'i impossibility of a prophet being sent after Rasoolullah Sallallahu `alyhi wa Sallam
2- Disbelief in the virgin birth of Sayyidina Esa `alyhissalam
3- Disbelief in the fact that Sayyidina Esa `alyhissalam was bodily lifted into the heavens
4- Disbelief in the fact that Sayyidina Esa `alyhissalam himself will decend from the heavens
5- Deniel of the miracles of Sayyidina `Esa `alyhissalam (saying that he did not have any miracles - Anjam-e-Atham page 6)
6- Takfeer of the Muslims who do not believe in Mirza Qadiyani
7- Deniel of Rajm as a part of Islamic hudud
8- Deniel of the punishment for apostacy

[ammoo]

Dear Isa Abdullah,

I am interested to know more about the beliefs of Lahories.Can you please inform me what is the status of Mirza Ghulam Ahamed in the eyes of Lahories?.Was he a Nabi,Rasool,Issa,Mahdi?.It is well known that Mirza Ghulam claimed himself as Nabi and what do the Lahories say in this regard?.

I would appreciate if you could give your e-mail address, as I would like to discuss certain issues with you.

Thank You.

[Zidane]

*bump*